3 Para shooting at picture of Jeremy Corbyn

[Hibrandenburg]

What were they thinking of by posting this on social media? In their heads it's probably akin to having a picture of the queen on your dartboard but I find it hard to believe they were stupid enough to film and post it. Silly laddies.

[Antifa Hibs]

Better them shooting a poster than shooting innocent civilians in the back tbf.

[Jones28]

Idiots, any squaddies able to paint a picture of whether or not this is a reflection of feeling?

[Hibrandenburg]

Idiots, any squaddies able to paint a picture of whether or not this is a reflection of feeling?

Definitely, Corbyn is absolutely hated in the Veteran community. I knew during my time that the U.K. military leaned right of centre, but the hate for Corbyn is a whole new level.

[Bishop Hibee]

A consequence of the constant demonisation of him as a hard left Marxist by the Tory party and right wing press. I don’t vote Labour btw. He’s left wing but we’ve moved so far to the right anything left of centre is vilified now.

[Hibrandenburg]

A consequence of the constant demonisation of him as a hard left Marxist by the Tory party and right wing press. I don’t vote Labour btw. He’s left wing but we’ve moved so far to the right anything left of centre is vilified now.

:agree: This video will only bolster opinion amongst the hard of thinking that it's Open Season on anyone left of Genghis Khan.

[Bristolhibby]

Need to be disciplined. Dippit tw@s.

Their CO needs to get a grip. As likely he will be getting roasted by his superiors.

Love how the Military love the Tories. Because they really are the party working hard to send them to their deaths, tackle homelessness and integrate them into Civvy street.

They are just as delusional as those that think the Empire can be rekindled.
You are professional soldiers. Act professional!

J

[matty_f]

It's a reflection of the very sinister times we're in at the moment.

A government that refuses to listen to the public, that tries to force through legislation, that is party to demonstrably illegal campaign activities, and now a military shooting an image of the leader of the opposition. Wtf is going on??

[Hibbyradge]

The British Army shooting at a picture of a British citizen, never mind the leader of the opposition?

Sure it was only paintballs, but the imagery is shocking.

[ronaldo7]

Better them shooting a poster than shooting innocent civilians in the back tbf.

Spot on.

It seems that the paras, just can't help themselves.

At a time where we're going through the memories of the ballymurphy massacres, these guys should be drummed out of the service.

[TheReg!]

Selective outrage! If it was a picture of Tony Blair, The PM, Trump etc no one would’ve batted an eyelid. The blokes neither support Conservatives or Labour, infact, they don’t give a toss about any political party as they see them all to be pigs in the troughs. The lads are on a tour of Kabul, they routinely fire Sim-unition at posters to sharpen their personal skills and also to have some “Squadie” fun. Everyone I know in the military community is laughing about it.

[TheReg!]

Spot on.

It seems that the paras, just can't help themselves.

At a time where we're going through the memories of the ballymurphy massacres, these guys should be drummed out of the service.

Behave! So let me get this right, you want lads drummed out of the service because of Ballymurphy nearly 50 years ago?? 😂 Aye, ok chief.

[Northernhibee]

Selective outrage! If it was a picture of Tony Blair, The PM, Trump etc no one would’ve batted an eyelid. The blokes neither support Conservatives or Labour, infact, they don’t give a toss about any political party as they see them all to be pigs in the troughs. The lads are on a tour of Kabul, they routinely fire Sim-unition at posters to sharpen their personal skills and also to have some “Squadie” fun. Everyone I know in the military community is laughing about it.

Three years on from the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, days after the plot to murder Labour MP Rosie Cooper, weeks after Corbyn was punched (and the media just made silly egg puns but it was a punch) and Diane Abbott receives more death threats and racist abuse than any other MP combined.

The far right are using terrorist tactics to silence all but the furthest right and what’s worse we are sleepwalking into it. Those responsible should be turfed out along with those who find it hilarious as it emboldens those who would do it for real.

[TheReg!]

Three years on from the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, days after the plot to murder Labour MP Rosie Cooper, weeks after Corbyn was punched (and the media just made silly egg puns but it was a punch) and Diane Abbott receives more death threats and racist abuse than any other MP combined.

The far right are using terrorist tactics to silence all but the furthest right and what’s worse we are sleepwalking into it. Those responsible should be turfed out along with those who find it hilarious as it emboldens those who would do it for real.

What a load of ***** fella. The soldiers fired wax rounds at a ****n poster. How can this be equated to the dribble you Just typed out, I’ll never know. 😂

[Hibbyradge]

Selective outrage! If it was a picture of Tony Blair, The PM, Trump etc no one would’ve batted an eyelid. The blokes neither support Conservatives or Labour, infact, they don’t give a toss about any political party as they see them all to be pigs in the troughs. The lads are on a tour of Kabul, they routinely fire Sim-unition at posters to sharpen their personal skills and also to have some “Squadie” fun. Everyone I know in the military community is laughing about it.

If it had been Blair, it would have been just as wrong.

What do you think the reaction would have been if it had been a picture of Margaret Thatcher?

If it had been Trump, it could have caused a diplomatic incident with the government issuing a grovelling apology.

The outrage isn't because it was Corbyn. Few of the folk commenting here are Corbyn supporters.

[Northernhibee]

What a load of ***** fella. The soldiers fired wax rounds at a ****n poster. How can this be equated to the dribble you Just typed out, I’ll never know. 😂

A pattern of the far right promoting violence towards Labour MPs. The far right look to use the military for their cause - see Stephen Yaxley Lennon posing with them recently.

A full investigation needs to take place and anyone in the military with links to the EDL, Britain First, the BNP or UKIP need to be turfed out. Simple.

[ronaldo7]

Behave! So let me get this right, you want lads drummed out of the service because of Ballymurphy nearly 50 years ago?? 😂 Aye, ok chief.

I thought the army had moved out of the last century, but it seems not, and if you and your, "lads" train of thought is anything to go by, they've not moved on at all.

I wouldn't want to be serving with any of the morons who forgot to engage their brains before doing what they did, and then to post it online shows what absolute dingbats were dealing with here.

They'll be tarred now for the rest of their careers, what's left of it.

[marinello59]

What a load of ***** fella. The soldiers fired wax rounds at a ****n poster. How can this be equated to the dribble you Just typed out, I’ll never know. ��

Remember the old line where a recruit says, ‘I have half a mind to be a Para’ and the recruiting Sgt replies ‘That’s all you need’ ?
These guys have shown themselves to be even dumber than that. At the very least rank should be getting removed.

[DetroitHibs]

I go to the range quite a bit, see some strange targets hanging up. Bin Laden, a cartoon terrorist holding an AK, even zombies. For me a black silhouette or regular target works. No interest in pretending to shoot up someone or something, just work on tight groups.

[Wembley67]

This is one made for the media. Ultimately who REALLY cares, if it was a picture of me or the Hibs team I couldn't give a toss. People get worked up over nothing these days.

[Hibbyradge]

What if it had been a picture of the Queen?

[James310]

What if it had been a picture of the Queen?

That would have been just fine with some on here, even better Theresa May. Would have been a laugh.

[Jim44]

Very little time for Corbyn myself but the image of ( probably) right wing squaddies firing anything at a ‘socialist’ target is at best disturbing. It deserves more concern than passing it off as frivolous banter.

[Wembley67]

Very little time for Corbyn myself but the image of ( probably) right wing squaddies firing anything at a ‘socialist’ target is at best disturbing. It deserves more concern than passing it off as frivolous banter.

Maybe I find it easy to detach myself from these things but I can't see the uproar at all 🤔

[Hibrandenburg]

What if it had been a picture of the Queen?

I think it's more a problem of who did it rather than what they did, that and the fact it went public. The armed forces are there to uphold our democracy and not influence it. Seeing serving soldiers abusing a portrait of the leader of the opposition is disturbing.

[Mr Grieves]

That would have been just fine with some on here, even better Theresa May. Would have been a laugh.

It wasn't Teresa May or the Queen for a reason, that's the whole point.

[Hibbyradge]

That would have been just fine with some on here, even better Theresa May. Would have been a laugh.

Jeremy Corbyn is fine with some on here. "It was just a laugh".

[TheReg!]

I think it's more a problem of who did it rather than what they did, that and the fact it went public. The armed forces are there to uphold our democracy and not influence it. Seeing serving soldiers abusing a portrait of the leader of the opposition is disturbing.

You know as well as I do that soldiers get up to all sort of mischief, it’s an Alpha male dominated environment, I’m actually surprised we don’t see more schenanagins popping up on the media. To put this event into some sort of context, the lads have been out in Afghanistan pretty much confined to a compound for 6 months doing nothing apart from training Afghan soldiers (some who would put a bullet in a soldier’s head if given half a chance) This range is done over and over and over again, sometimes they put lots of different targets up but back to front and have to guess who it is before turning it over, it’s just a bit of fun. The lad who took footage of it will be bounced but nothing will happen to the other guys.
Soldiers and especially Para Reg blokes should never reflect today’s society, we, you need soldiers like this when it **** goes down. You might not like it but it’s a necessity in today’s ****ed up world

[Hibbyradge]

I understand your point, TheReg, and I'm sure you're correct that not much will be done to the guys involved.

But the fact remains, they didn't film themselves shooting at some celebrity or sports star. They thought that it was worth showing the world that they were shooting at the leader of the opposition.

They would not have filmed themselves shooting at the queen.

[Sergio sledge]

I think that it is a daft thing to do, especially in todays climate and especially to video it and share it publicly.

