British Para regiment under investigation for shooting at posters of Jeremy Corbyn

Tom Mann Centuria

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Im suggesting that normalising aggression against Labour MPs is dangerous, and that demonisation of Corbyn by media adds to the fervour of the ultra right wing. "It was just an egg slapped into a pensioners head" "it was only soldiers with weapons capable of being lethal shooting at a picture of the pensioner"

And it has been rightly condemned by politicians and the army. It was a stupid thing to do, although i would argue that the most stupid thing was filming and making it public.

Am I outraged by it? no, not at all. Are those claiming to be outraged by it actually outraged, or just looking to vent their own hatred?

Is calling for 18 Paras to be killed a reasonable response? No, it is stupid but that seems to have avoided any form of outrage (or censor) completely.

Dyr

Footage from Afgan terrorist training camp shows terrorists training

Not sure why people are shocked.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

for clarity, here is what he said. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9997024/Margaret-Thatcher-funeral-Simon-Weston-calls-for-dignified-response.html

I guess in Francie's world, anything that doesn't call for her sorpse to be exhumed and burnt at the stake is hero worship :rolleyes:

You really really shouldn't just reach for the first quote that backs you. Proper research would be much more sensible Aegir.
Proper quoting of other posters would also be helpful. I said 'excessive adoration' which I think the following quote from Weston is:

“I’m very sad. A person who made a great difference to my life has passed away and it’s always sad when someone who has people who loves them dies.

“In my opinion, Mrs Thatcher was the greatest wartime leader Britain has had since Winston Churchill.

“And I honestly feel if she had been around in World War II she would have been Britain’s greatest ever wartime leader.

The excessive gushing here is tempered by the fact that the Malvinas/Falklands is a tiny island in the south Seas and her adversary was hardly the German war machine. :rolleyes:


https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/margaret-thatcher-britains-greatest-wartime-2558826

mattser

Aegir wrote: »

:rolleyes:

what a stupid post.

I was agreeing with you

mattser

mattser wrote: »

I was agreeing with you

my bad

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You really really shouldn't just reach for the first quote that backs you.

So you search for an article with selected quotes that kind of supports what you said.

I linked to what he said, you linked to selected quotes.

FrancieBrady

Aegir wrote: »

So you search for an article with selected quotes that kind of supports what you said.

I linked to what he said, you linked to selected quotes.

What?

Tom Mann Centuria

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

Haha. He's got you there. Did you really think quoting what Weston actually thought of Thatcher was going to work, or how forums operate. Rookie error.

FrancieBrady

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Haha. He's got you there. Did you really think quoting what Weston actually thought of Thatcher was going to work, or how forums operate. Rookie error.

What I said originally

franciebrady wrote:

I remember that soldier that got hideous burn injuries (can't think of his name) being asked to explain why so many soldiers adored her when she died.
Can't remember his answer, mind you, but there was certainly a phenomenon of excessive worship, if that is the correct word.

Aegir jumped because somebody once again dared to criticise the British and inferred I was referring to what Weston said about Thatcher...which as anyone can see, I wasn't particularly, I was referring to general excessive adoration among soldiers.

Turning up a quote from Weston too, doing exactly what I said, 'excessively adoring' her, is a Brucie bonus really.

Mad_maxx

Centre right politically but the treatment of corbyn by the UK media and now this, has been reprehensible

knucklehead6

Aegir wrote: »

Is calling for 18 Paras to be killed a reasonable response? No, it is stupid but that seems to have avoided any form of outrage (or censor) completely.

not meaning to back seat mod (by which i mean i'm about to jump in feet first, and also lodged firmly in my mouth!! ) but did you report the post?

If you did, and the mods have seen it, and deemed it acceptable, that's one thing, but in fairness expecting the mods to keep on top of every post in on of the busiest forums on here is a touch much.

knucklehead6

knucklehead6 wrote: »

not meaning to back seat mod (by which i mean i'm about to jump in feet first, and also lodged firmly in my mouth!! ) but did you report the post?

