Guest pelmetman Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-11-18 4:18 PM pelmetman - 2019-11-18 4:11 PM Brian Kirby - 2019-11-18 4:07 PM pelmetman - 2019-11-18 11:09 AM...……………………….. To be honest I would not join the Navy nowadays ;-) .......... Coz folk like you are not worth defending *-) ........ Then why on earth did you join? Human nature hasn't changed in the meantime, and people who disagree with your viewpoint are no more numerous now than they ever have been. Now be honest, you just didn't realise that, at the time, did you? You're just a bit older, and maybe a bit wiser, than you were then. :-D There's a difference between a having a different point of view and a traitorous mind set *-) ........... But that is just a point of view (yours!) on the definition of what constitutes the mind-set of a traitor. To know whether we agree, you'd have to explain it, so we can properly understand your point of view. A traitor....... "A person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle." ie...... Someone who supports the millions given to defend terrorists and lying lawyers like Phil (Spit) Shiner and jail heroes like Sargent Blackman for doing his job of killing the enemy *-) ......... Has that made my point of view clear enough? :-| ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 19, 2019 Author Share Posted November 19, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-11-19 10:29 AM Brian Kirby - 2019-11-18 4:18 PM pelmetman - 2019-11-18 4:11 PM Brian Kirby - 2019-11-18 4:07 PM pelmetman - 2019-11-18 11:09 AM...……………………….. To be honest I would not join the Navy nowadays ;-) .......... Coz folk like you are not worth defending *-) ........ Then why on earth did you join? Human nature hasn't changed in the meantime, and people who disagree with your viewpoint are no more numerous now than they ever have been. Now be honest, you just didn't realise that, at the time, did you? You're just a bit older, and maybe a bit wiser, than you were then. :-D There's a difference between a having a different point of view and a traitorous mind set *-) ........... But that is just a point of view (yours!) on the definition of what constitutes the mind-set of a traitor. To know whether we agree, you'd have to explain it, so we can properly understand your point of view. A traitor....... "A person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle." ie...... Someone who supports the millions given to defend terrorists and lying lawyers like Phil (Spit) Shiner and jail heroes like Sargent Blackman for doing his job of killing the enemy *-) ......... Has that made my point of view clear enough? :-| ........ There was quite a bit about Phil Shiner on the Panorame programme last night. Shiner broke a few rules and got struck off for it - which gave the Government the excuse it needed to shut down any further investigations. Giving soldiers free rein to kill and torture turns people who would have been our friends into more Terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-19 10:35 AM pelmetman - 2019-11-19 10:29 AM Brian Kirby - 2019-11-18 4:18 PM pelmetman - 2019-11-18 4:11 PM Brian Kirby - 2019-11-18 4:07 PM pelmetman - 2019-11-18 11:09 AM...……………………….. To be honest I would not join the Navy nowadays ;-) .......... Coz folk like you are not worth defending *-) ........ Then why on earth did you join? Human nature hasn't changed in the meantime, and people who disagree with your viewpoint are no more numerous now than they ever have been. Now be honest, you just didn't realise that, at the time, did you? You're just a bit older, and maybe a bit wiser, than you were then. :-D There's a difference between a having a different point of view and a traitorous mind set *-) ........... But that is just a point of view (yours!) on the definition of what constitutes the mind-set of a traitor. To know whether we agree, you'd have to explain it, so we can properly understand your point of view. A traitor....... "A person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle." ie...... Someone who supports the millions given to defend terrorists and lying lawyers like Phil (Spit) Shiner and jail heroes like Sargent Blackman for doing his job of killing the enemy *-) ......... Has that made my point of view clear enough? :-| ........ There was quite a bit about Phil Shiner on the Panorame programme last night. Shiner broke a few rules and got struck off for it - which gave the Government the excuse it needed to shut down any further investigations. Giving soldiers free rein to kill and torture turns people who would have been our friends into more Terrorists. Broke a few rules *-) ........ He was a greedy lying bastard who hounded innocent people by bribing folk to lie for him >:-( ......... Your posts confirms everything I suspected about you :-| .......... You and your ilk are Traitors to your country >:-( ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 19, 2019 Author Share Posted November 19, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-11-19 10:39 AM (Shiner) was a greedy lying bastard who hounded innocent people by bribing folk to lie for him >:-( ......... That may be so. But at least he wasn't a psychopath torturing and killing innocent people. The point is that HM Government used one bent lawyer as their excuse to shut down any further investigations!!! Would you shut down the rest of the legal system just because we found one bent lawyer? Criminals free to do what they want, No more investigations or prosecutions for anything in case there was another bent lawyer? Or just shut down the part the Government didn't like because it was an embarrassment to them. So I ask again - what's to stop psychopaths joining the army, torturing and killing innocent people, and turning their families into 'Terrorists' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 19, 2019 Author Share Posted November 19, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-11-19 10:39 AM your country >:-( ......... Who or what exactly do you mean by 'your country' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 Birdbrain - 2019-11-18 6:54 PM Brian Kirby - 2019-11-18 6:37 PM Birdbrain - 2019-11-18 5:51 PM Brian Kirby - 2019-11-18 4:07 PM pelmetman - 2019-11-18 11:09 AM...