However, I don't get the massive uproar about it. Lets face it, is it really much different from sticking a photo on a dart board and throwing darts at it? I might be alone here, but I've certainly done that for a laugh when I was younger.

[Hibrandenburg]

You know as well as I do that soldiers get up to all sort of mischief, it’s an Alpha male dominated environment, I’m actually surprised we don’t see more schenanagins popping up on the media. To put this event into some sort of context, the lads have been out in Afghanistan pretty much confined to a compound for 6 months doing nothing apart from training Afghan soldiers (some who would put a bullet in a soldier’s head if given half a chance) This range is done over and over and over again, sometimes they put lots of different targets up but back to front and have to guess who it is before turning it over, it’s just a bit of fun. The lad who took footage of it will be bounced but nothing will happen to the other guys.
Soldiers and especially Para Reg blokes should never reflect today’s society, we, you need soldiers like this when it **** goes down. You might not like it but it’s a necessity in today’s ****ed up world

I understand and agree to most of that, however I disagree that the guys doing the shooting will escape unscathed from the incident. It all depends what charge is made on the 252. My guess it will be a disrepute charge ending in a reduction in rank for NCO's or 28 days stripey suntan for private ranks. In today's media savvy military it might even go to formal court marshal just to show the army being seen to do something and then we're looking at a possible 90 days Colchester or discharge. The days of the army protecting their own are numbered, especially those deemed to have harmed it's public image.

[Smartie]

I really don't have a problem with folk shooting at images of anyone or anything.

What happens in private that doesn't do any harm is nobody else's business.

The social media angle is the bit that annoys me. It DOES paint them in a bad light, and I don't know what they were trying to achieve or who they were trying to impress by sharing images, and they could have repercussions for a lot more people than just them.

[Hibbyradge]

I think that it is a daft thing to do, especially in todays climate and especially to video it and share it publicly.

However, I don't get the massive uproar about it. Lets face it, is it really much different from sticking a photo on a dart board and throwing darts at it? I might be alone here, but I've certainly done that for a laugh when I was younger.

Could you imagine any uproar if it was US soldiers shooting at pictures of Trump?

If it was in North Korea with pictures of Kim Jong-un, they'd be executed. I'm not suggesting that's an appropriate response, but it goes some way to show that the soldiers' actions were offensive.

The fact that they thought it was a good idea to put a video of it on social media could be used in mitigation. It helps to prove that they are as thick as mince and didn't realise what their innocent actions could be perceived. :rolleyes:

[Pete]

The blame for this lies squarely at the feet of the MSM and the right wing forces behind them.

The Sun still can’t help themselves while reporting on this: “Corbyn has been a vocal supporter of the IRA and is a known pacifist”.

[TheReg!]

I understand and agree to most of that, however I disagree that the guys doing the shooting will escape unscathed from the incident. It all depends what charge is made on the 252. My guess it will be a disrepute charge ending in a reduction in rank for NCO's or 28 days stripey suntan for private ranks. In today's media savvy military it might even go to formal court marshal just to show the army being seen to do something and then we're looking at a possible 90 days Colchester or discharge. The days of the army protecting their own are numbered, especially those deemed to have harmed it's public image.

The RCO of the range will carry the can, the blokes are just doing as they’re told. Be interesting to find out what the fallout will be.

[CapitalGreen]

Hopefully all those involved lose their jobs. Shouldn't have people that stupid walking around with high powered weapons.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Maybe I find it easy to detach myself from these things but I can't see the uproar at all 🤔

Id go along with this.

[HappyAsHellas]

If they want to punish the perpetrator I expect Jeremy Clarkson to be arrested any minute now.

[Scouse Hibee]

Hopefully all those involved lose their jobs. Shouldn't have people that stupid walking around with high powered weapons.

They’re not stupid when they are doing their duty on the front line though are they? Absolute over reaction.

[CapitalGreen]

They’re not stupid when they are doing their duty on the front line though are they? Absolute over reaction.

They might be, they obviously have questionable decision making. That could be dangerous on the front line.

[Scouse Hibee]

They might be, they obviously have questionable decision making. That could be dangerous on the front line.

Yes highly trained soldiers often make the same decisions on the front line under fire as they would do on a range. Come on seriously, all about opinions I suppose.

[Smartie]

The blame for this lies squarely at the feet of the MSM and the right wing forces behind them.

The Sun still can’t help themselves while reporting on this: “Corbyn has been a vocal supporter of the IRA and is a known pacifist”.

That is possibly the most ludicrous sentence I've ever read - suggesting that a man can simultaneously be both a vocal supporter of a terrorist organisation and a known pacifist.

It's a bit like the old Schrodinger's immigrant one - the immigrant who manages to both take your job and do nothing but live on benefits at the same time.

[CapitalGreen]

Yes highly trained soldiers often make the same decisions on the front line under fire as they would do on a range. Come on seriously, all about opinions I suppose.

What about when they are not under fire? Don't want another Marine A situation.

[Moulin Yarns]

They’re not stupid when they are doing their duty on the front line though are they? Absolute over reaction.

Was Lord Cardigan not stupid?

[Hibbyradge]

That is possibly the most ludicrous sentence I've ever read - suggesting that a man can simultaneously be both a vocal supporter of a terrorist organisation and a known pacifist.

It's a bit like the old Schrodinger's immigrant one - the immigrant who manages to both take your job and do nothing but live on benefits at the same time.

Maybe he's not really a pacifist ...

[Peevemor]

Was Lord Cardigan not stupid?

I don't think he buttoned up the back...

[Hibbyradge]

I don't think he buttoned up the back...

Zip it with the puns, you!

[Scouse Hibee]

Was Lord Cardigan not stupid?

Never heard of him.

[Moulin Yarns]

Never heard of him.

You are kidding, one of the major military disasters in British history?

Google him.

25 October 1854 is the date

[Scouse Hibee]

You are kidding, one of the major military disasters in British history?

Google him.

25 October 1854 is the date

No I’m not kidding, nor am I going to google him as it has absolutely no relevance to what I said. Using a reference from 1854 as a comparasion to my opinion of a situation in 2019 is ludicrous 😂

[Allant1981]

Never heard of him.

Charge of the light brigade

[Moulin Yarns]

No I’m not kidding, nor am I going to google him as it has absolutely no relevance to what I said. Using a reference from 1854 as a comparasion to my opinion of a situation in 2019 is ludicrous 😂

You suggested the soldiers would not do anything as stupid on the front line, all I'm saying is Lord Cardigan did, and he met his Waterloo in 1854

[Hibbyradge]

No I’m not kidding, nor am I going to google him as it has absolutely no relevance to what I said. Using a reference from 1854 as a comparasion to my opinion of a situation in 2019 is ludicrous 😂

I agree.

History has nothing to teach us. 👍

[Smartie]

Maybe he's not really a pacifist ...

And maybe he's not actually an IRA sympathiser?

[Hibbyradge]

And maybe he's not actually an IRA sympathiser?

Maybe he's not.

He didn't do very much, if anything, to prove that he opposed them though.

Here's an ambiguous fact check from Channel 4.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-on-northern-ireland

[Dalianwanda]

Maybe I find it easy to detach myself from these things but I can't see the uproar at all 🤔

So you don’t think there’s anyway some nutter could be influenced by this?

[ronaldo7]

No I’m not kidding, nor am I going to google him as it has absolutely no relevance to what I said. Using a reference from 1854 as a comparasion to my opinion of a situation in 2019 is ludicrous 😂

I suppose those MP's in Parliament thought that as well, until the Speaker used a rule from 1604 to keep them on the straight and narrow.

[Moulin Yarns]

I suppose those MP's in Parliament thought that as well, until the Speaker used a rule from 1604 to keep them on the straight and narrow.

See history, it's all in the past. :wink:

[TheReg!]

What about when they are not under fire? Don't want another Marine A situation.

With all due respect, unless you’ve walked a mile in a soldier’s boot then you’ll never understand or grasp what happens on a battlefield. Marine A was a complete idiot, not for shooting they guy but videoing it! **** happens when you’ve been blown up and shot at for months on end, that is just a matter of fact and a cold hard truth!

[CapitalGreen]

With all due respect, unless you’ve walked a mile in a soldier’s boot then you’ll never understand or grasp what happens on a battlefield. Marine A was a complete idiot, not for shooting they guy but videoing it! **** happens when you’ve been blown up and shot at for months on end, that is just a matter of fact and a cold hard truth!

No, he was a complete idiot for both. Just like these soon to be jobless soldiers are idiots for both shooting a picture of a politician and for filming it.

[Scouse Hibee]

I suppose those MP's in Parliament thought that as well, until the Speaker used a rule from 1604 to keep them on the straight and narrow.

Using a rule is a completely different thing and also not relevant to my post.

[TheReg!]

No, he was a complete idiot for both. Just like these soon to be jobless soldiers are idiots for both shooting a picture of a politician and for filming it.

Hahaha, I can guarantee no one will lose their job for shooting at a poster fella. LOL

[stoneyburn hibs]

I suppose that the para's have learned something. Employed by the Tories at the job centre.....

[Dalianwanda]

Hahaha, I can guarantee no one will lose their job for shooting at a poster fella. LOL

There’s the thing, these guys are trained..obviously part of that is restraint..idiots on the street aren’t. Can’t understand how you can’t see this having the potential to let some bam think the army are giving the thumbs up to something more serious.