If you did, and the mods have seen it, and deemed it acceptable, that's one thing, but in fairness expecting the mods to keep on top of every post in on of the busiest forums on here is a touch much.

I did, yes.

Agricola

Hardly surprising. If they were measured intellectual types who could see past the "Corbyn is an IRA loving satanist" propaganda, then they wouldnt be British Army soldiers.

knucklehead6

Aegir wrote: »

I did, yes.

That’s two of us then.

Timberrrrrrrr

knucklehead6 wrote: »

That’s two of us then.

The 2 lowlifes that thanked the post should be banned as well.

steddyeddy

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The 2 lowlifes that thanked the post should be banned as well.

I don't think calling posters low lives is particular nice either.

Timberrrrrrrr

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think calling posters low lives is particular nice either.

Anyone calling for mass murder is a lowlife in my eyes.

One wonders what the response would be from the same posters if i were to call for another Gibraltar or Loughgall in the Car bomb in Londenderry thread.

Dyr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

One wonders what the response would be from the same posters if i were to call for another Gibraltar or Loughgall in the Car bomb in Londenderry thread.

Well it wouldn't be suprise anyway

Timberrrrrrrr

Bambi wrote: »

Well it wouldn't be suprise anyway

Why would you say that? Have i ever called for mass murder before?

steddyeddy

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Anyone calling for mass murder is a lowlife in my eyes.

One wonders what the response would be from the same posters if i were to call for another Gibraltar or Loughgall in the Car bomb in Londenderry thread.

Usually I agree but on any Bloody Sunday discussion there was numerous posters implying the murder victims of the paratroopers had it coming through some action or association they may have had that day. So when people call out one form of murder and not another it makes me think their motives may not be apolitical.

Timberrrrrrrr

steddyeddy wrote: »

Usually I agree but on any Bloody Sunday discussion there was numerous posters implying the murder victims of the paratroopers had it coming through some action or association they may have had that day. So when people call out one form of murder and not another it makes me think their motives may not be apolitical.

I seen that, those posters are lowlifes as well.

steddyeddy

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I seen that, those posters are lowlifes as well.

Well then fair enough Timber.

schizo1014

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Anyone calling for mass murder is a lowlife in my eyes.

One wonders what the response would be from the same posters if i were to call for another Gibraltar or Loughgall in the Car bomb in Londenderry thread.

People call for 'terrorists' to be killed all the time and no word about it so why should it be different for soldiers? War is war, suck it up!

RobMc59

schizo1014 wrote: »

People call for 'terrorists' to be killed all the time and no word about it so why should it be different for soldiers? War is war, suck it up!

If you are calling past troubles in NI a war then all "soldiers" should be accountable to the rule of law?-Do you agree?

steddyeddy

RobMc59 wrote: »

If you are calling past troubles in NI a war then all "soldiers" should be accountable to the rule of law?-Do you agree?

Do normal laws apply during wars?

RobMc59

steddyeddy wrote: »

Do normal laws apply during wars?

I was under the impression they do and they apply to all parties.

FrancieBrady

One of the players in the conflict/war to be above the law was this very regiment, funnily enough.

RobMc59

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One of the players in the conflict/war to be above the law was this very regiment, funnily enough.

You've changed your opinion-I thought you didn't consider it a war?

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

You've changed your opinion-I thought you didn't consider it a war?

You are thinking of the wrong man again. I have always defined it using both - conflict/war.

steddyeddy

RobMc59 wrote: »

I was under the impression they do and they apply to all parties.

But unfortunately it didn't work that way. Loyalist and republican terrorists were jailed yet other murders carried out by the British army were rewarded.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have always defined it using both - conflict/war.

If it was a war surely the murder of civilians ( people in shops, pubs, restaurants, retired public servants etc ) were war crimes. Even in normal wars "soldiers" who killed while operating in civilian clothes are often accused of being spies / shot when caught. And if they were soldiers, which government were they answerable to, r employed by, or acting on behalf of?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

If it was a war surely the murder of civilians ( people in shops, pubs, restaurants, retired public servants etc ) were war crimes. Even in normal wars "soldiers" who killed while operating in civilian clothes are often accused of being spies / shot when caught. And if they were soldiers, which government were they answerable to, r employed by, or acting on behalf of?