……………………….. To be honest I would not join the Navy nowadays ;-) .......... Coz folk like you are not worth defending *-) ........ Then why on earth did you join? Human nature hasn't changed in the meantime, and people who disagree with your viewpoint are no more numerous now than they ever have been. Now be honest, you just didn't realise that, at the time, did you? You're just a bit older, and maybe a bit wiser, than you were then. :-D Human nature hasn't changed ... The ability to express ones views with social media has made it possible for those like Dave who served in Her Majestys Armed Forces to judge wether or not its worth taking the risk to put ones neck on the block for some very sad folk ... I would imagine many who fought during the wars given an option on what they might know now about our sad world and those who walk it might not have been so eager to join up either ... You wouldnt want the Barrys , FlatPart and Bin Dumper of this world behind ya when running out of the trenches would ya ... Sad world Dave didn't join in wartime, when there was a clear threat to the country that those who served saw and responded to. He volunteered in peacetime, when there wasn't even national service. Social media hasn't suddenly made it possible for people to think about what they intend to do with their lives. Dave didn't join in the dark ages, there were news programmes and newspapers even when he was a lad! All he's claiming is that at the time he joined up he hadn't yet realised there were pacifists, left wing radicals, right wing radicals, liberals, and people of no political persuasion, all around him. In short, that he didn't then know what he now knows. Extraordinary! "You wouldnt want the Barrys , FlatPart and Bin Dumper of this world behind ya when running out of the trenches would ya ... " Why, do you assume that people who don't share your political outlook haven't the stomach to fight? Who went to Spain with the International Brigades to fight against Franco during the Spanish Civil War? They weren't exactly Falangists, were they? Have you tried asking US Vietnam War veterans whether they thought the Viet Cong a pushover? Where does this dangerously simplistic political outlook come from? Why does it matter when Dave joined up ??? ... The rest is just guff Why does it matter when Dave signed up? I responded, not without difficulty, to the point you seem to be making above: "I would imagine many who fought during the wars given an option on what they might know now about our sad world and those who walk it might not have been so eager to join up either". This equates the status of those sign up in peacetime with that of those who served in wartime, over which they had no choice, when there was certainty of coming under fire, and a good possibility of dying. That seems to me muddled reasoning, based entirely on your "imagining", that is presumptuous. IMO, the two should not be compared. To do so cheapens the sacrifices of those who served in wartime. That is why it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-11-19 10:29 AM Brian Kirby - 2019-11-18 4:18 PM pelmetman - 2019-11-18 4:11 PM Brian Kirby - 2019-11-18 4:07 PM pelmetman - 2019-11-18 11:09 AM...……………………….. To be honest I would not join the Navy nowadays ;-) .......... Coz folk like you are not worth defending *-) ........ Then why on earth did you join? Human nature hasn't changed in the meantime, and people who disagree with your viewpoint are no more numerous now than they ever have been. Now be honest, you just didn't realise that, at the time, did you? You're just a bit older, and maybe a bit wiser, than you were then. :-D There's a difference between a having a different point of view and a traitorous mind set *-) ........... But that is just a point of view (yours!) on the definition of what constitutes the mind-set of a traitor. To know whether we agree, you'd have to explain it, so we can properly understand your point of view. A traitor....... "A person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle." ie...... Someone who supports the millions given to defend terrorists and lying lawyers like Phil (Spit) Shiner and jail heroes like Sargent Blackman for doing his job of killing the enemy *-) ......... Has that made my point of view clear enough? :-| ........ Yes Dave, but it doesn't explain why a small minority of rogues should result in defence of the honest majority being withdrawn. That was my point. What the armed forces defended is the whole concept of a country and its values, not just one or other group of its citizens. Rogues have always been present in society, and they were there when you signed up, and you must have realised that. And yet, you signed up. Shiner didn't get away scot-free with what he did, though it seems he has so far got off very lightly. Blackman's is a hard case. He did what he did, which was outside the laws of combat. The army high command were divided over his case, some saying his action was beyond the pale, others that he deserved understanding. I can see both sides. We ask the impossible of people under combat, but we turn on them when combat distorts their sense of right and wrong. At the same time we boast that our armed forces are "the best in the world", which sets the bar at its maximum height. So, if we want to take the moral high ground, and "talk the talk", we also have to "walk to walk", do we not? If members of the forces commit crimes, they should be punished, in the same way as a civilian should be. That is the fundamental basis of a democracy based on the rule of law. It must be even-handed in the way it deals with everyone, no matter what their circumstances. If we allow "special cases", we are on a slippery slope that ends in dictatorships and totalitarianism. We have to tolerate the views of others, and may disagree with them as we see fit, but we should never forget the famous dictum attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Because no-one has a monopoly on being right. :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
747 Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 I see we have a bunch of armchair warriors spouting off about something they have no knowledge of. None of them have faced an enemy or risked their lives for a wage. Just to bring some perspective to this argument. A former member of a Scottish Regiment during WW2 told me that in the Western Desert they took no prisoners. The idea being that when the Germans (and Italians) heard the Bagpipes, they were less inclined to fight and more inclined to flee. This tactic saved an unknown number of British lives and speeded the exit of the Afrika Corps from North Africa.. The Americans dropped 2 Atomic weapons on Japan, killing tens of thousands of civilian men, women and children, thus saving many thousands of Allied military lives. Aden 1965. A few heavily armed terrorists took over a Police blockhouse overlooking a busy intersection and completely stopping the flow of traffic. The Army brought up a Tank to demolish it. It took 3 days of communications backwards and forwards to Whitehall before permission to fire was given. You tailor your tactics to those of your enemy ... or you lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted November 19, 2019 Author Share Posted November 19, 2019 747 - 2019-11-19 1:29 PM I see we have a bunch of armchair warriors spouting off about something they have no knowledge of. None of them have faced an enemy or risked their lives for a wage. I'm going by what high ranking servicemen on the Panorama programme said. Which makes a nonsense of your contribution for a start. And it goes downhill from there. Do you think its only Her Majesty's forces that fisk their lives for a wage? 167 Agricultural workers killed last year, and whats more important than growing food? No help for heroes and poppy sellers for them. Tell the truth I bet you didn't even know did you? 747 - 2019-11-19 1:29 PM Aden 1965. A few heavily armed terrorists took over a Police blockhouse overlooking a busy intersection and completely stopping the flow of traffic. The Army brought up a Tank to demolish it. It took 3 days of communications backwards and forwards to Whitehall before permission to fire was given. Thats because when you've done the easy job of pulling the trigger someone else has the infinitely more difficult job of dealing with the aftermath. All the killing of innocents in Afghanistan has brought the Taliban to the point where we have to negotiate them to get our hostages back - despite all the rhetoric about we don't negotiate with Terrorists we always do in the end. 1965 was when we had some politicians with backbone - Harold Wilson told the Yanks not one British Serviceman would set foot in Vietnam. If only we had a Prime Minister with the integrity to stand up to Trump like that. But the biggest nonsense of all is the suggestion we are disrespecting HM forces by not wanting to send them to war!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-11-19 1:10 PM pelmetman - 2019-11-19 10:29 AM Brian Kirby - 2019-11-18 4:18 PM pelmetman - 2019-11-18 4:11 PM Brian Kirby - 2019-11-18 4:07 PM pelmetman - 2019-11-18 11:09 AM...……………………….. To be honest I would not join the Navy nowadays ;-) .......... Coz folk like you are not worth defending *-) ........ Then why on earth did you join? Human nature hasn't changed in the meantime, and people who disagree with your viewpoint are no more numerous now than they ever have been. Now be honest, you just didn't realise that, at the time, did you? You're just a bit older, and maybe a bit wiser, than you were then. :-D There's a difference between a having a different point of view and a traitorous mind set *-) ........... But that is just a point of view (yours!) on the definition of what constitutes the mind-set of a traitor. To know whether we agree, you'd have to explain it, so we can properly understand your point of view. A traitor....... "A person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle." ie...... Someone who supports the millions given to defend terrorists and lying lawyers like Phil (Spit) Shiner and jail heroes like Sargent Blackman for doing his job of killing the enemy *-) ......... Has that made my point of view clear enough? :-| ........ Yes Dave, but it doesn't explain why a small minority of rogues should result in defence of the honest majority being withdrawn. That was my point. What the armed forces defended is the whole concept of a country and its values, not just one or other group of its citizens. Rogues have always been present in society, and they were there when you signed up, and you must have realised that. And yet, you signed up. Shiner didn't get away scot-free with what he did, though it seems he has so far got off very lightly. Blackman's is a hard case. He did what he did, which was outside the laws of combat. The army high command were divided over his case, some saying his action was beyond the pale, others that he deserved understanding. I can see both sides. We ask the impossible of people under combat, but we turn on them when combat distorts their sense of right and wrong. At the same time we boast that our armed forces are "the best in the world", which sets the bar at its maximum height. So, if we want to take the moral high ground, and "talk the talk", we also have to "walk to walk", do we not? If members of the forces commit crimes, they should be punished, in the same way as a civilian should be. That is the fundamental basis of a democracy based on the rule of law. It must be even-handed in the way it deals with everyone, no matter what their circumstances. If we allow "special cases", we are on a slippery slope that ends in dictatorships and totalitarianism. We have to tolerate the views of others, and may disagree with them as we see fit, but we should never forget the famous dictum attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Because no-one has a monopoly on being right. :-D Precisely the reason British soldiers should not be prosecuted for events in NI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 747 - 2019-11-19 1:29 PM I see we have a bunch of armchair warriors spouting off about something they have no knowledge of. None of them have faced an enemy or risked their lives for a wage. Just to bring some perspective to this argument. A former member of a Scottish Regiment during WW2 told me that in the Western Desert they took no prisoners. The idea being that when the Germans (and Italians) heard the Bagpipes, they were less inclined to fight and more inclined to flee. This tactic saved an unknown number of British lives and speeded the exit of the Afrika Corps from North Africa.. The Americans dropped 2 Atomic weapons on Japan, killing tens of thousands of civilian men, women and children, thus saving many thousands of Allied military lives. Aden 1965. A few heavily armed terrorists took over a Police blockhouse overlooking a busy intersection and completely stopping the flow of traffic. The Army brought up a Tank to demolish it. It took 3 days of communications backwards and forwards to Whitehall before permission to fire was given. You tailor your tactics to those of your enemy ... or you lose. "Tailor your tactics" -Surely no members of our armed forces would countenance chopping people's heads off or raping their enemies' womenfolk 747? There have to be a minimum standards of acceptable conduct. Where those standards are not met and combatants face scrutiny/prosecution for their actions there should always be room for mitigation as distinct from a defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 Violet1956 - 2019-11-19 3:00 PM 747 - 2019-11-19 1:29 PM I see we have a bunch of armchair warriors spouting off about something they have no knowledge of. None of them have faced an enemy or risked their lives for a wage. Just to bring some perspective to this argument. A former member of a Scottish Regiment during WW2 told me that in the Western Desert they took no prisoners. The idea being that when the Germans (and Italians) heard the Bagpipes, they were less inclined to fight and more inclined to flee. This tactic saved an unknown number of British lives and speeded the exit of the Afrika Corps from North Africa.. The Americans dropped 2 Atomic weapons on Japan, killing tens of thousands of civilian men, women and children, thus saving many thousands of Allied military lives. Aden 1965. A few heavily armed terrorists took over a Police blockhouse overlooking a busy intersection and completely stopping the flow of traffic. The Army brought up a Tank to demolish it. It took 3 days of communications backwards and forwards to Whitehall before permission to fire was given. You tailor your tactics to those of your enemy ... or you lose. "Tailor your tactics" -Surely no members of our armed forces would countenance chopping people's heads off or raping their enemies' womenfolk 747? There have to be a minimum standards of acceptable conduct. Where those standards are not met and combatants face scrutiny/prosecution for their actions there should always be room for mitigation as distinct from a defence. At what point in combat when your weapon has jammed and you are killing your opponent with a spade do you think ummm is this acceptable conduct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 jumpstart - 2019-11-19 3:19 PM Violet1956 - 2019-11-19 3:00 PM 747 - 2019-11-19 1:29 PM I see we have a bunch of armchair warriors spouting off about something they have no knowledge of. None of them have faced an enemy or risked their lives for a wage. Just to bring some perspective to this argument. A former member of a Scottish Regiment during WW2 told me that in the