ban-mcfc said:johnmc said:ban-mcfc said:The British army certainly weren't whiter than white and them shooting suspicious looking civilians was completely wrong without them being proven to have been connected to the IRA.
However they did this not to take risks, they were fighting in a gorilla war against cowards and often they'd fire at someone they suspected to be the enemy. The IRA purposely bombed schools and pedestrian areas rather than go after the army or government, that is as low as it gets.
Granted. This isn't me defending any terrorist group.
But should the army, in your eyes, be allowed to open fire on a suspected terrorist on a whim
My point, which maybe I'm not putting across very well, is the the defence used is often that the terrorists would have done the same to them if they had the chance isn't a valid one. In my eyes anyway. Surely one group are called terrorists as they do have a low standard of morals that the army are trying eradicate?
Every time somebody in a British army uniform commits an atrocity they smear the good work the other 99.9999% do. The few that do, are as bad as any terrorist, however the whole of the IRA were terrorists so there's no comparison.
As the British Army is only 100,000 people, I make that one wrong'un in the whole army. Just get rid of the twat.ban-mcfc said:the other 99.9999% do.
ban-mcfc said:johnmc said:ban-mcfc said:The British army certainly weren't whiter than white and them shooting suspicious looking civilians was completely wrong without them being proven to have been connected to the IRA.
However they did this not to take risks, they were fighting in a gorilla war against cowards and often they'd fire at someone they suspected to be the enemy. The IRA purposely bombed schools and pedestrian areas rather than go after the army or government, that is as low as it gets.
Granted. This isn't me defending any terrorist group.
But should the army, in your eyes, be allowed to open fire on a suspected terrorist on a whim
My point, which maybe I'm not putting across very well, is the the defence used is often that the terrorists would have done the same to them if they had the chance isn't a valid one. In my eyes anyway. Surely one group are called terrorists as they do have a low standard of morals that the army are trying eradicate?
Every time somebody in a British army uniform commits an atrocity they smear the good work the other 99.9999% do. The few that do, are as bad as any terrorist, however the whole of the IRA were terrorists so there's no comparison.
Skashion said:As the British Army is only 100,000 people, I make that one wrong'un in the whole army. Just get rid of the twat.ban-mcfc said:the other 99.9999% do.
johnmc said:ban-mcfc said:johnmc said:Granted. This isn't me defending any terrorist group.
But should the army, in your eyes, be allowed to open fire on a suspected terrorist on a whim
My point, which maybe I'm not putting across very well, is the the defence used is often that the terrorists would have done the same to them if they had the chance isn't a valid one. In my eyes anyway. Surely one group are called terrorists as they do have a low standard of morals that the army are trying eradicate?
Every time somebody in a British army uniform commits an atrocity they smear the good work the other 99.9999% do. The few that do, are as bad as any terrorist, however the whole of the IRA were terrorists so there's no comparison.
Yes fair point. I'm not saying the British army is inherently corrupt. However I would dispute your percentage as there is a long history of collusion and cover ups especially in ulster of which more still comes out. That's not to say its a high percentage by any means. Look I understand why they would do it given the situation they were put into. Not arguing that.
Kazzydeyna said:Bilboblue said:bluemanc said:Very close,the thread starter has now tagged them as being like Nazi soldiers & yes he has mentioned ,Afghanistan,Iraq,etc...........and NO i didnt ask who the etc are.
99%of the real footage showed the atrocities commited by the IRA but he seems to have missed that part of the prog.
The man (kazzydeyna) is obviously wound up about something.
Kazzy, you mentioned about wanting to live in a free society, what about all the innocent victims from IRA bombs, or kneecapping and all the other shit that went with it?
They did a lot of bad stuff, but I have no doubt a lot of the so-called innocents, would have been involved with the IRA in some form.
Try reading the book about the guy infiltrated the IRA and passed on info (50 Dead Men Walking?) and see how wider they cast their net, and the stuff they used to do.
Hi mate,
Yes I am wound up about this. And to address your point about IRA atrocities, of course that is deplorable, and the people responsible should be held accountable under the law.
I would say though, and I appreciate that this won't be popular, if a foreign power occupies your country , as a citizen of that country you have the right (I would personally say it is a duty) to fight back using whatever means are available. That doesn't excuse any IRA attacks on civilians, which were equally deplorable, but in my eyes it most certainly does excuse any Provo attacks on the occupying power. Nobody seriously believes the French resistance were terrorists in WW2.
What winds me up though is that as a professional military it is incumbent on us to act at all times within the law.
Sending the MRF into housing estates to kill innocent bystanders for the crime of being there is a cowardly despicable act and the scum that did it, and their superiors, should, indeed must, pay for it under the law. No excuses.
Just as a person convicted of blowing up a pub with innocent civilians inside should too.
Can any sane person watch that programme and truthfully claim they didn't feel sick and ashamed?
johnmc said:ban-mcfc said:johnmc said:Granted. This isn't me defending any terrorist group.
But should the army, in your eyes, be allowed to open fire on a suspected terrorist on a whim
My point, which maybe I'm not putting across very well, is the the defence used is often that the terrorists would have done the same to them if they had the chance isn't a valid one. In my eyes anyway. Surely one group are called terrorists as they do have a low standard of morals that the army are trying eradicate?
Every time somebody in a British army uniform commits an atrocity they smear the good work the other 99.9999% do. The few that do, are as bad as any terrorist, however the whole of the IRA were terrorists so there's no comparison.
Yes fair point. I'm not saying the British army is inherently corrupt. However I would dispute your percentage as there is a long history of collusion and cover ups especially in ulster of which more still comes out. That's not to say its a high percentage by any means. Look I understand why they would do it given the situation they were put into. Not arguing that.