[Hibrandenburg]

Hahaha, I can guarantee no one will lose their job for shooting at a poster fella. LOL

I'm not too sure about that.

https://youtu.be/mxLBLI1i-pM

[G B Young]

Corbyn has more serious issues closer to home to worry about:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/07/labour-defends-antisemitism-response-after-documents-leak

[TheReg!]

I'm not too sure about that.

https://youtu.be/mxLBLI1i-pM

Did you see the guys actually shoot at the Corbyn picture? No, neither did I. Another firing detail could have done it, who knows? That video tells us nothing of fact apart from the lad who recorded it. I’m sure the blokes will have their side to the story well squared away. As I said perhaps the RCO might get a slice but I even doubt that.

[ronaldo7]

Did you see the guys actually shoot at the Corbyn picture? No, neither did I. Another firing detail could have done it, who knows? That video tells us nothing of fact apart from the lad who recorded it. I’m sure the blokes will have their side to the story well squared away. As I said perhaps the RCO might get a slice but I even doubt that.

It's what they do isn't it. I'm sure the 6 up for alleged sexual assault will do the same.

[TheReg!]

It's what they do isn't it. I'm sure the 6 up for alleged sexual assault will do the same.

Why don’t you just come out and say I hate the forces fella?
Some ultimate keyboard warriors on the Holy Ground.

[Dalianwanda]

Why don’t you just come out and say I hate the forces fella?
Some ultimate keyboard warriors on the Holy Ground.

Why would anyone hate the forces? Some of he individuals in the forces might be dicks but thats the same with any group in society. Keyboard warriors? Just because folk have a different way of seeing this from you? Bit tetchy are you not.

[CapitalGreen]

Why don’t you just come out and say I hate the forces fella?
Some ultimate keyboard warriors on the Holy Ground.

This what you meant by ultimate keyboard warrior fella?

https://i1.wp.com/circadeum.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/keyboardwarrior.png

[Hibrandenburg]

Did you see the guys actually shoot at the Corbyn picture? No, neither did I. Another firing detail could have done it, who knows? That video tells us nothing of fact apart from the lad who recorded it. I’m sure the blokes will have their side to the story well squared away. As I said perhaps the RCO might get a slice but I even doubt that.

Did you see the video I tried to link? Didn't work on my phone but you can copy and paste.

[Fife-Hibee]

When you sign up for the military, you're signing up to be brainwashed into a far right British nationalistic ideology. It's forced upon you all day every day while you serve, questioning it results in severe punishment. It's proper style nazism.

and just to be clear, I hate the forces.

[Tornadoes70]

When you sign up for the military, you're signing up to be brainwashed into a far right British nationalistic ideology. It's forced upon you all day every day while you serve, questioning it results in severe punishment. It's proper style nazism.

and just to be clear, I hate the forces.

:rolleyes:

Seriously disgusted at this post.

I know folk who've served in the armed forces and who've followed their beloved HIbernian FC anywhere and everywhere over many many years.

They might have thought twice knowing there were folk like you sitting beside them at ER.

They were proud Scots as well as being British.

[marinello59]

When you sign up for the military, you're signing up to be brainwashed into a far right British nationalistic ideology. It's forced upon you all day every day while you serve, questioning it results in severe punishment. It's proper style nazism.

and just to be clear, I hate the forces.

So how long did you serve for?

[DaveF]

When you sign up for the military, you're signing up to be brainwashed into a far right British nationalistic ideology. It's forced upon you all day every day while you serve, questioning it results in severe punishment. It's proper style nazism.

and just to be clear, I hate the forces.

And here was me thinking that my nephew joined the navy (making his gran extremely proud in the process) which has allowed him to buy a flat and get some excellent training which will help him when he leaves.

But I'll keep an eye out for any Hitler style behaviour thanks to your warning.

[Scouse Hibee]

When you sign up for the military, you're signing up to be brainwashed into a far right British nationalistic ideology. It's forced upon you all day every day while you serve, questioning it results in severe punishment. It's proper style nazism.

and just to be clear, I hate the forces.

What a crock of ****.

[ronaldo7]

Why don’t you just come out and say I hate the forces fella?
Some ultimate keyboard warriors on the Holy Ground.

HMS Ganges, HMS Mercury, HMS Mohawk, HMS Ajax, FOSNI, HMS Revenge(SSBN), HMNB Faslane, says different, "fella".

Signed, He who served.

[Fife-Hibee]

I make no apologies for my view and couldn't care less who it upsets or angers.

All this "proud" bollocks is part of the problem. Feed people a false sense of patriotism and they'll do and believe whatever you want them to. The armed forces isn't a solution to the worlds problems, it's very much part of the problem.

The military don't want peace. Because with peace, they have no reason to exist. They need to ensure that there is always an enemy, always some sort of target. Even if it has to be fabricated.

I know people don't like the truth, but that's just tough. It is what it is.

[Scouse Hibee]

I make no apologies for my view and couldn't care less who it upsets or angers.

All this "proud" bollocks is part of the problem. Feed people a false sense of patriotism and they'll do and believe whatever you want them to. The armed forces isn't a solution to the worlds problems, it's very much part of the problem.

The military don't want peace. Because with peace, they have no reason to exist. They need to ensure that there is always an enemy, always some sort of target. Even if it has to be fabricated.

I know people don't like the truth, but that's just tough. It is what it is.

Another crock of **** with no truth in it, any more?

[Fife-Hibee]

Another crock of **** with no truth in it, any more?

Prove me wrong then. Show me what the armed forced have been doing since their inception to bring peace and harmony to the world. This should be a good laugh.

[marinello59]

When you sign up for the military, you're signing up to be brainwashed into a far right British nationalistic ideology. It's forced upon you all day every day while you serve, questioning it results in severe punishment. It's proper style nazism.

and just to be clear, I hate the forces.

So what form does this political brainwashing take. Do you have examples of the serious punishments that serving military personnel have received for resisting this political indoctrination.
If you can’t, please just say so instead of doing your normal disappearing trick. It’s about time you actually backed up some of your rants with fact.

[Pretty Boy]

I make no apologies for my view and couldn't care less who it upsets or angers.

All this "proud" bollocks is part of the problem. Feed people a false sense of patriotism and they'll do and believe whatever you want them to. The armed forces isn't a solution to the worlds problems, it's very much part of the problem.

The military don't want peace. Because with peace, they have no reason to exist. They need to ensure that there is always an enemy, always some sort of target. Even if it has to be fabricated.

I know people don't like the truth, but that's just tough. It is what it is.

:faf: The absolute ****ing irony of this sentence coming from you almost defies belief. Almost.

[Fife-Hibee]

So what form does this political brainwashing take. Do you have examples of the serious punishments that serving military personnel have received for resisting this political indoctrination.
If you can’t, please just say so instead of doing your normal disappearing trick. It’s about time you actually backed up some of your rants with fact.

How about the example of shooting down images of left wing political figures for a start? You think this sort of thing is just some unique one off? It's a regular training exercise within the military. They absolutely despise the left. Those who sign up are forced to swear unquestioning loyalty to the unelected monarch. I've seen good level headed people go in and come out as hard right "rule britannia" types. If you're denying this happens, then you either know it's true but don't want to admit it for the purpose of disagreeing with anything I say on here, or you live in a very different world.

[ronaldo7]

I make no apologies for my view and couldn't care less who it upsets or angers.

All this "proud" bollocks is part of the problem. Feed people a false sense of patriotism and they'll do and believe whatever you want them to. The armed forces isn't a solution to the worlds problems, it's very much part of the problem.

The military don't want peace. Because with peace, they have no reason to exist. They need to ensure that there is always an enemy, always some sort of target. Even if it has to be fabricated.

I know people don't like the truth, but that's just tough. It is what it is.

I get what you're saying. I've had numerous invites from ex ship mates to get back together to "celebrate", some ex battle from a bygone era. Some folk carry on as if they've not left the forces, but most of us just get on and live life, without feeling the need to go back.

Been there, done that, next.

This thread shows up those who've moved on from the forces, and those who still harbour hankerings of their past and who'll do anything to support their "comrades", even if they're doing wrong.

I suppose it depends on your personal standards, and as I've said on here, I wouldn't want to be serving with any of those dip sticks who shot at the Corbyn poster, and certainly not those alleged to have sexually assaulted the woman, if proven.

[Fife-Hibee]

:faf: The absolute ****ing irony of this sentence coming from you almost defies belief. Almost.

You think I base any of my views on patriotism? I despise patriotism and don't recall ever showing any support towards it.

[marinello59]

How about the example of shooting down images of left wing political figures for a start? You think this sort of thing is just some unique one off? It's a regular training exercise within the military. They absolutely despise the left. Those who sign up are forced to swear unquestioning loyalty to the unelected monarch. I've seen good level headed people go in and come out as hard right "rule britannia" types. If you're denying this happens, then you either know it's true but don't want to admit it for the purpose of disagreeing with anything I say on here, or you live in a very different world.

Shooting at targets with an image of Corbyn on was despicable and monumentally stupid behaviour.
Scouts and Guides are forced to swear an path of allegiance to God and the Queen as well. I can’t say I like that but I’m not aware of that leading them down the path to Nazism. :greengrin
That’s far removed from daily political indoctrination which is what you have said is happening. So provide specific examples of how that works. And please provide examples of the severe punishments received by those who resist. It’s a simple enough request, just back up your post with facts. That’s not an unreasonable request is it?
There are a lot of things the British Army have done over the years that they still need to be held to account for but let’s keep it factual shall we?