Western Desert they took no prisoners. The idea being that when the Germans (and Italians) heard the Bagpipes, they were less inclined to fight and more inclined to flee. This tactic saved an unknown number of British lives and speeded the exit of the Afrika Corps from North Africa.. The Americans dropped 2 Atomic weapons on Japan, killing tens of thousands of civilian men, women and children, thus saving many thousands of Allied military lives. Aden 1965. A few heavily armed terrorists took over a Police blockhouse overlooking a busy intersection and completely stopping the flow of traffic. The Army brought up a Tank to demolish it. It took 3 days of communications backwards and forwards to Whitehall before permission to fire was given. You tailor your tactics to those of your enemy ... or you lose. "Tailor your tactics" -Surely no members of our armed forces would countenance chopping people's heads off or raping their enemies' womenfolk 747? There have to be a minimum standards of acceptable conduct. Where those standards are not met and combatants face scrutiny/prosecution for their actions there should always be room for mitigation as distinct from a defence. At what point in combat when your weapon has jammed and you are killing your opponent with a spade do you think ummm is this acceptable conduct. First and foremost I admit that Ihave never been subjected to the visceral fear that I may lose my life. It is quite understandable that combatants face with such a situation are entitled to do whatever they can to survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 Violet1956 - 2019-11-19 3:36 PM First and foremost I admit that Ihave never been subjected to the visceral fear that I may lose my life. It is quite understandable that combatants face with such a situation are entitled to do whatever they can to survive. The added problem in a lot of recent conflicts is that we are not at war with a country - just some of the people in it. Not always easy to distinguish between the two when in imminent danger. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 747 - 2019-11-19 1:29 PM I see we have a bunch of armchair warriors spouting off about something they have no knowledge of. None of them have faced an enemy or risked their lives for a wage. Just to bring some perspective to this argument. A former member of a Scottish Regiment during WW2 told me that in the Western Desert they took no prisoners. The idea being that when the Germans (and Italians) heard the Bagpipes, they were less inclined to fight and more inclined to flee. This tactic saved an unknown number of British lives and speeded the exit of the Afrika Corps from North Africa. "You were told". Recorded fact, or army mythology? Were you there? Knowledge? Armchair warrior? The Americans dropped 2 Atomic weapons on Japan, killing tens of thousands of civilian men, women and children, thus saving many thousands of Allied military lives. Yes, we all (I hope) know that, it is a matter of recorded history. The combined death toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is now put at over 220,000, and is still rising. That is common knowledge. It was also, and remains, a controversial decision. What is this greater knowledge you are claiming to bring to the party? An example more relevant to WW2 might have been the fire-bombings of Coventry, Dresden, and other cities. Aden 1965. A few heavily armed terrorists took over a Police blockhouse overlooking a busy intersection and completely stopping the flow of traffic. The Army brought up a Tank to demolish it. It took 3 days of communications backwards and forwards to Whitehall before permission to fire was given. And?? Why the delay? Were you there? Your point? Relevance? You tailor your tactics to those of your enemy ... or you lose. Of course, but the way wars were fought even in 1939-45 is not the same as now. Battle is now supposed to be conducted under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The circumstances of WW1 and 2, following formal declarations of war, were not the same as in Aden, where British forces were fighting an armed insurrection, not a total war, so different rules apply - especially with regard to the safeguarding of civilians. Those rules govern the tactics that can legally (under the Geneva Conventions) be adopted. Along with 195 other countries, the UK has signed all the Geneva Conventions (and among only 76 countries, all three protocols), so we stand to be accused of hypocrisy if we don't adhere to them, don't we? As I said above, if we're going to talk the talk, we have to walk the walk. That means our forces have to be held accountable for their actions. Or else, what is our signature worth? If we don't adhere to our own rules, what right have we to point the finger at others? Even in battle, there must be limits to the tactics that can be adopted. The first Geneva Convention, of 1864, was sparked following the Battle of Solferino, where nearly 5,000 were killed, 21,000 wounded, 5,600 or so captured, and many of the wounded combatants on both sides were summarily shot or bayoneted on the battlefield. It was directed at securing the humanitarian treatment of battlefield non-combatants, whether wounded, taken prisoner, or post surrender, to prevent repetition of the barbarity after Solferino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 747 - 2019-11-19 1:29 PM I see we have a bunch of armchair warriors spouting off about something they have no knowledge of. None of them have faced an enemy or risked their lives for a wage. Watch it! You know I cant talk about it. Port Stanley in Iraq, 1991. Just sayin. 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
