Off Topic Sunday, bloody Sunday.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
brb said:
I think you shouldn't take it so personally mate. Like i said i think our soldiers do a grand job, and certainly wouldn't insult them. But my brain asks questions about everything, and people see that as a given of disagreement or agreement to a situation, it's not!

I try to understand why a terrorist becomes a terrorist, much the same as a freedom fighter. We were born human, not terrorists, and i like to delve into what causes certain mindsets.

Likewise, I try to understand soldiers when things go terribly wrong, that's not a judgement, again it's understanding the reaction of human nature and again the changes in emotion that causes someone to pull a trigger.

I asked a question yesterday, not one that anyone could really answer, so technically it makes it an interesting question...when does a soldier become a terrorist, when does it cross the line, I used Nigeria as an extreme prime example today.

I also referred to the meaning of the word that stems from latin and it's use in the main after the French revolution in 1792 and the use of the word in the 'Red Terror' - Russian Civil War 1918.

Actually Terror and Terrorism do have two completly different meanings and could be attached to many a situation aside from the definition.

I've always been interested in what makes a terrorist a terrorist. Hence why i took such an interest in the Begum case, aside from the tom foolery, think of it like a form of brain washing. Think of the Hitler Youth. We have weak minds as humans, we think we think volutarily but we don't - we are easy persuaded and easy guided if the right techniques are applied and the internet is good at harvesting ideologies.

You think like a soldier and protect your comrades because you was trained as a soldier. You will have witnessed situations that imbed those loyalities. But a terrorist is not a lot different but just more extreme, more violent, because they have no sense of law and order. When law and order breaks down so can a human reaction to a situation. Meaning, soldiers don't intend to be terrorists, but through the volatile events of a situation, can inadvetedly become one. I give you the Middle East as a prime example, we removed the evil lynchpin, and opened pandora's box.
Click to expand...
i didn't read and that's the truth. your first few words offended me..

So skipped the rest. Waste of time.
 
brb said:
I think you shouldn't take it so personally mate. Like i said i think our soldiers do a grand job, and certainly wouldn't insult them. But my brain asks questions about everything, and people see that as a given of disagreement or agreement to a situation, it's not!

I try to understand why a terrorist becomes a terrorist, much the same as a freedom fighter. We were born human, not terrorists, and i like to delve into what causes certain mindsets.

Likewise, I try to understand soldiers when things go terribly wrong, that's not a judgement, again it's understanding the reaction of human nature and again the changes in emotion that causes someone to pull a trigger.

I asked a question yesterday, not one that anyone could really answer, so technically it makes it an interesting question...when does a soldier become a terrorist, when does it cross the line, I used Nigeria as an extreme prime example today.

I also referred to the meaning of the word that stems from latin and it's use in the main after the French revolution in 1792 and the use of the word in the 'Red Terror' - Russian Civil War 1918.

Actually Terror and Terrorism do have two completly different meanings and could be attached to many a situation aside from the definition.

I've always been interested in what makes a terrorist a terrorist. Hence why i took such an interest in the Begum case, aside from the tom foolery, think of it like a form of brain washing. Think of the Hitler Youth. We have weak minds as humans, we think we think volutarily but we don't - we are easy persuaded and easy guided if the right techniques are applied and the internet is good at harvesting ideologies.

You think like a soldier and protect your comrades because you was trained as a soldier. You will have witnessed situations that imbed those loyalities. But a terrorist is not a lot different but just more extreme, more violent, because they have no sense of law and order. When law and order breaks down so can a human reaction to a situation. Meaning, soldiers don't intend to be terrorists, but through the volatile events of a situation, can inadvetedly become one. I give you the Middle East as a prime example, we removed the evil lynchpin, and opened pandora's box.
Click to expand...

Quality post <applause>
 
  • Like
Reactions: brb
@brb when does a soldier become a terrorist, when does it cross the line,

I'd suggest that a soldier crosses the line when he's not following orders and opens fire/causes harm on innocents for no reason. Not sure that would make a soldier a terrorist, though.
 
brb said:
Likewise, I try to understand soldiers when things go terribly wrong, that's not a judgement, again it's understanding the reaction of human nature and again the changes in emotion that causes someone to pull a trigger.
Click to expand...
that's a **** questio, and no one can honestly answer it
 
An point that hasn't been made is that 2 squads moved in but only one squads actions are called into question and there is an obvious inference that the actions of their Lieutenant contributed to what then occurred.
 
Solid_Air 2 said:
An point that hasn't been made is that 2 squads moved in but only one squads actions are called into question and there is an obvious inference that the actions of their Lieutenant contributed to what then occurred.
Click to expand...