I'd have thought killing innocent people was a crime whether there was a war on or not?

Maybe that is just me.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'd have thought killing innocent people was a crime whether there was a war on or not?

Of course killing innocent people was a crime whether there was a war on or not. That is not the point. I'd have though killing people unlawfully was a crime whether there was a war on or not.

(1) As I said, if it was a war surely the murder of civilians ( people in shops, pubs, restaurants, retired public servants etc ) were war crimes?

(2) Even in normal wars "soldiers" who killed while operating in civilian clothes are often accused of being spies / shot when caught. So was it a war or not?

(3) And if they were soldiers, which government were they answerable to, were employed by, or acting on behalf of?

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Of course killing innocent people was a crime whether there was a war on or not. That is not the point. I'd have though killing people unlawfully was a crime whether there was a war on or not.

(1) As I said, if it was a war surely the murder of civilians ( people in shops, pubs, restaurants, retired public servants etc ) were war crimes?

(2) Even in normal wars "soldiers" who killed while operating in civilian clothes are often accused of being spies / shot when caught. So was it a war or not?

(3) And if they were soldiers, which government were they answerable to, were employed by, or acting on behalf of?

You need to have this debate with somebody who thinks the distinction is of any importance. I use 'conflict/war' in deference to the 1000's who died, to whom such distinctions matter not.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You need to have this debate with somebody who thinks the distinction is of any importance. I use 'conflict/war' in deference to the 1000's who died, to whom such distinctions matter not.

I find it interesting that while the aim of the armed struggle was to get the "Brits out", nobody can justify it as a "war" in the true sense of the word.

Odhinn

janfebmar wrote: »

I find it interesting that while the aim of the armed struggle was to get the "Brits out", nobody can justify it as a "war" in the true sense of the word.

It was asyemmetric warfare.

janfebmar

Odhinn wrote: »

It was asyemmetric warfare.

Indeed, and as is well known that when asymmetric warfare is practiced outside the laws of war, it is often defined as terrorism, though rarely by its practitioners or their supporters.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Indeed, and as is well known that when asymmetric warfare is practiced outside the laws of war, it is often defined as terrorism, though rarely by its practitioners or their supporters.

The 'laws of war' have not been obeyed since the dawn of time. Such rubbish.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'laws of war' have not been obeyed since the dawn of time.

Indeed they generally are by democratic EEC / EU governments. Not by terrorist organisations of course.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

Indeed they generally are by democratic EEC / EU governments. Not by terrorist organisations of course.

Ah slipping in the old 'generally' there I see.

WoollyRedHat

FTA69 wrote: »

It's basically a non-story really, the optics of it are very sinister and bad but the reality is that it's a bunch of eejits arsing around on the firing range with a picture of a fella they don't like. Some people are suggesting this is an indication that Corbyn will face some sort of a military coup or something but I think that's hyperbole to say the least.

There has always been an extremely reactionary mindset running through the Brit Army (and the Paras especially) of hard-headed militarism and a sense of British superiority. The fact Corbyn is a jam-making peacenik portrayed as an IRA supporter who doesn't back "our boys" fully is enough to send a lot of them around the twist.

Can you imagine the outrage if it was a picture of Theresa May though, it would be right wing anarchy.

steddyeddy

janfebmar wrote: »

I find it interesting that while the aim of the armed struggle was to get the "Brits out", nobody can justify it as a "war" in the true sense of the word.

The British have been calling it a war ever since the Bloody Sunday soldier could be prosecuted.

janfebmar

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah slipping in the old 'generally' there I see.

And you generally have not answered the questions

(1) As I said, if it was a war surely the murder of civilians ( people in shops, pubs, restaurants, retired public servants etc ) were war crimes?

(2) Even in normal wars "soldiers" who killed while operating in civilian clothes are often accused of being spies / shot when caught. So was it a war or not?