747 Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 Violet1956 - 2019-11-19 3:00 PM 747 - 2019-11-19 1:29 PM I see we have a bunch of armchair warriors spouting off about something they have no knowledge of. None of them have faced an enemy or risked their lives for a wage. Just to bring some perspective to this argument. A former member of a Scottish Regiment during WW2 told me that in the Western Desert they took no prisoners. The idea being that when the Germans (and Italians) heard the Bagpipes, they were less inclined to fight and more inclined to flee. This tactic saved an unknown number of British lives and speeded the exit of the Afrika Corps from North Africa.. The Americans dropped 2 Atomic weapons on Japan, killing tens of thousands of civilian men, women and children, thus saving many thousands of Allied military lives. Aden 1965. A few heavily armed terrorists took over a Police blockhouse overlooking a busy intersection and completely stopping the flow of traffic. The Army brought up a Tank to demolish it. It took 3 days of communications backwards and forwards to Whitehall before permission to fire was given. You tailor your tactics to those of your enemy ... or you lose. "Tailor your tactics" -Surely no members of our armed forces would countenance chopping people's heads off or raping their enemies' womenfolk 747? There have to be a minimum standards of acceptable conduct. Where those standards are not met and combatants face scrutiny/prosecution for their actions there should always be room for mitigation as distinct from a defence. That is not what is meant by tailoring your tactics. As an example, you do not order a Cavalry charge down a valley with Cannon ahead of you and to both sides of you. They should have used guerrilla tactics and crept up behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 John52 - 2019-11-19 10:51 AM pelmetman - 2019-11-19 10:39 AM (Shiner) was a greedy lying bastard who hounded innocent people by bribing folk to lie for him >:-( ......... That may be so. But at least he wasn't a psychopath torturing and killing innocent people. The point is that HM Government used one bent lawyer as their excuse to shut down any further investigations!!! Would you shut down the rest of the legal system just because we found one bent lawyer? Criminals free to do what they want, No more investigations or prosecutions for anything in case there was another bent lawyer? Or just shut down the part the Government didn't like because it was an embarrassment to them. So I ask again - what's to stop psychopaths joining the army, torturing and killing innocent people, and turning their families into 'Terrorists' You sir have dumped anything of yourself worth saving in a bin bag years ago :-| ........ Frankly you are now nothing but just pure lefty sh*te >:-( ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
747 Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 Ever the disbeliever Brian. Western Desert, WW2. I was told that by a close friend of the family who was in that Scottish Regiment and did it himself. Aden. My Brother observed the incident and was privy to the behind the scenes events due to his position in HMG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 Barryd999 - 2019-11-19 4:19 PM 747 - 2019-11-19 1:29 PM I see we have a bunch of armchair warriors spouting off about something they have no knowledge of. None of them have faced an enemy or risked their lives for a wage. Watch it! You know I cant talk about it. Port Stanley in Iraq, 1991. Just sayin. 8-) If you are claiming you were at Port Stanley Barry?.........as a Joke? :-| ....... That's not funny........as many of those who were there are still alive :-| ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-11-19 3:57 PM 747 - 2019-11-19 1:29 PM I see we have a bunch of armchair warriors spouting off about something they have no knowledge of. None of them have faced an enemy or risked their lives for a wage. Just to bring some perspective to this argument. A former member of a Scottish Regiment during WW2 told me that in the Western Desert they took no prisoners. The idea being that when the Germans (and Italians) heard the Bagpipes, they were less inclined to fight and more inclined to flee. This tactic saved an unknown number of British lives and speeded the exit of the Afrika Corps from North Africa. "You were told". Recorded fact, or army mythology? Were you there? Knowledge? Armchair warrior? The Americans dropped 2 Atomic weapons on Japan, killing tens of thousands of civilian men, women and children, thus saving many thousands of Allied military lives. Yes, we all (I hope) know that, it is a matter of recorded history. The combined death toll at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is now put at over 220,000, and is still rising. That is common knowledge. It was also, and remains, a controversial decision. What is this greater knowledge you are claiming to bring to the party? An example more relevant to WW2 might have been the fire-bombings of Coventry, Dresden, and other cities. Aden 1965. A few heavily armed terrorists took over a Police blockhouse overlooking a busy intersection and completely stopping the flow of traffic. The Army brought up a Tank to demolish it. It took 3 days of communications