Britain's secret terror force. BBC1 now..

[bluemanc]

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?

<a class="postlink" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/14/newsid_4075000/4075437.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 075437.stm</a>
On the evening of the second day, Taoiseach Jack Lynch made a broadcast stating that the Dublin government ‘could not stand by’ while catholics were being brutalised by the security forces in the Bogside. Field hospitals were opened by the southern authorities in nearby County Donegal and Irish diplomats abroad attempted to exert some indirect pressure on the British government to bring an end to the rioting and address the wider issues in Northern Irish society.
As the situation deteriorated, nationalist leaders, including John Hume and Bernadette Devlin, called for the intervention of the British Army. The youth of the Bogside were joined by others from across the city in mounting what they viewed as a defence of their community from the protestant and Unionist forces of the State. Across Northern Ireland nationalist areas erupted in rioting designed to stretch police resources and provide respite for the rebels in the Bogside.
After three days, the Northern Ireland government finally requested military assistance. At 5pm on Thursday, 14 August 1969, a company of the Prince of Wales’ own Regiment took over security control from the RUC in the centre of Derry

I'm pretty sure you know this anyway,this is why and how my troops ended up in Ireland.
Hardly a fuckin invasion to occupy another Country was it.
You have started to make stuff up to fit your agenda now,Brit troops were NOT sent in to kill innocent civilians IF as you clearly do believe that program 100%then you clearly know those 2 lads were a case of mistaken identity,the paperboy confirmed that.
I'm done with you now.

 

[stony]

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.

Interesting as the the conflict was borne out of one side not having the same human rights as the other side. I do wonder how a lot of people on here would react if they happened to be on the wrong side at the time. Isn't Nelson Mandela hailed a hero the world over for fighting against an oppressive regime. Which is exactly what the Catholics of the time were doing.

Of course the answer would be that you wouldn't stoop to the depths of the IRA. But I do wonder how people's reaction would change if they were in the position some of these people found themselves in.

I can't think of any situation where I'd happily take the life of an innocent, let alone that of a child.
I don't think the situation in NI was comparable to South Africa either.
My disgust isn't reserved for the IRA. The Unionist terrorists were every bit as bad.

 

[Anonymous]

Nelson Mandela certainly isn't a hero to me, in fact he's an utter murdering **** and should never have seen the light of day again.

Anybody who purposely murders innocent people is a terrorist ****, no matter what side or uniform they are wearing. The good news is that these incidences with the British army are few and far between, well as far as we know.

@Skashion well played, very good haha.

 

[johnmc]

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.

Interesting as the the conflict was borne out of one side not having the same human rights as the other side. I do wonder how a lot of people on here would react if they happened to be on the wrong side at the time. Isn't Nelson Mandela hailed a hero the world over for fighting against an oppressive regime. Which is exactly what the Catholics of the time were doing.

Of course the answer would be that you wouldn't stoop to the depths of the IRA. But I do wonder how people's reaction would change if they were in the position some of these people found themselves in.

I can't think of any situation where I'd happily take the life of an innocent, let alone that of a child.
I don't think the situation in NI was comparable to South Africa either.
My disgust isn't reserved for the IRA. The Unionist terrorists were every bit as bad.

I'm sure you wouldn't. Would you fight the oppressive regime?

What were the difference between Northern Ireland and South Africa. Werent both oppressed sides oppressed against for something we now consider discrimation?<br /><br />-- Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:43 pm --<br /><br />

Nelson Mandela certainly isn't a hero to me, in fact he's an utter murdering **** and should never have seen the light of day again.

Anybody who purposely murders innocent people is a terrorist ****, no matter what side or uniform they are wearing. The good news is that these incidences with the British army are few and far between, well as far as we know.

@Skashion well played, very good haha.

Whether he is to you or not is largely irrelevant to what I said. I said he is held up as a hero around the world. Not by all but by enlarge.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

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?