[Fife-Hibee]

Shooting at targets with an image of Corbyn on was despicable and monumentally stupid behaviour.
Scouts and Guides are forced to swear an path of allegiance to God and the Queen as well. I can’t say I like that but I’m not aware of that leading them down the path to Nazism. :greengrin
That’s far removed from daily political indoctrination which is what you have said is happening. So provide specific examples of how that works. And please provide examples of the severe punishments received by those who resist. It’s a simple enough request, just back up your post with facts. That’s not an unreasonable request is it?
There are a lot of things the British Army have done over the years that they still need to be held to account for but let’s keep it factual shall we?

You're asking for facts. But words over a message board won't pass as fact, unless you want them to pass as fact. If you don't believe what i'm telling you to be the case, then nothing more I add to the matter is going to convince you either. I deal with enough military and ex-military nutters both online and in person every week to know that they all share the same political ideologies and blind dedication to the UK state.

My facts are my own personal experiences which aren't going to pass as fact for you, if you don't personally experience them yourself.

[marinello59]

You're asking for facts. But words over a message board won't pass as fact, unless you want them to pass as fact. If you don't believe what i'm telling you to be the case, then nothing more I add to the matter is going to convince you either. I deal with enough military and ex-military nutters both online and in person every week to know that they all share the same political ideologies and blind dedication to the UK state.

My facts are my own personal experiences which aren't going to pass as fact for you, if you don't personally experience them yourself.

I get it’s your strongly held opinion. I’ll be honest enough to admit I rarely encounter any military and ex military nutters at all, let alone on a daily basis. What I would say is that challenging the actions of sections of the military is likely to be much more effective if that is based on cold hard facts. Over egging things only helps them throw up a denser smokescreen.

[Hibrandenburg]

You're asking for facts. But words over a message board won't pass as fact, unless you want them to pass as fact. If you don't believe what i'm telling you to be the case, then nothing more I add to the matter is going to convince you either. I deal with enough military and ex-military nutters both online and in person every week to know that they all share the same political ideologies and blind dedication to the UK state.

My facts are my own personal experiences which aren't going to pass as fact for you, if you don't personally experience them yourself.

Yep, you've described me to a T. :rolleyes:

[Fife-Hibee]

Yep, you've described me to a T. :rolleyes:

Ok, i'm generalizing when I say "all". What I should really say is the vast vast vast majority. Propaganda is a dangerous weapon. No more so than the levels of propaganda used in military forces around the world. The British military being no exception to this.

[Scouse Hibee]

Prove me wrong then. Show me what the armed forced have been doing since their inception to bring peace and harmony to the world. This should be a good laugh.

What are you slavering on about? Have you forgotten about the forces supporting peacekeeping efforts and helping in providing humanitarian aid?

[McD]

You're asking for facts. But words over a message board won't pass as fact, unless you want them to pass as fact. If you don't believe what i'm telling you to be the case, then nothing more I add to the matter is going to convince you either. I deal with enough military and ex-military nutters both online and in person every week to know that they all share the same political ideologies and blind dedication to the UK state.

My facts are my own personal experiences which aren't going to pass as fact for you, if you don't personally experience them yourself.


They “all” share? Yet you will have read R7’s post clearly stating the opposite. So you are generalising. Not to mention, trolling. And since you don’t care who you upset or anger, you’ll be fine with other people saying things that may do the same for you.

[Fife-Hibee]

What are you slavering on about? Have you forgotten about the forces supporting peacekeeping efforts and helping in providing humanitarian aid?

They provide peacekeeping efforts and humanitarian aid to their allies. But don't you dare be a country with political leanings that they don't like. Or you'll suffer their wrath.

[Fife-Hibee]

They “all” share? Yet you will have read R7’s post clearly stating the opposite. So you are generalising. Not to mention, trolling. And since you don’t care who you upset or anger, you’ll be fine with other people saying things that may do the same for you.

Where have they stated the opposite? They seem to understand where i'm coming from with this, even if you don't.

[Scouse Hibee]

They provide peacekeeping efforts and humanitarian aid to their allies. But don't you dare be a country with political leanings that they don't like. Or you'll suffer their wrath.

I see you like to flex your agenda which ever way you like to dismiss credible answers to your statements. Carry on it’s quite amusing.

[McD]

Where have they stated the opposite? They seem to understand where i'm coming from with this, even if you don't.


R7 said

“I wouldn't want to be serving with any of those dip sticks who shot at the Corbyn poster”

I'd say that’s very clear that they’re stating the opposite of what you described.

Perhaps you don’t understand this, even if the rest of us do

[Fife-Hibee]

I see you like to flex your agenda which ever way you like to dismiss credible answers to your statements. Carry on it’s quite amusing.

My only "agenda" is to shed light on the truth that so many are still incredibly arrogant to. Believe it or not. Serving in the military doesn't make somebody a hero. They're not "protecting our country" a line that is still so commonly swallowed, it's sickening. Their targets are generally weak third world nations who are simply trying to improve themselves and build their own protections. Then we turn up and tell them how to do things. Which governments to support and which laws they must follow, all for our own selfish benefit.

[Scouse Hibee]

My only "agenda" is to shed light on the truth that so many are still incredibly arrogant to. Believe it or not. Serving in the military doesn't make somebody a hero. They're not "protecting our country" a line that is still so commonly swallowed, it's sickening. Their targets are generally weak third world nations who are simply trying to improve themselves and build their own protections. Then we turn up and tell them how to do things. Which governments to support and which laws they must follow, all for our own selfish benefit.

So you don’t agree then that our armed forces act as a deterrent and protect our country?

[Fife-Hibee]

So you don’t agree then that our armed forces act as a deterrent and protect our country?

The 2 aren't synonyms. Keeping weak countries weak because they may one day have the potential to be more powerful countries than our own, isn't the same as protecting our country against those who are a genuine threat to us right now.

Obviously they want you to believe that every country they invade is a threat to us right now. But how can they be, when we prevent them from ever having the capabilities to even be a threat in the first place?

There is no justification to invade countries as a deterrent measure. Because we're causing untold suffering to the people living in these countries, before they even have the opportunity to pose any kind of threat.

If we applied the same principle to our laws here, we would all be rotting away in jail as a deterrent to commiting any crimes.

[Scouse Hibee]

The 2 aren't synonyms. Keeping weak countries weak because they may one day have the potential to be more powerful countries than our own, isn't the same as protecting our country against those who are a genuine threat to us right now.

Obviously they want you to believe that every country they invade is a threat to us right now. But how can they be, when we prevent them from ever having the capabilities to even be a threat in the first place?

There is no justification to invade countries as a deterrent measure. Because we're causing untold suffering to the people living in these countries, before they even have the opportunity to pose any kind of threat.

If we applied the same principle to our laws here, we would all be rotting away in jail as a deterrent to commiting any crimes.

I am not talking about invading countries, I asked you if you believe that this country having armed forces acts as a deterrent to others. In other words it prevents us being attacked, please answer my question.

[The Pointer]

When you sign up for the military, you're signing up to be brainwashed into a far right British nationalistic ideology. It's forced upon you all day every day while you serve, questioning it results in severe punishment. It's proper style nazism.

and just to be clear, I hate the forces.

I wasn't going to get into this but that is probably the most unbelievable comment I've ever seen on-line.

I respect your right to your opinion but I wonder if you've had a run in with a bunch of squaddies at some point in your life. You are seriously deluded.

[One Day Soon]

Not for the first time a completely crazy thread prompts me to wonder whether anyone has ever seen Home Team and Fife-Hibee in the same room.

[TheReg!]

HMS Ganges, HMS Mercury, HMS Mohawk, HMS Ajax, FOSNI, HMS Revenge(SSBN), HMNB Faslane, says different, "fella".

Signed, He who served.

Fair enough, I apologise and sorry that I came over as a dick. My back was up due to the young lads getting thrown under a bus, for what was a bit of, what I’d call fun on a ****n boring 6 month tour. If anyone is to blame it’s the lad who posted it online. We’ve all done stupid things back in our younger years that we wouldn’t do now, the only difference is there wasn’t social media or camera phones back when we ****ed up.

[Fife-Hibee]

I am not talking about invading countries, I asked you if you believe that this country having armed forces acts as a deterrent to others. In other words it prevents us being attacked, please answer my question.

It's an impossible question to answer, because a situation where we don't have armed forces is purely hypothetical. Likewise, I could ask if we would have nearly as many enemies, or any enemies at all if we didn't have an armed forces to stick their oar into other countries affairs. The same question could be asked regarding nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Only a small amount of countries in the world have them, every other country manages just fine without them.


I wasn't going to get into this but that is probably the most unbelievable comment I've ever seen on-line.

I respect your right to your opinion but I wonder if you've had a run in with a bunch of squaddies at some point in your life. You are seriously deluded.

Unbelievable from your perspective. Just as "fighting for peace" and "war on terrorism" are unbelievable from mines.
Not at some point, quite regularly and none of them are of sound mind.


Not for the first time a completely crazy thread prompts me to wonder whether anyone has ever seen Home Team and Fife-Hibee in the same room.

What an utterly bizarre statement.

[Scouse Hibee]

It's an impossible question to answer, because a situation where we don't have armed forces is purely hypothetical. Likewise, I could ask if we would have nearly as many enemies, or any enemies at all if we didn't have an armed forces to stick their oar into other countries affairs. The same question could be asked regarding nuclear weapons as a deterrent. Only a small amount of countries in the world have them, every other country manages just fine without them.



