Ships Nostalgia banner

1 - 20 of 156 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
285 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I see in the Sunday Times this morning a large front page spread on subject matter. The article goes into great detail which, is to my mind, is wrong. I do not think articles such as this should be published as it undermines both our national security and the regiment whose whole purpose is to do what the article deplores.(Cloud)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,214 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
285 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Not for us to question # 4. There is too much info given away in our papers. We rely on these men to do work most couldn't do and we should protect them at all costs. Undermining SAS/SBS is not a thing we should do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,477 Posts
Not for us to question # 4. There is too much info given away in our papers. We rely on these men to do work most couldn't do and we should protect them at all costs. Undermining SAS/SBS is not a thing we should do.
Absolutely !!

LouisB (Scribe)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,477 Posts
Killing civilians!!
Terrorists and their ilk are inclined to wear civilian clothing and mix with other genuine 'civilians' - they find it helps them to stay alive - always a desirable thing if you are the enemy. Maybe we should have tried this in WW2 - Oh, I forgot, we did didn't we, although we called them heroes and heroins.

LouisB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,214 Posts
Not for us to question # 4. There is too much info given away in our papers. We rely on these men to do work most couldn't do and we should protect them at all costs. Undermining SAS/SBS is not a thing we should do.
Even if they are killing civilians
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,214 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,214 Posts
because they are civilians - it's a definition thing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,214 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,214 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
3,532 Posts
Even if they are killing civilians
How do YOU know they were innocent?
because they are civilians - it's a definition thing
I confess to not having read the newspaper article referred to, but I struggle with your posts SN. So what, exactly, is your definition of a "civilian" that makes him immune to lethal force? During "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland the SAS hunted down heavily armed IRA gangs that were planning atrocities like planting bombs in shopping centres and killing other civilians. Was killing them before they could do that immoral?
The latest terrorist attack at Westminster Bridge then: the three that drove a van through a crowded footpath and then attacked and killed innocent bystanders with knives were "civilians". So if you were an armed policeman or soldier, what would you have done? Would you have allowed them to continue because they were civilians or would you have shot them?
How would you have dealt with the siege of the Iranian embassy years ago, where "civilians" were holding other innocent civilians hostage and murdering one of them? Would you have sat back and refused to do anything because you have some strange moral code that rules that no civilian must ever be harmed by state forces whatever they do?
The reality in this modern world is that there cannot any longer be a distinction between a "civilian" and a "military" because both can be armed with the same weapons. The only difference is, usually, that the state forces wear uniforms while the "civilians" with lethal intent might be dressed in track suits and trainers.
What about the group of citizens that consider themselves to be an armed army with a command structure as with the IRA in Ireland? No elected government has created their army, and no government has commissioned their officers. So are they civilians immune to military response and should they be subjected to civil law by unarmed police officers -- not a few of whom lost their lives in attempts to pursue such a liberal agenda?
A civilian with a gun or a bomb is, in my simplistic view, no different to a soldier with a gun or a bomb, so please explain to me the difference in your philosophy?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,214 Posts
Erm - someone with a gun or explosives is not a civilian.

The allegation was made that U.K. Troops were summarily executing unarmed civilians - we don't do that, or at least we shouldn't be.

Now let's take another case where they are captured combatants - we still don't go executing them - it's illegal and it makes it rather difficult to take the moral high ground.

It really is that simple
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,363 Posts
TBH, I wonder if the 'Taliban IED Emplacers Blow Themselves Up' is accurately described or if they were assisted :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,363 Posts
We had the fake torture photos in the Mirror and, more recently, the disgraced human rights lawyer, Phil Shiner, found to have been repeatedly dishonest as he brought cases that British troops had killed, mutilated and tortured Iraqi civilians. 'Solicitor of the year' - aye, right!

Would I say that such things are never perpetrated by British military personnel? Nope, I wouldn't; but it is in the interests of many to make it appear that they do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,214 Posts
TBH, I wonder if the 'Taliban IED Emplacers Blow Themselves Up' is accurately described or if they were assisted :)
Does it matter?

They are not civilians, we invaded their country, they are perfectly entitled to have an armed struggle against us. Apart from the fact we never secured that country and left without ever gaining control of it - i.e. - we lost, If we also committed war crimes against civilians then we did not help ourselves.
 
1 - 20 of 156 Posts
Top