backwards and forwards to Whitehall before permission to fire was given. And?? Why the delay? Were you there? Your point? Relevance? You tailor your tactics to those of your enemy ... or you lose. Of course, but the way wars were fought even in 1939-45 is not the same as now. Battle is now supposed to be conducted under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The circumstances of WW1 and 2, following formal declarations of war, were not the same as in Aden, where British forces were fighting an armed insurrection, not a total war, so different rules apply - especially with regard to the safeguarding of civilians. Those rules govern the tactics that can legally (under the Geneva Conventions) be adopted. Along with 195 other countries, the UK has signed all the Geneva Conventions (and among only 76 countries, all three protocols), so we stand to be accused of hypocrisy if we don't adhere to them, don't we? As I said above, if we're going to talk the talk, we have to walk the walk. That means our forces have to be held accountable for their actions. Or else, what is our signature worth? If we don't adhere to our own rules, what right have we to point the finger at others? Even in battle, there must be limits to the tactics that can be adopted. The first Geneva Convention, of 1864, was sparked following the Battle of Solferino, where nearly 5,000 were killed, 21,000 wounded, 5,600 or so captured, and many of the wounded combatants on both sides were summarily shot or bayoneted on the battlefield. It was directed at securing the humanitarian treatment of battlefield non-combatants, whether wounded, taken prisoner, or post surrender, to prevent repetition of the barbarity after Solferino. Israel has signed the Geneva Convention, not that it has helped the countless civilians or children who have been killed. Dropping a 500lb bomb on a house to kill a one Hezbollah terrorist that actually kills 5 children and injures 10 other civilians living next to it doesn’t seam to cause much concern elsewhere in the world. I understand that people get mistakenly killed in battle,at least where our forces have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan it is very difficult to tell the difference between combatants and ordinary civilians when everyone is dressed as civilians. Mistakes happen in combat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-11-19 1:10 PM pelmetman - 2019-11-19 10:29 AM Brian Kirby - 2019-11-18 4:18 PM pelmetman - 2019-11-18 4:11 PM Brian Kirby - 2019-11-18 4:07 PM pelmetman - 2019-11-18 11:09 AM...……………………….. To be honest I would not join the Navy nowadays ;-) .......... Coz folk like you are not worth defending *-) ........ Then why on earth did you join? Human nature hasn't changed in the meantime, and people who disagree with your viewpoint are no more numerous now than they ever have been. Now be honest, you just didn't realise that, at the time, did you? You're just a bit older, and maybe a bit wiser, than you were then. :-D There's a difference between a having a different point of view and a traitorous mind set *-) ........... But that is just a point of view (yours!) on the definition of what constitutes the mind-set of a traitor. To know whether we agree, you'd have to explain it, so we can properly understand your point of view. A traitor....... "A person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle." ie...... Someone who supports the millions given to defend terrorists and lying lawyers like Phil (Spit) Shiner and jail heroes like Sargent Blackman for doing his job of killing the enemy *-) ......... Has that made my point of view clear enough? :-| ........ Yes Dave, but it doesn't explain why a small minority of rogues should result in defence of the honest majority being withdrawn. That was my point. What the armed forces defended is the whole concept of a country and its values, not just one or other group of its citizens. Rogues have always been present in society, and they were there when you signed up, and you must have realised that. And yet, you signed up. Shiner didn't get away scot-free with what he did, though it seems he has so far got off very lightly. Blackman's is a hard case. He did what he did, which was outside the laws of combat. The army high command were divided over his case, some saying his action was beyond the pale, others that he deserved understanding. I can see both sides. We ask the impossible of people under combat, but we turn on them when combat distorts their sense of right and wrong. At the same time we boast that our armed forces are "the best in the world", which sets the bar at its maximum height. So, if we want to take the moral high ground, and "talk the talk", we also have to "walk to walk", do we not? If members of the forces commit crimes, they should be punished, in the same way as a civilian should be. That is the fundamental basis of a democracy based on the rule of law. It must be even-handed in the way it deals with everyone, no matter what their circumstances. If we allow "special cases", we are on a slippery slope that ends in dictatorships and totalitarianism. We have to tolerate the views of others, and may disagree with them as we see fit, but we should never forget the famous dictum attributed to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Because no-one has a monopoly on being right. :-D Unfortunately.........more rogues were allowed to prosper in our "So Called Judiciary"...... :-| ....... Than were ever allowed to survive long in our armed forces in my experience ;-) ........ Us proud members of the lower orders know how to spot a wrong un >:-) ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 malc d - 2019-11-19 3:46 PM Violet1956 - 2019-11-19 3:36 PM First and foremost I admit that Ihave never been subjected to the visceral fear that I may lose my life. It is quite understandable that combatants face with such a situation are entitled to do whatever they can to survive. The added problem in a lot of recent conflicts is that we are not at war with a country - just some of the people in it. Not always easy to distinguish between the two when in imminent danger. :-| Not in the eyes of our judiciary *-) ......... Just imagine how emboldened our rancid lawyers will become with British Forces hating Corbyn in charge will become? 8-) ......... Best add another billion to the Labour spending pot for their feeding frenzy 8-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 747 - 2019-11-19 5:43 PM Violet1956 - 2019-11-19 3:00 PM 747 - 2019-11-19 1:29 PM I see we have a bunch of armchair warriors spouting off about something they have no knowledge of. None of them have faced an enemy or risked their lives for a wage. Just to bring some perspective to this argument. A former member of a Scottish Regiment during WW2 told me that in the Western Desert they took no prisoners. The idea being that when the Germans (and Italians) heard the Bagpipes, they were less inclined to fight and more inclined to flee. This tactic saved an unknown number of British lives and speeded the exit of the Afrika Corps from North Africa.. The Americans dropped 2 Atomic weapons on Japan, killing tens of thousands of civilian men, women and children, thus saving many thousands of Allied military lives. Aden 1965. A few heavily armed terrorists took over a Police blockhouse overlooking a busy intersection and completely stopping the flow of traffic. The Army brought up a Tank to demolish it. It took 3 days of communications backwards and forwards to Whitehall before permission to fire was given. You tailor your tactics to those of your enemy ... or you lose. "Tailor your tactics" -Surely no members of our armed forces would countenance chopping people's heads off or raping their enemies' womenfolk 747? There have to be a minimum standards of acceptable conduct. Where those standards are not met and combatants face scrutiny/prosecution for their actions there should always be room for mitigation as distinct from a defence. That is not what is meant by tailoring your tactics. As an example, you do not order a Cavalry charge down a valley with Cannon ahead of you and to both sides of you. They should have used guerrilla tactics and crept up behind them. OK I accept that's not what you meant. I gave you an extreme scenario in order to root out just quite what you meant. Have the UK not signed up to a number of treaties, the Geneva Convention being one? I accept it is difficult to observe them when faced with an enemy that does not apply the same standards but does that give us cause, or is it wise to abandon them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 19, 2019 Share Posted November 19, 2019 Violet1956 - 2019-11-19 6:13 PM 747 - 2019-11-19 5:43 PM Violet1956 - 2019-11-19 3:00 PM 747 - 2019-11-19 1:29 PM I see we have a bunch of armchair warriors spouting off about something they have no knowledge of. None of them have faced an enemy or risked their lives for a wage. Just to bring some perspective to this argument. A former member of a Scottish Regiment during WW2 told me that in the Western Desert they took no prisoners. The idea being that when the Germans (and Italians) heard the Bagpipes, they were less inclined to fight and more inclined to flee. This tactic saved an unknown number of British lives and speeded the exit of the Afrika Corps from North Africa.. The Americans dropped 2 Atomic weapons on Japan, killing tens of thousands of civilian men, women and children, thus saving many thousands of Allied military lives. Aden 1965. A few heavily armed terrorists took over a Police blockhouse overlooking a busy intersection and completely stopping the flow of traffic. The Army brought up a Tank to demolish it. It took 3 days of communications backwards and forwards to Whitehall before permission to fire was given. You tailor your tactics to those of your enemy ... or you lose. "Tailor your tactics" -Surely no members of our armed forces would countenance chopping people's heads off or raping their enemies' womenfolk 747? There have to be a minimum standards of acceptable conduct. Where those standards are not met and combatants face scrutiny/prosecution for their actions there should always be room for mitigation as distinct from a defence. That is not what is meant by tailoring your tactics. As an example, you do not order a Cavalry charge down a valley with Cannon ahead of you and to both sides of you. They should have used guerrilla tactics and crept up behind them. OK I accept that's not what you meant. I gave you an extreme scenario in order to root out just quite what you meant. Have the UK not signed up to a number of treaties, the Geneva Convention being one? I accept it is difficult to observe them when faced with an enemy that does not apply the same standards but does that give us cause, or is it wise to abandon them? Oh yeah we have signed treaties *-) ......... Have ISIS signed them? :-| ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.