Unbelievable from your perspective. Just as "fighting for peace" and "war on terrorism" are unbelievable from mines.
Not at some point, quite regularly and none of them are of sound mind.


What an utterly bizarre statement.

It’s not an impossible question to answer, I never asked you about a hypothetical situation, I asked you about a real situation. We have armed forces, do you think they act as a deterrent yes or no?

[Fife-Hibee]

It’s not an impossible question to answer, I never asked you about a hypothetical situation, I asked you about a real situation. We have armed forces, do you think they act as a deterrent yes or no?

I think they act as a deterrent to enemies they make, yes. Would we need them as a deterrent if they weren't there to make enemies in the first place? Probably not.

[marinello59]

I think they act as a deterrent to enemies they make, yes. Would we need them as a deterrent if they weren't there to make enemies in the first place? Probably not.

Do you think an Independent Scotland should have an Army, Navy and Air Force?

[Fife-Hibee]

Do you think an Independent Scotland should have an Army, Navy and Air Force?

An independent Scotland will have an Army, Navy and Air Force. However, it's influence over international affairs would be greatly limited and this would be a good thing in my opinion.

[Hibbyradge]

An independent Scotland will have an Army, Navy and Air Force. However, it's influence over international affairs would be greatly limited and this would be a good thing in my opinion.

Why would Scotland need armed forces? :confused:

[marinello59]

An independent Scotland will have an Army, Navy and Air Force. However, it's influence over international affairs would be greatly limited and this would be a good thing in my opinion.

So do you think the British Army decides foreign policy or Westminster?

[hibsbollah]

So do you think the British Army decides foreign policy or Westminster?

With the honourable exception of Ed Milibands Syria vote,its been a long time since Westminster had any say in UK foreign policy. Even members of the cabinet don't normally get into that room.

[Fife-Hibee]

Why would Scotland need armed forces? :confused:

Scotland shouldn't need armed forces. But having been tied down to British foreign policy for so long, the enemies that have been made through British military interventions will still view Scotland as an enemy. It's a real shame, but that's the situation we find ourselves in right now. If we hadn't been involved in the first place, then it wouldn't be necessary.

[marinello59]

With the honourable exception of Ed Milibands Syria vote,its been a long time since Westminster had any say in UK foreign policy. Even members of the cabinet don't normally get into that room.

Geez you get away with nowt here. :greengrin
You know what I meant. Do our elected representatives decide foreign policy or the military?

[Fife-Hibee]

Geez you get away with nowt here. :greengrin
You know what I meant. Do our elected representatives decide foreign policy or the military?

The military draft the policy, parliament decides whether to approve it or not.

[hibsbollah]

Geez you get away with nowt here. :greengrin
You know what I meant. Do our elected representatives decide foreign policy or the military?

:greengrin
I couldn't resist it.
But of course the correct answer to your question is whoever's In the White House.

[marinello59]

The military draft the policy, parliament decides whether to approve it or not.

Erm... I’m not so sure that’s true. Unless, for example, you are suggesting the military drove the Iraq war rather than Blair.

[Mibbes Aye]

Scotland shouldn't need armed forces. But having been tied down to British foreign policy for so long, the enemies that have been made through British military interventions will still view Scotland as an enemy. It's a real shame, but that's the situation we find ourselves in right now. If we hadn't been involved in the first place, then it wouldn't be necessary.

I'm not sure that makes sense.

Going with your point, Scotland is hardly at military threat from ISIS, Al-Qaeda affiliates, or for the sake of argument, Argentina. That's nonsensical.

While there may be a terrorist threat from the first couple mentioned above, it is a well-established principle that one does not combat terrorism through military force but through a combination of applying the rule of law and treating it as a criminal enterprise within a transparent but robust criminal justice system, and through working on hearts and minds amongst those engaged or minded to support terrorist activity.

It's not as if an independent Scotland would be unilaterally intervening on a military basis, halfway across the globe, but that's what you seem to be suggesting, which frankly contradicts the points you have been trying to make until now.

[Fife-Hibee]

I'm not sure that makes sense.

Going with your point, Scotland is hardly at military threat from ISIS, Al-Qaeda affiliates, or for the sake of argument, Argentina. That's nonsensical.

While there may be a terrorist threat from the first couple mentioned above, it is a well-established principle that one does not combat terrorism through military force but through a combination of applying the rule of law and treating it as a criminal enterprise within a transparent but robust criminal justice system, and through working on hearts and minds amongst those engaged or minded to support terrorist activity.

It's not as if an independent Scotland would be unilaterally intervening on a military basis, halfway across the globe, but that's what you seem to be suggesting, which frankly contradicts the points you have been trying to make until now.

I don't think Scotland would be intervening halfway across the globe at all. The purpose of the military in Scotland would be purely for defence. As long as we continue to have a strong link with British foreign affairs even if only historically, we're still at risk.

[Fife-Hibee]

Erm... I’m not so sure that’s true. Unless, for example, you are suggesting the military drove the Iraq war rather than Blair.

Of course the military drove the Iraq war. They feed the politicans the intelligence. They make the case as to why they believe its the correct course of action, parliament then decides whether it gets the go ahead and the finanical backing. The political leaders take the fall when things go pear shaped while the military remains unscathed. Even if it's the military's own faulty intelligence that ultimately leads to problems in the first place.

[marinello59]

Of course the military drove the Iraq war. They feed the politicans the intelligence. They make the case as to why they believe its the correct course of action, parliament then decides whether it gets the go ahead and the finanical backing. The political leaders take the fall when things go pear shaped while the military remains unscathed. Even if it's the military's own faulty intelligence that ultimately leads to problems in the first place.

So Tony Blair took the fall for the military Junta who decide foreign policy? He’s off the hook then, I was blaming him.

[Mibbes Aye]

Of course the military drove the Iraq war. They feed the politicans the intelligence. They make the case as to why they believe its the correct course of action, parliament then decides whether it gets the go ahead and the finanical backing. The political leaders take the fall when things go pear shaped while the military remains unscathed. Even if it's the military's own faulty intelligence that ultimately leads to problems in the first place.

That is nonsense.

What never ceases to amuse me is how different, even opposing political perspectives ignore the facts because I guess it is an inconvenient truth.

Long before Iraq, Blair had made clear his dogma - that liberal democracies had a moral duty and imperative to intervene, including militarily, where there was evidence of human rights abuses. This potentially included effecting regime change.

Whether one agreed with him or not, he spelled it out in a major policy speech in Chicago in the late 90s and then ordered military intervention in just that spirit in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, before Afghanistan and Iraq came along.

It’s an inconvenient truth for many because they like a simplistic argument - Blair as lapdog to the generals or Blair as lapdog to G W Bush.

Neither are true though. Blair was talking about boots on the ground with all the inherent risk, long before 9/11, long before Bush was elected and indeed at a time when Gore was favourite for the Presidency.

It is an inconvenient truth usually ignored by the ragtag lobby who still hanker after a trial in The Hague for Blair. I now see it is an inconvenient truth for you as well.

[Fife-Hibee]

So Tony Blair took the fall for the military Junta who decide foreign policy? He’s off the hook then, I was blaming him.

The military put forward the proposals. It's up to political leaders and MPs whether to give those proposals approval or not. Tony Blair took the bulk of the blame for being the man in charge while parliament approved the proposals that were backed up with faulty intelligence. The people responsible for putting the proposals forward don't get landed with any blame, because you never see or hear from them. They keep out of the public eye. Tony Blair was the face that was everywhere, so it was always going to fall on him in the end.

Did you honestly think Tony Blair planned the invasion himself?

[Mibbes Aye]

I don't think Scotland would be intervening halfway across the globe at all. The purpose of the military in Scotland would be purely for defence. As long as we continue to have a strong link with British foreign affairs even if only historically, we're still at risk.

Defence from whom?

Can you name one state we have ‘wronged’ who would send battalions to land on the Galloway coast or maybe the Knoydart peninsula? Just one, go on, please.

Any threat as a consequence of being part of the UK would be a civil matter and any involvement of the armed forces would be solely as support for civilian management.

[Fife-Hibee]

That is nonsense.

What never ceases to amuse me is how different, even opposing political perspectives ignore the facts because I guess it is an inconvenient truth.

Long before Iraq, Blair had made clear his dogma - that liberal democracies had a moral duty and imperative to intervene, including militarily, where there was evidence of human rights abuses. This potentially included effecting regime change.

Whether one agreed with him or not, he spelled it out in a major policy speech in Chicago in the late 90s and then ordered military intervention in just that spirit in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, before Afghanistan and Iraq came along.

It’s an inconvenient truth for many because they like a simplistic argument - Blair as lapdog to the generals or Blair as lapdog to G W Bush.

Neither are true though. Blair was talking about boots on the ground with all the inherent risk, long before 9/11, long before Bush was elected and indeed at a time when Gore was favourite for the Presidency.

It is an inconvenient truth usually ignored by the ragtag lobby who still hanker after a trial in The Hague for Blair. I now see it is an inconvenient truth for you as well.

I'm well aware of what Tony Blairs motives were. But if you honestly believe for one moment that one man enforced his will on parliament and then the military leaders on top of that, then I would suggest that you are the one falling for simplicity here.

The military doesn't just go ahead and enact any orders from the PM. The military holds the inteligence. They tell the politicians what they feel is the necessary course of action and what is in the best interests of national security. They're privy to knowledge that even the primeminister doesn't gain access to.

