The official all things terrorism thread

Slippery slope though innit. If you say no solider should ever be prosecuted then it opens the door to 'anything goes'.

British military history is littered with Rape, execution and torture used as weapons of war too unfortunately.

That said, I'm not here to criticise the squaddies in NI. I think they were given a ****ty job in a hot political environment. As has been mentioned, in this case it should be the people who gave the orders to shoot that should be in the dock here.

 

Just watched the full video. He even made a playlist.

 

Not in this day and age. If we bring the past up then practically every country have been ****s from time to time.

I think people can differentiate between a soldier firing rounds into a crowd that had IRA in it and brutal rape and murder as you suggested. It's common sense that rape and murder is never 'heat of the battle'

 

I read his whole manifesto. Chilling stuff. What was most chilling is how matter of fact he is, and how plausible his ideology could sound to like-minded people. It actually worried me and I'm not usually concerned with nutters like him.

For a moment also I pretended he was a muslim extremist applying the same bullshit to his followers and I was feeling the same dread. This is how it works.

 

He's clearly had professional training somewhere along the line. He was calmness personified when knocking his targets down.

 

The point I'm making is that the British Army don't go around committing atrocities precisely because we have a code of conduct where war crimes are held to account.

 

There's right wing manifestos like that been going around for decades. Try not to worry about it fella. That's what both sides of this want.

 

It was arguable that destroying the French fleet was a war crime and other incidents in WW2. That's war, though. It depends what war crimes are held to account, that's where we'll probably disagree on what should be a war crime and what shouldn't.

 

Yeah, it's a huge grey area I agree. **** happens in war and it's 100% certain that **** goes down that we never hear about too. But if you remove the accountability of prosecution from individuals for their actions, then it's a slippery slope into a disorganised band of renegades and mercenaries acting on their own motives.

The British Army is respected around the world because of their professionalism and accountability.

 

Question - there's A LOT of reporting that the video should not be shared because it's a form of propaganda from him. (I think they're probably also worried that extremists on the other side will use it as their "team talk"). Should it be shared or not?

I've not watched it tbh. My reason was a personal thing, I can't watch real ppl getting shot. I didn't watch the beheadings either for same reason.

 

I haven't seen it, pretty much for the same reasons as you. I think some of the dangers of having these things available to view include giving **** wits the oxygen of publicity and a false sense of worth, plus it desensitises people so greater acts are required to shock/terrorise the population. There's also respect for the victims and their loved ones to take into account.

 

Great scene

 

I might be wrong but international laws regarding behaviour in war does not agree.
Following orders is not a defence in circumstances where prisoner's of war are mistreated for example. Concentration camp nazi's were not allowed to use the "I was following orders" defence when brought to trial either.

 

Tend to agree with this. And I have no desire to watch it. People getting murdered and crying out for their lives as they die in terror.

There is a counterargument though, that sometimes seeing these things can strengthen the resolve to try and stop these things from happening.

 

I get the counter argument, but I think most normal people would find large numbers shot dead as being abhorrent enough without needing to see all the details. Those most affected are more liable to be fellow ****wits looking for ideas to gain notoriety and 'fame'.

As long as there's due respect paid to the victims, one option would be to describe the actions as being those of a feeble minded inadequate, so they're less likely to be copied by other wannabe 'heroes'

 

I think that is a very fair post. I certainly did not intend to upset Comm last night if i did, aside from a bit of bantz, when he starts to wobble like a womble. I respect our troops, but at the same time i stand by my question of when does a soldier become a terrorist, that does not have to necessarily point at a British soldier but any soldier.

An extreme example would be Nigerian troops, I would argue that in their fight against extremist factions (Boko Haram) they themselves, started to kill and rape the very people they were supposed to be protecting - why does that happen, because all law and order has broken down, so much so, they become the enemy...

Contains violence; https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/17/world/africa/nigeria-military-abuses.html

So now return that back to Ireland, did law and order break down, if a soldier has to open up the barrell of his gun with live ammuinition then that brings terror to the innocent people within the crowd who have allegedly been infiltrated (want of better word) by the IRA - that subsequently resulted in the killing of innocent people. As Comm constantly reminds me 'it's not war!' - then if it's not war, what is it?

So for those that don't read back on threads, i gave the definition on the meaning of terrorism;

terrorism
/ˈtɛrərɪzəm/
noun

1. the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
   
   I belive that definition applies both to Ireland (the IRA) ^^^ and the British Government. Therefore my question even if not deemed applicable in the case of Bloody Sunday remains valid, when does a soldier become a terrorist (see Nigerian troops above).
   
   I reiterate, i'm not suggesting British soldiers were terrorists, I'm asking at what point does he cross to becoming a terrorist. One of the things raised on here by ex army is about following orders. Did they follow orders on that fatal day to open up the barrells of their guns, if not did they become lone wolves through the adversity they were suddenly face with or did they cross the line to the darker side of terror, quote from google;
   
   Bloody Sunday, sometimes called the Bogside Massacre, was an incident on 30 January 1972 in the Bogside area of Derry, Northern Ireland, when British soldiers shot 28 unarmed civilians during a peaceful protest march against internment.

 

This is the point I was making. Without accountability for the armed forces, then you leave them open to committing acts of terror without recompense.

People might say 'that would never happen in the British Army', but it has in the past. And my argument is that it is because the British Army have a high code of conduct, it prevents these things from ever escalating.

If you don't have accountability, then you have soldiers acting own their own motives.

 

That’s not correct. Any ordinary soldier who could be shown to have taken part in, what’s essentially cold blooded murder, was prosecuted.

They’re still prosecuting old Nazi camp guards today

 

An Irish car bomb...

please log in to view this image

 

That’s breakfast