<a class="postlink" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/14/newsid_4075000/4075437.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 075437.stm</a>
On the evening of the second day, Taoiseach Jack Lynch made a broadcast stating that the Dublin government ‘could not stand by’ while catholics were being brutalised by the security forces in the Bogside. Field hospitals were opened by the southern authorities in nearby County Donegal and Irish diplomats abroad attempted to exert some indirect pressure on the British government to bring an end to the rioting and address the wider issues in Northern Irish society.
As the situation deteriorated, nationalist leaders, including John Hume and Bernadette Devlin, called for the intervention of the British Army. The youth of the Bogside were joined by others from across the city in mounting what they viewed as a defence of their community from the protestant and Unionist forces of the State. Across Northern Ireland nationalist areas erupted in rioting designed to stretch police resources and provide respite for the rebels in the Bogside.
After three days, the Northern Ireland government finally requested military assistance. At 5pm on Thursday, 14 August 1969, a company of the Prince of Wales’ own Regiment took over security control from the RUC in the centre of Derry

I'm pretty sure you know this anyway,this is why and how my troops ended up in Ireland.
Hardly a fuckin invasion to occupy another Country was it.
You have started to make stuff up to fit your agenda now,Brit troops were NOT sent in to kill innocent civilians IF as you clearly do believe that program 100%then you clearly know those 2 lads were a case of mistaken identity,the paperboy confirmed that.
I'm done with you now.

Of course it was an occupation you fool. It was an occupation dating back centuries. The unionist majority in the north were descendants of the shipped in Scottish Presbyterians, in much the same way as the population of the Falkland Islands were .

British troops were allowed (indeed encouraged) to murder innocent civilians. You watched the programme, you've heard of Bloody Sunday.

Those two young boys mown down by a cowards bullets may well have been mistaken identity, but that only means that some other civilian was the intended target.

And the army was initially welcomed by the catholic minority as they (ironically) were led to believe that the "brave British army" (what a laugh) were there to help protect them.

Turns out our brave lads actually went out there to murder them.

I'm glad you're done with me now, it's difficult to keep civil when discussing such things with an apologist for state sponsored cowardice and murder.

 

[Bilboblue]

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.

40 years ago if you walked down the street with a machine gun and shot at random strangers you would be tried, convicted, and imprisoned. As you would today.

Unless you were a British soldier. Then you would be proclaimed a hero.

Oh dear..... I don't think people are saying he is a hero at all.

He was wrong to shoot at innocent bystanders, I have already said that, I am not defending that soldier in any way, but I can understand his mindset that led him to those actions.

Am I insane then because I don't find it shameful or sickening? They were at war, not firing peashooters at each other. Conflicts are not nice, atrocities and mistakes happen.

How old are you Kazzy? Genuine question.

 

[dazdon]

One was about religion and the other was about race.

NI was nothing like SA at all.

And yes...Nelson is a murdering barsteward.

Like the stern gang.

The IRA and the Loyalists were murdering cunts.

I look at their marches now and I think to myself....what a backward bunch of antagonising shit heads they really are.

 

[Anonymous]

Whether he is to you or not is largely irrelevant to what I said. I said he is held up as a hero around the world. Not by all but by enlarge.

Never underestimate sheep and bandwagon jumpers. The media has also played a huge part.

A freedom fighter is somebody who solely attacks the perpetrators, a terrorist is someone who goes after the innocents.

 

[johnmc]

One was about religion and the other was about race.

NI was nothing like SA at all.

And yes...Nelson is a murdering barsteward.

Like the stern gang.

The IRA and the Loyalists were murdering cunts.

I look at their marches now and I think to myself....what a backward bunch of antagonising shit heads they really are.

If you are on the end of racial or religious discrimination I'm sure you feel pretty similar about it. Are you saying they are totally different things. As in one is more understandable or something. How are they different?

 

[Kazzydeyna]

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.

40 years ago if you walked down the street with a machine gun and shot at random strangers you would be tried, convicted, and imprisoned. As you would today.

Unless you were a British soldier. Then you would be proclaimed a hero.

Oh dear..... I don't think people are saying he is a hero at all.

He was wrong to shoot at innocent bystanders, I have already said that, I am not defending that soldier in any way, but I can understand his mindset that led him to those actions.

Am I insane then because I don't find it shameful or sickening? They were at war, not firing peashooters at each other. Conflicts are not nice, atrocities and mistakes happen.

How old are you Kazzy? Genuine question.

42.

No you're not insane. In my opinion you're wrong, but on reflection that doesn't make you insane.

I can get my head around how a squaddie on patrol who may well have seen his mates killed or maimed may overreact in a given set of circumstances. Doesn't make it right but I can make sense of how it might happen.

What I cannot get my head around is how the British government, at the highest level, can spend decades lecturing all and sundry about human rights and freedoms and then set up clandestine murder squads.

And I can't understand the make up of a soldier who would join one of these squads and go out in an unmarked car and shoot at people for the crime of living in an area of the city that is against their presence.

It's fucking wrong, and yes, I agree so were a very many of the Provos actions, but two wrongs don't make a right and with the whole resources of the British state at their fingertips this sort of thing was completely unnecessary.