What Tony Blair personally desired was irrelevant.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm well aware of what Tony Blairs motives were. But if you honestly believe for one moment that one man enforced his will on parliament and then the military leaders on top of that, then I would suggest that you are the one falling for simplicity here.

The military doesn't just go ahead and enact any orders from the PM. The military holds the inteligence. They tell the politicians what they feel is the necessary course of action and what is in the best interests of national security. They're privy to knowledge that even the primeminister doesn't gain access to.

What Tony Blair personally desired was irrelevant.

So I state some facts.

And you state some of your suppositions. But without anything really credible to back it up.

It feels like I’m shooting fish in a barrel, except you would probably tell me that I was only shooting the fish because the ‘military’ told me they had intelligence that I needed to shoot the fish.

I’m quite happy to respect your views if they are genuinely held, but I don’t see the point of you expounding them when it is just empty rhetoric with nothing of substance to back it up?

[Fife-Hibee]

Defence from whom?

Can you name one state we have ‘wronged’ who would send battalions to land on the Galloway coast or maybe the Knoydart peninsula? Just one, go on, please.

Any threat as a consequence of being part of the UK would be a civil matter and any involvement of the armed forces would be solely as support for civilian management.

I'm not saying Scotland has directly 'wronged' anyone. But actions taken by the British military playing it's hand in over throwing regimes and giving organizations like ISIS and other terrorist groups the opportunity to seize control in countries such as Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan... etc, hasn't exactly put us on good terms with the people living there.

To say that all matters would be dealt with in a civil way is extremely naive. I would love for that to be true. But it's nowhere close to the stark reality of what we're dealing with.

[Fife-Hibee]

So I state some facts.

And you state some of your suppositions. But without anything really credible to back it up.

It feels like I’m shooting fish in a barrel, except you would probably tell me that I was only shooting the fish because the ‘military’ told me they had intelligence that I needed to shoot the fish.

I’m quite happy to respect your views if they are genuinely held, but I don’t see the point of you expounding them when it is just empty rhetoric with nothing of substance to back it up?

What exactly do I need to "back up" here? I'm simply explaining the underlining process, which I thought was already common knowledge.

What you're describing is what you see on the surface. Speeches and policy announcements. But what goes on behind all of that is quite different. It's a primeministers job to convey leadership and control when making public statements. But they don't have nearly as much control behind the scenes as they convey to the general public.

When you see the PM on TV sounding all enthusiastic about a new policy. It doesn't necessarily mean that they personally backed that policy themselves. But they have to make it look like they did, in order to maintain the illusion that they're completely in charge and in control, otherwise they lose confidence in the public very quickly.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm not saying Scotland has directly 'wronged' anyone. But actions taken by the British military playing it's hand in over throwing regimes and giving organizations like ISIS and other terrorist groups the opportunity to seize control in countries such as Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan... etc, hasn't exactly put us on good terms with the people living there.

To say that all matters would be dealt with in a civil way is extremely naive. I would love for that to be true. But it's nowhere close to the stark reality of what we're dealing with.

So how would it be dealt with militarily?

Explain your position.

Do we need a Scottish Defence Force to protect the East Neuk from amphibious landings by ISIS?

That seems to be what you are suggesting...

[Mibbes Aye]

What exactly do I need to "back up" here? I'm simply explaining the underlining process, which I thought was already common knowledge.

What you're describing is what you see on the surface. Speeches and policy announcements. But what goes on behind all of that is quite different. It's a primeministers job to convey leadership and control when making public statements. But they don't have nearly as much control behind the scenes as they convey to the general public.

When you see the PM on TV sounding all enthusiastic about a new policy. It doesn't necessarily mean that they personally backed that policy themselves. But they have to make it look like they did, in order to maintain the illusion that they're completely in charge and in control, otherwise they lose confidence in the public very quickly.

Aye, okay.

So yet again, you float your suppositions but without a shred of objective evidence to back them up, in the face of objective evidence that refutes them.

You are a wheez, I’ll give you that.

[marinello59]

The military put forward the proposals. It's up to political leaders and MPs whether to give those proposals approval or not. Tony Blair took the bulk of the blame for being the man in charge while parliament approved the proposals that were backed up with faulty intelligence. The people responsible for putting the proposals forward don't get landed with any blame, because you never see or hear from them. They keep out of the public eye. Tony Blair was the face that was everywhere, so it was always going to fall on him in the end.

Did you honestly think Tony Blair planned the invasion himself?

Did I say that?
Blair and his cabinet decided to intervene in Iraq and tasked the military with carrying out their wishes. He also requested the Intelligence to justify his actions. That intelligence was either faulty or deliberately misinterpreted but it was commissioned by Blair.

[Future17]

That is nonsense.

What never ceases to amuse me is how different, even opposing political perspectives ignore the facts because I guess it is an inconvenient truth.

Long before Iraq, Blair had made clear his dogma - that liberal democracies had a moral duty and imperative to intervene, including militarily, where there was evidence of human rights abuses. This potentially included effecting regime change.

Whether one agreed with him or not, he spelled it out in a major policy speech in Chicago in the late 90s and then ordered military intervention in just that spirit in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, before Afghanistan and Iraq came along.

It’s an inconvenient truth for many because they like a simplistic argument - Blair as lapdog to the generals or Blair as lapdog to G W Bush.

Neither are true though. Blair was talking about boots on the ground with all the inherent risk, long before 9/11, long before Bush was elected and indeed at a time when Gore was favourite for the Presidency.

It is an inconvenient truth usually ignored by the ragtag lobby who still hanker after a trial in The Hague for Blair. I now see it is an inconvenient truth for you as well.

I've got no reason to doubt what you're saying but, out of interest, why would this be ignored by those who want some sort of action taken against Blair?

[hibsbollah]

That is nonsense.

What never ceases to amuse me is how different, even opposing political perspectives ignore the facts because I guess it is an inconvenient truth.

Long before Iraq, Blair had made clear his dogma - that liberal democracies had a moral duty and imperative to intervene, including militarily, where there was evidence of human rights abuses. This potentially included effecting regime change.

Whether one agreed with him or not, he spelled it out in a major policy speech in Chicago in the late 90s and then ordered military intervention in just that spirit in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, before Afghanistan and Iraq came along.

It’s an inconvenient truth for many because they like a simplistic argument - Blair as lapdog to the generals or Blair as lapdog to G W Bush.

Neither are true though. Blair was talking about boots on the ground with all the inherent risk, long before 9/11, long before Bush was elected and indeed at a time when Gore was favourite for the Presidency.

It is an inconvenient truth usually ignored by the ragtag lobby who still hanker after a trial in The Hague for Blair. I now see it is an inconvenient truth for you as well.



It's not an inconvenient truth at all, it's just irrelevant. I would imagine most world leaders have made speeches promoting 'military intervention to stop human rights abuses as moral duty' or similar, that's broadly in line with the post war consensus. That doesn't give leaders carte blanche to carry out unjustified wars, or to protect them from criticism when they do.

[hibsbollah]

I make no apologies for my view and couldn't care less who it upsets or angers.

All this "proud" bollocks is part of the problem. Feed people a false sense of patriotism and they'll do and believe whatever you want them to. The armed forces isn't a solution to the worlds problems, it's very much part of the problem.

The military don't want peace. Because with peace, they have no reason to exist. They need to ensure that there is always an enemy, always some sort of target. Even if it has to be fabricated.

I know people don't like the truth, but that's just tough. It is what it is.

The problem with your argument is you're not explaining if it's the existence of armies, state violence and the military in general that is wrong, or just the British Army. Do you have the same disgust for say, the Finnish military, or the Dutch military? I lived in a country with national service for all young people, is that wrong?

There is nothing wrong with pacifism; I believe war is always something to be avoided. But the existence of an army as a defensive force is an absolute necessity, history tells us that. It's the political decisions that are imposed on soldiery that you should find disgust with, not the people who are carrying out those orders.

[One Day Soon]

That is nonsense.

What never ceases to amuse me is how different, even opposing political perspectives ignore the facts because I guess it is an inconvenient truth.

Long before Iraq, Blair had made clear his dogma - that liberal democracies had a moral duty and imperative to intervene, including militarily, where there was evidence of human rights abuses. This potentially included effecting regime change.

Whether one agreed with him or not, he spelled it out in a major policy speech in Chicago in the late 90s and then ordered military intervention in just that spirit in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, before Afghanistan and Iraq came along.

It’s an inconvenient truth for many because they like a simplistic argument - Blair as lapdog to the generals or Blair as lapdog to G W Bush.

Neither are true though. Blair was talking about boots on the ground with all the inherent risk, long before 9/11, long before Bush was elected and indeed at a time when Gore was favourite for the Presidency.

It is an inconvenient truth usually ignored by the ragtag lobby who still hanker after a trial in The Hague for Blair. I now see it is an inconvenient truth for you as well.


Yes, the horseshoe brigade never find it too troubling to to occupy common ground when it suits their purposes.

Regardless of your view of Blair and Iraq, he was a liberal interventionist on foreign policy well before he was PM. But that's a bit nuanced in terms of assessing him and his politics so stick it in the drawer marked 'doesn't suit my argument' and burn the witch instead.

None of which means he didn't get Iraq wrong, but the point is generally to vilify him entirely rather than anything else.

[hibsbollah]

Yes, the horseshoe brigade never find it too troubling to to occupy common ground when it suits their purposes.

Regardless of your view of Blair and Iraq, he was a liberal interventionist on foreign policy well before he was PM. But that's a bit nuanced in terms of assessing him and his politics so stick it in the drawer marked 'doesn't suit my argument' and burn the witch instead.