There's also the issue of the judge making an unusual comment for the record that he had no doubt named IRA leaders (McGuiness I think) were there and armed, despite no evidence being put forward to prove it. The suggestion was he was wanting to make sure any future inquiry was aware.
 
DMD said:
There's also the issue of the judge making an unusual comment for the record that he had no doubt named IRA leaders (McGuiness I think) were there and armed, despite no evidence being put forward to prove it. The suggestion was he was wanting to make sure any future inquiry was aware.
Click to expand...
here is the part on McGuiness who if my memory is holding up was the Commander of the Derry Brigade of the Provos at the time.
3.119 In the course of investigating the activities of the Provisional and Official IRA on the day, we considered at some length allegations that Martin McGuinness, at that time the Adjutant of the Derry Brigade or Command of the Provisional IRA, had engaged in paramilitary activity during the day. In the end we were left in some doubt as to his movements on the day. Before the soldiers of Support Company went into the Bogside he was probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun, and though it is possible that he fired this weapon, there is insufficient evidence to make any finding on this, save that we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMD
Solid_Air 2 said:
here is the part on McGuiness who if my memory is holding up was the Commander of the Derry Brigade of the Provos at the time.
3.119 In the course of investigating the activities of the Provisional and Official IRA on the day, we considered at some length allegations that Martin McGuinness, at that time the Adjutant of the Derry Brigade or Command of the Provisional IRA, had engaged in paramilitary activity during the day. In the end we were left in some doubt as to his movements on the day. Before the soldiers of Support Company went into the Bogside he was probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun, and though it is possible that he fired this weapon, there is insufficient evidence to make any finding on this, save that we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire.
Click to expand...

Reading that and if there was any knowledge he was in the area and may possibly have a weapon ie a sub-machine gun, that would make me very twitchy as a soldier regardless of rank. If i was taking part in a march and i knew one of my fellow civilians had a weapon, that would cause me grave concern of the dangers that the individual was putting the marchers in, especially in a volatile area.

Case dismmised.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Commachio and Saf
brb said:
Reading that and if there was any knowledge he was in the area and may possibly have a weapon ie a sub-machine gun, that would make me very twitchy as a soldier regardless of rank. If i was taking part in a march and i knew one of my fellow civilians had a weapon, that would cause me grave concern of the dangers that the individual was putting the marchers in, especially in a volatile area.

Case dismmised.
Click to expand...
blimey some of you lot should actually try reading the conclusions of the report as there is no evidence that the soldiers did know this however they probably heard the first shooting of the day which was this incident

3.10 At about the same time as Colonel Wilford sent this message, two soldiers of Machine Gun Platoon fired between them five shots from the derelict building on William Street, shown on the map below. Their target was Damien Donaghey (aged 15), who was on the other side of William Street and who was wounded in the thigh. Unknown to the soldiers John Johnston (aged 55), who was a little distance behind Damien Donaghey, was also hit and injured by fragments from this gunfire.
 
Solid_Air 2 said:
blimey some of you lot should actually try reading the conclusions of the report as there is no evidence that the soldiers did know this however they probably heard the first shooting of the day which was this incident
Click to expand...

but is there any evidence they didn't know either <whistle>

Simple really, just go to court and say there was a rumour among the troops the he was in the area with a sub machine gun. Although there was no evidence at the time this to be true, evidence in latter years seems to suggest this might have been true.

Move on, case closed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saf
brb said:
but is there any evidence they didn't know either <whistle>

Simple really, just go to court and say there was a rumour among the troops the he was in the area with a sub machine gun. Although there was no evidence at the time this to be true, evidence in latter years seems to suggest this might have been true.

Move on, case closed.
Click to expand...
well i assume something like that will be defence but there are some flaws in it but then again i wouldn't be surprised if this never goes to court.

PS do think it interesting that everyone focuses on the Provo activity that day when we know some of the earliest shots of the day were by a member of the official IRA and they are the only known shots from Republican forces though it is fairly safe to assume some others did occur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brb
Solid_Air 2 said:
well i assume something like that will be defence but there are some flaws in it but then again i wouldn't be surprised if this never goes to court.

PS do think it interesting that everyone focuses on the Provo activity that day when we know some of the earliest shots of the day were by a member of the official IRA and they are the only known shots from Republican forces though it is fairly safe to assume some others did occur.
Click to expand...
Thought it was a peaceful march?
 
Solid_Air 2 said:
no Civil Rights march by then was peaceful as one side or another would kick off in fact it was illegal to be on the march since permission had been refused but it fact the main march was in fact peaceful .
Click to expand...
This just gets better and better. If the stupid bastards had have listened they wouldn't have absorbed some rounds that day.

After learning this, as brb stated, case dismissed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back