(3) And if they were soldiers, which government were they answerable to, were employed by, or acting on behalf of?

When Americans, evem Irish-Americans, realised there was no difference between the terrorists who caused the 9/11 atrocity in New York and the terrorists who bombed Bloody Friday, Le Mons Hotel, Enniskillen, Birmingham, Guildford etc was just one of scale. Funding dried up for such organisations.

Talking of America, it has being reported that the army there - and not just as a one off prank - use pictures of middle eastern people as their target practice. Would you think that is racist?

steddyeddy

janfebmar wrote: »

And you generally have not answered the questions

(1) As I said, if it was a war surely the murder of civilians ( people in shops, pubs, restaurants, retired public servants etc ) were war crimes?

Bloody Sunday for instance.

janfebmar

steddyeddy wrote: »

Bloody Sunday for instance.

Correct, when some of the over 300,000 British army personnel murdered they should be punished.

And what of the tens of thousands of other attacks during the troubles, many of them meticuously planned weeks and months in advance? If murder is wrong by one side surely it is wrong by the other side too?

steddyeddy

janfebmar wrote: »

Correct, when some of the over 300,000 British army personnel murdered they should be punished.

I don't understand your sentence. You're conflating two different things. Could you construct it in a more logical manner?

skooterblue2

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, am I the only one who remembers their glorious "celebration" photographs - in, I think, Lisburn barracks - of their murder of the unarmed Karen Reilly (18) & Martin Peake (17) in the 1990s? More "fun" killing unarmed Irish teenagers. True British colonial heroes (their murderer, Lee Clegg, got promoted of course)

Thanks to Brexit and massively changing demographics, we will now finally see Ireland free from the Butcher's Apron in our lifetime.

Keep that in perspective. Those teenagers were joy riding. The soldiers were told they were after the IRA and so when they saw a car coming at them and it failed to stop they were entitled to shoot.

The part that got them way that Clegg turned and fired after the car fled that killed Karen Reilly.

janfebmar

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Keep that in perspective. Those teenagers were joy riding. The soldiers were told they were after the IRA and so when they saw a car coming at them and it failed to stop they were entitled to shoot.

The part that got them way that Clegg turned and fired after the car fled that killed Karen Reilly.

Security forces in the Republic shot and killed people at checkpoints too. When in happened in the Republic, they got off. When it happened in the North, as in the case of Clegg, he was jailed for a number of years.

FrancieBrady

janfebmar wrote: »

And you generally have not answered the questions

(1) As I said, if it was a war surely the murder of civilians ( people in shops, pubs, restaurants, retired public servants etc ) were war crimes?

(2) Even in normal wars "soldiers" who killed while operating in civilian clothes are often accused of being spies / shot when caught. So was it a war or not?

(3) And if they were soldiers, which government were they answerable to, were employed by, or acting on behalf of?

When Americans, evem Irish-Americans, realised there was no difference between the terrorists who caused the 9/11 atrocity in New York and the terrorists who bombed Bloody Friday, Le Mons Hotel, Enniskillen, Birmingham, Guildford etc was just one of scale. Funding dried up for such organisations.

Talking of America, it has being reported that the army there - and not just as a one off prank - use pictures of middle eastern people as their target practice. Would you think that is racist?

Because I don't care about the answer to the question.

You are, of course, only asking it so that you can attribute the blame to one side.

I believe all sides were to blame to some extent.

Whether it was a war or conflict is navel gazing for those on the high moral ground.

skooterblue2

janfebmar wrote: »

Security forces in the Republic shot and killed people at checkpoints too. When in happened in the Republic, they got off. When it happened in the North, as in the case of Clegg, he was jailed for a number of years.

I am not sure what incident you are referring to but if it is Dessie O Hare for chopping off the fingers of Dentist John O Grady, Dessie O Hare walked away from that shooting, his passenger didnt. Dessie O Hare is walking about free and John O Grady is no longer a dentist.

In the same position as Clegg I would have done a similar thing. There is no responsibility for the teenagers for their actions? It was night not day. It was the RUC officer that turned in the Paratroopers