None of which means he didn't get Iraq wrong, but the point is generally to vilify him entirely rather than anything else.

The point is, even now post Trump, you would find very few politicians who are NOT in agreement with the broad principle that countries should intervene militarily overseas to stop human rights abuses. Public opinion sometimes demands it. It depends on which 'human rights abuse' you choose to go after and which you choose to tolerate.

[Hibbyradge]

It's like reading the Socialist Worker in here sometimes :hmmm:

[hibsbollah]

The problem with your argument is you're not explaining if it's the existence of armies, state violence and the military in general that is wrong, or just the British Army. Do you have the same disgust for say, the Finnish military, or the Dutch military? I lived in a country with national service for all young people, is that wrong?

There is nothing wrong with pacifism; I believe war is always something to be avoided. But the existence of an army as a defensive force is an absolute necessity, history tells us that. It's the political decisions that are imposed on soldiery that you should find disgust with, not the people who are carrying out those orders.


It's like reading the Socialist Worker in here sometimes :hmmm:

Ive never read it so I don't know for sure, but I find that very hard to believe :faf:

[Hibbyradge]

Yes, the horseshoe brigade never find it too troubling to to occupy common ground when it suits their purposes.

Regardless of your view of Blair and Iraq, he was a liberal interventionist on foreign policy well before he was PM. But that's a bit nuanced in terms of assessing him and his politics so stick it in the drawer marked 'doesn't suit my argument' and burn the witch instead.

None of which means he didn't get Iraq wrong, but the point is generally to vilify him entirely rather than anything else.

What does the "horseshoe brigade" mean?

I've never encountered that expression before.

[Saturday Boy]

What does the "horseshoe brigade" mean?

I've never encountered that expression before.

And more importantly, is it racist? 😳😁

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

What does the "horseshoe brigade" mean?

I've never encountered that expression before.

Bunch of old boys that drink in the pub round the corner from Glasgow Central? 😉

[McD]

The military put forward the proposals. It's up to political leaders and MPs whether to give those proposals approval or not. Tony Blair took the bulk of the blame for being the man in charge while parliament approved the proposals that were backed up with faulty intelligence. The people responsible for putting the proposals forward don't get landed with any blame, because you never see or hear from them. They keep out of the public eye. Tony Blair was the face that was everywhere, so it was always going to fall on him in the end.

Did you honestly think Tony Blair planned the invasion himself?


I'm well aware of what Tony Blairs motives were. But if you honestly believe for one moment that one man enforced his will on parliament and then the military leaders on top of that, then I would suggest that you are the one falling for simplicity here.

The military doesn't just go ahead and enact any orders from the PM. The military holds the inteligence. They tell the politicians what they feel is the necessary course of action and what is in the best interests of national security. They're privy to knowledge that even the primeminister doesn't gain access to.

What Tony Blair personally desired was irrelevant.


What exactly do I need to "back up" here? I'm simply explaining the underlining process, which I thought was already common knowledge.

What you're describing is what you see on the surface. Speeches and policy announcements. But what goes on behind all of that is quite different. It's a primeministers job to convey leadership and control when making public statements. But they don't have nearly as much control behind the scenes as they convey to the general public.

When you see the PM on TV sounding all enthusiastic about a new policy. It doesn't necessarily mean that they personally backed that policy themselves. But they have to make it look like they did, in order to maintain the illusion that they're completely in charge and in control, otherwise they lose confidence in the public very quickly.


just so I’ve got this straight: by your reckoning:

the military rock up at 10 Downing Street, with some “intelligence”, and tell the Prime Minister of the day, and the cabinet, that they’ve decided that country/organisation/group is bad, and to crack on getting it sorted in Parliament so they (the military) can go and rough some of them up, make civilian lives a misery, and generally throw their weight around.

and following that, the PM and any relevant Ministers will go out, talk strongly in public that these are in fact their (cabinet’s) policies, and certainly in the case of Blair, be willing to bear the brunt of public opinion and possible criminal prosecution, without speaking any word of how the military just told them to do it.




***just to be clear, I think your version of things isn’t close to the actual facts, and the description I’ve given of how the military operate against opposing groups is based on your previous comments on this thread, not my own understanding or thoughts on military personnel ***

[One Day Soon]

just so I’ve got this straight: by your reckoning:

the military rock up at 10 Downing Street, with some “intelligence”, and tell the Prime Minister of the day, and the cabinet, that they’ve decided that country/organisation/group is bad, and to crack on getting it sorted in Parliament so they (the military) can go and rough some of them up, make civilian lives a misery, and generally throw their weight around.

and following that, the PM and any relevant Ministers will go out, talk strongly in public that these are in fact their (cabinet’s) policies, and certainly in the case of Blair, be willing to bear the brunt of public opinion and possible criminal prosecution, without speaking any word of how the military just told them to do it.




***just to be clear, I think your version of things isn’t close to the actual facts, and the description I’ve given of how the military operate against opposing groups is based on your previous comments on this thread, not my own understanding or thoughts on military personnel ***


Seems, as they say, legit.

[One Day Soon]

And more importantly, is it racist? 😳😁

Only against horses. Join my anti-equine league.

[Saturday Boy]

Only against horses. Join my anti-equine league.

That’s good news. I no longer need to ask my supplementary question: do they identify with any fruit or vegetable 😳

Shopping in Tesco was a nightmare this morning. If this racist identification with random greengrocery continues, we’ll all end up with rickets.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Shopping in Tesco was a nightmare this morning. If this racist identification with random greengrocery continues, we’ll all end up with rickets.

Wasnae a bad player at Bolton.

[RyeSloan]

That’s good news. I no longer need to ask my supplementary question: do they identify with any fruit or vegetable [emoji15]

Shopping in Tesco was a nightmare this morning. If this racist identification with random greengrocery continues, we’ll all end up with rickets.

Just as well you were not in Waitrose...

https://www.thedrum.com/news/2019/04/09/waitrose-withdraws-racist-chocolate-ducklings-amid-complaints

[JeMeSouviens]

Only against horses. Join my anti-equine league.

... and throw coconuts at Zebras? Winner!

[NAE NOOKIE]

Selective outrage! If it was a picture of Tony Blair, The PM, Trump etc no one would’ve batted an eyelid. The blokes neither support Conservatives or Labour, infact, they don’t give a toss about any political party as they see them all to be pigs in the troughs. The lads are on a tour of Kabul, they routinely fire Sim-unition at posters to sharpen their personal skills and also to have some “Squadie” fun. Everyone I know in the military community is laughing about it.

Didn't have to go any further into this thread after seeing this comment.

The army in this country is supposed to be apolitical … nobody is stupid enough to think that soldiers don't have their personal political leanings, of course they do. But to see British soldiers using an elected politician of ANY hue for target practice, even in jest, is absolutely unacceptable and indefensible.

I read a book by Ant Middleton ( the ex SAS guy from the TV ) recently … his ambition had always been to join the paras, but after becoming one it didn't take him long to realise that they were nothing more than an unruly mob and not particularly intelligent .. his words not mine. If proof of that was needed the level of stupidity required to film yourself in uniform using a politician for target practice illustrates his opinion perfectly …. if they didn't have the intelligence to be aware of what the consequences of their actions would be its a sad reflection of the level of intellectual reasoning of your average British soldier … lets hope the opposition are just as thick if we ever get involved in a real war.

The whole lot of them should have been court martialled and sacked and I couldn't care less if their target had been Corbyn. May or Arlene Foster.

[G B Young]

Didn't have to go any further into this thread after seeing this comment.

The army in this country is supposed to be apolitical … nobody is stupid enough to think that soldiers don't have their personal political leanings, of course they do. But to see British soldiers using an elected politician of ANY hue for target practice, even in jest, is absolutely unacceptable and indefensible.

I read a book by Ant Middleton ( the ex SAS guy from the TV ) recently … his ambition had always been to join the paras, but after becoming one it didn't take him long to realise that they were nothing more than an unruly mob and not particularly intelligent .. his words not mine. If proof of that was needed the level of stupidity required to film yourself in uniform using a politician for target practice illustrates his opinion perfectly …. if they didn't have the intelligence to be aware of what the consequences of their actions would be its a sad reflection of the level of intellectual reasoning of your average British soldier … lets hope the opposition are just as thick if we ever get involved in a real war.

The whole lot of them should have been court martialled and sacked and I couldn't care less if their target had been Corbyn. May or Arlene Foster.

If British soldiers are by and large 'thick' then why is it such a surprise that they would do something like this? In their eyes Corbyn's probably seen as fair game because of his record of voting against military action on every occasion it's been proposed since he first became an MP, coupled with his less than convincing rebuttal of accusations of harbouring sympathy for certain terrorist groups.

More generally, I'd be surprised if using pictures of high profile figures from all walks of life for target practice hasn't been going on for many years. For 'thick' soldiers it probably adds a bit of an edge to repetitive target practice while holed up in inhospitable regions of the world, nothing more sinister. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest it's only because this incident happened to be filmed that anyone is remotely bothered by it. In that context, the fact the story disappeared from the news agenda almost as quickly as it surfaced sums up how insignificant it is.

[TheReg!]

Didn't have to go any further into this thread after seeing this comment.

The army in this country is supposed to be apolitical … nobody is stupid enough to think that soldiers don't have their personal political leanings, of course they do. But to see British soldiers using an elected politician of ANY hue for target practice, even in jest, is absolutely unacceptable and indefensible.