Taximania said:Hi good evening kazzydeyna
How are you keeping pal
And now on to to business.
As some posters have already mentioned attrocities commited on both sides
That my friend is the nature of war and unrest.
Kill the enemy with extreme prejudice.
Not a game pal, its messy stuff
Personally hold our forces in the highest esteem they derserve.
Spend a little time on the internet reading about attrocities and it will make you weep for humanity my friend.
The ira who saw no distinction between the killing of squaddies or schoolchildren whilsT they hid behind there balaclava masks.
Not freedom fighters that their uneducated supporters gathered together to support at Noraid conventions whilst they sung five chorus's of Danny boy but merely child killers.
Then one sad day the good old yanks who funded this kind of hypocriticle shite got to know what the real meaning of terror was.
Did you not !
Maybe that example should be placed in the karma thread.
Or the japanese torturing and starving and beating our countrymen to death on the burma railways.
Its a nice forum so we will not go into too many details about the Japanese's hospitality.
The germans...well
Not a lot to say about their crimes against humanity is there
And on and on aand on and on it goes.
The Balkan wars.
Now that my observant friend would really make your toes curl
Read deep on this one and you will see the utter depravities that man kind can fall to
And I do mean depravities !
War is a messy old business
If our forces behave in conduct unbecoming then we have systems in place to address that
Do others ?
Did one of our marines just kill a wounded taliban commander in cold blood.
I would wager their will not be many who toss and turn in their sleep over that episode after the heinous
butchers dismembered and hung squaddies body parts from trees to send out their message of compasion
and reasoning.
Same slime that also execute and stone woman to death
Barbarians
Bless our brave troops wherever they may serve us.
You have my aabsolute admiration
God speed and come home safely to your loved ones
ban-mcfc said:johnmc said:ban-mcfc said:Every time somebody in a British army uniform commits an atrocity they smear the good work the other 99.9999% do. The few that do, are as bad as any terrorist, however the whole of the IRA were terrorists so there's no comparison.
Yes fair point. I'm not saying the British army is inherently corrupt. However I would dispute your percentage as there is a long history of collusion and cover ups especially in ulster of which more still comes out. That's not to say its a high percentage by any means. Look I understand why they would do it given the situation they were put into. Not arguing that.
When you have so many people, trained to kill, being put into horrendous situations where human rights don't exist, armed to the teeth, there are bound to be occurrences where soldiers lose their minds. Covering it up is obviously wrong.
It is however different to an entire fighting force purposely attacking innocents, bombing children, going after people not involved in the conflict etc. That's the difference between the British army and the likes of the IRA and Al-Qaeda.
Taximania said:If to support your argument you can show me any army worldwide that does not have a
history of collusion and cover ups then you point will make sense.
If not then we safely conclude that all armies paramilitaries terrorist groups and isurgents throughout the known world and also in the history of mankind have A few unfortunate bad apples
Which then brings the conversation round to why only disresepEct the British army
The OP'S thread would have more credence by re-editing to encompass all and not jush Brit bashing
Maybe not eh
johnmc said:ban-mcfc said:Every time somebody in a British army uniform commits an atrocity they smear the good work the other 99.9999% do. The few that do, are as bad as any terrorist, however the whole of the IRA were terrorists so there's no comparison.
Yes fair point. I'm not saying the British army is inherently corrupt. However I would dispute your percentage as there is a long history of collusion and cover ups especially in ulster of which more still comes out. That's not to say its a high percentage by any means. Look I understand why they would do it given the situation they were put into. Not arguing that.
Bilboblue said:Kazzydeyna said:Bilboblue said:The man (kazzydeyna) is obviously wound up about something.
Kazzy, you mentioned about wanting to live in a free society, what about all the innocent victims from IRA bombs, or kneecapping and all the other shit that went with it?
They did a lot of bad stuff, but I have no doubt a lot of the so-called innocents, would have been involved with the IRA in some form.
Try reading the book about the guy infiltrated the IRA and passed on info (50 Dead Men Walking?) and see how wider they cast their net, and the stuff they used to do.
Hi mate,
Yes I am wound up about this. And to address your point about IRA atrocities, of course that is deplorable, and the people responsible should be held accountable under the law.
I would say though, and I appreciate that this won't be popular, if a foreign power occupies your country , as a citizen of that country you have the right (I would personally say it is a duty) to fight back using whatever means are available. That doesn't excuse any IRA attacks on civilians, which were equally deplorable, but in my eyes it most certainly does excuse any Provo attacks on the occupying power. Nobody seriously believes the French resistance were terrorists in WW2.
What winds me up though is that as a professional military it is incumbent on us to act at all times within the law.
Sending the MRF into housing estates to kill innocent bystanders for the crime of being there is a cowardly despicable act and the scum that did it, and their superiors, should, indeed must, pay for it under the law. No excuses.
Just as a person convicted of blowing up a pub with innocent civilians inside should too.
Can any sane person watch that programme and truthfully claim they didn't feel sick and ashamed?
I didn't feel sick or ashamed at it, not one iota. Yes it was wrong, but they took to fighting fire with fire. ANY innocent civilians death is absolutely regrettable, and the guy that repeatedly shot at people with the tommy gun was definitely a bad apple, BUT, you also must look at the pressure they were under.
Also, the way the IRA fought, just an idea that came into my mind, maybe they thought that by doing this, it would make the IRA rethink their tactics, it obviously didn't work, but military operations never go smoothly to the last detail, mistakes are always made, especially in a conflict of that length.
You also cannot judge actions from 40 years ago by todays morals/standards, the world was a VERY different place back then, as it will be in another 40 years and actions of today will be irrelevant.