I read a book by Ant Middleton ( the ex SAS guy from the TV ) recently … his ambition had always been to join the paras, but after becoming one it didn't take him long to realise that they were nothing more than an unruly mob and not particularly intelligent .. his words not mine. If proof of that was needed the level of stupidity required to film yourself in uniform using a politician for target practice illustrates his opinion perfectly …. if they didn't have the intelligence to be aware of what the consequences of their actions would be its a sad reflection of the level of intellectual reasoning of your average British soldier … lets hope the opposition are just as thick if we ever get involved in a real war.

The whole lot of them should have been court martialled and sacked and I couldn't care less if their target had been Corbyn. May or Arlene Foster.

Ant Middleton has never served a day in the Parachute Regiment however , he was 9 Para Sq Royal Engineers (not even Infantry), massive difference! He did however kick **** out of Police Officer and done Jail time, so you can take your tongue out of his arse.

I might add, The Parachute Regiment has had more VC winners since the 2nd World War than any other Regiment, they continue to come top all of the Infantry career courses, they continue to supply the SAS with the most blokes and they always get the job done!

Oh, and one final note, the Soldiers in question are actually from the Guards Division(Guards Para Platoon) Not the Parachute Regiment, they have had a Platoon attachment to 3 Para for a few years. Needless to say the “Real” Paras are not impressed with the weapon handling drills, they couldn’t give a monkeys about the rest though.

[Scouse Hibee]

Ant Middleton has never served a day in the Parachute Regiment however , he was 9 Para Sq Royal Engineers (not even Infantry), massive difference! He did however kick **** out of Police Officer and done Jail time, so you can take your tongue out of his arse.

I might add, The Parachute Regiment has had more VC winners since the 2nd World War than any other Regiment, they continue to come top all of the Infantry career courses, they continue to supply the SAS with the most blokes and they always get the job done!

Oh, and one final note, the Soldiers in question are actually from the Guards Division(Guards Para Platoon) Not the Parachute Regiment, they have had a Platoon attachment to 3 Para for a few years. Needless to say the “Real” Paras are not impressed with the weapon handling drills, they couldn’t give a monkeys about the rest though.

Nice to read facts for a change.

[Mibbes Aye]

I've got no reason to doubt what you're saying but, out of interest, why would this be ignored by those who want some sort of action taken against Blair?

The charges against Blair by his opponents were that of illegality, but arguably the same charges could have been applied to Kosovo and Sierra Leone. They weren't.

Similarly, there wasn't any real backlash to his Chicago speech when he set out his doctrine, even though that made a case for potentially illegal military intervention in pursuit of a supposed greater good.

What was different about Iraq was that it brought in some different factors. One was a large dose of anti-Americanism. Post 9/11 I knew a number of people who would happily identify as being of the left, who while not gloating, saw the Twin Towers attack as some form of deserved comeuppance for the US. I could understand their perspective and I'm not rushing to criticize it.

As the groundswell for the war developed, it was clear that a large part of the animosity towards Blair was a belief that he was essentially behaving as a lapdog for the Americans, and especially the cabal who were hate figures for the left - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al.

I have no doubt that the lead-up to the war was very murky and there were undoubtedly illegitimate agendas being pushed within the US administration. I also suspect that Blair may even have been seen as a 'useful idiot' by the likes of Cheney.

I think it was all to easy for a lot of those in the anti-war movement to swallow the line that Blair was Bush's poodle. I think the truth is that Blair had, rightly or wrongly, strongly held beliefs about the necessity of liberal intervention. Sometimes it bordered on Messianic and I don't think many of us were too comfortable with that.

Nevertheless, there is a cohort of people who wanted Blair tried for war crimes, but their motives are questionable as they weren't speaking out when we committed our military into Kosovo and Sierra Leone.

And just as an added reminder for those who think Iraq was all about sheepishly following the Americans - when Blair made his Chicago speech, it was during Clinton's presidency. It was well before 9/11 and Bush wasn't favourite to win the presidency, I'm not even sure he had announced to stand.

And when Blair made his speech, he singled out two men as the greatest risk to international security - Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein.

Blair was geared up for all this a long time before 2003. A lot of those who wanted a trial ignored that and can't really answer as to why they didn't speak out when we undertook 'liberal interventions' elsewhere. But then, with those interventions, there wasn't the easy hate-caricatures within the Bush administration to rail against.

[blackpoolhibs]

Id go along with this.

Me too, i have thrown darts at a dart board in the past, there's been every herts gimp i can remember, and John Greig was always a huge favourite back in the day.

Its PC gone mad.:wink:

[G B Young]

Ant Middleton has never served a day in the Parachute Regiment however , he was 9 Para Sq Royal Engineers (not even Infantry), massive difference! He did however kick **** out of Police Officer and done Jail time, so you can take your tongue out of his arse.

I might add, The Parachute Regiment has had more VC winners since the 2nd World War than any other Regiment, they continue to come top all of the Infantry career courses, they continue to supply the SAS with the most blokes and they always get the job done!

Oh, and one final note, the Soldiers in question are actually from the Guards Division(Guards Para Platoon) Not the Parachute Regiment, they have had a Platoon attachment to 3 Para for a few years. Needless to say the “Real” Paras are not impressed with the weapon handling drills, they couldn’t give a monkeys about the rest though.

You've put that a lot better than I could. Interesting to hear from somebody with a bit of bona fide armed forces expertise.

[NAE NOOKIE]

If British soldiers are by and large 'thick' then why is it such a surprise that they would do something like this? In their eyes Corbyn's probably seen as fair game because of his record of voting against military action on every occasion it's been proposed since he first became an MP, coupled with his less than convincing rebuttal of accusations of harbouring sympathy for certain terrorist groups.

More generally, I'd be surprised if using pictures of high profile figures from all walks of life for target practice hasn't been going on for many years. For 'thick' soldiers it probably adds a bit of an edge to repetitive target practice while holed up in inhospitable regions of the world, nothing more sinister. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest it's only because this incident happened to be filmed that anyone is remotely bothered by it. In that context, the fact the story disappeared from the news agenda almost as quickly as it surfaced sums up how insignificant it is.

So what? In this country the army is a necessary component required to defend our interests, whether or not those interests are legitimate or not, that is open to debate. They do not take the blame for whatever conflicts they are asked to get involved in, but the other side of that coin is that they cannot be seen showing approval or disapproval of the politicians they may one day have to act on the orders of.

The army navy and air force and those who serve in them cannot to seen to be on one side of any political divide when they are serving personnel. They cannot compromise, or be seen to be compromising, their political neutrality in any way, surely the reasons for that are blindingly obvious.

These soldiers did that and it doesn't matter a toss if it was in Afghanistan or Aldershot or if they were Paras or the catering corps …. they should be sacked.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Ant Middleton has never served a day in the Parachute Regiment however , he was 9 Para Sq Royal Engineers (not even Infantry), massive difference! He did however kick **** out of Police Officer and done Jail time, so you can take your tongue out of his arse.

I might add, The Parachute Regiment has had more VC winners since the 2nd World War than any other Regiment, they continue to come top all of the Infantry career courses, they continue to supply the SAS with the most blokes and they always get the job done!

Oh, and one final note, the Soldiers in question are actually from the Guards Division(Guards Para Platoon) Not the Parachute Regiment, they have had a Platoon attachment to 3 Para for a few years. Needless to say the “Real” Paras are not impressed with the weapon handling drills, they couldn’t give a monkeys about the rest though.

All of Ant Middleton's indiscretions were widely covered in the book I read, the guy openly admitted that he was an utter ********. As for him being in the paras or not … he did the training and was awarded a maroon beret so I presume that made him one, even if as he freely admitted the regiment he ended up in wasn't the glamorous 2 para or whatever.

Anyway … the merits or lack of them of Ant Middleton aren't the issue here, I merely used him as an example of a serving soldier who wasn't impressed by some of the behaviour of his fellow soldiers …. "take your tongue out of his arse" …. grow up.

I was not by the way calling into question the courage of the people who serve with the parachute regiment or any other branch of the armed services for that matter, so I'm not sure why you needed the list of achievements, I was calling into question the level of intelligence of folk who must have known what they were doing was utterly unacceptable and yet being daft enough to put it on social media … a professional army needs brains as well as brawn … and that in a democracy especially means not only being apolitical but being seen to be apolitical.

[ronaldo7]

Fair enough, I apologise and sorry that I came over as a dick. My back was up due to the young lads getting thrown under a bus, for what was a bit of, what I’d call fun on a ****n boring 6 month tour. If anyone is to blame it’s the lad who posted it online. We’ve all done stupid things back in our younger years that we wouldn’t do now, the only difference is there wasn’t social media or camera phones back when we ****ed up.

You did come across as a dick. No worries, I've seen it before. Thanks for the acknowledgment. 😘

Young lads, you say! I'd say they were guys who'd been through the thick and thin of operational duties previously, and if they'd engaged their brains, they wouldn't have been put through the mixer(film maker included).

Thanks for the apology. 👍.

[marinello59]

Young lads, you say! I'd say they were guys who'd been through the thick and thin of operational duties previously, and if they'd engaged their brains, they wouldn't have been put through the mixer(film maker included).
.

Spot on.

[McD]

All of Ant Middleton's indiscretions were widely covered in the book I read, the guy openly admitted that he was an utter ********. As for him being in the paras or not … he did the training and was awarded a maroon beret so I presume that made him one, even if as he freely admitted the regiment he ended up in wasn't the glamorous 2 para or whatever.

Anyway … the merits or lack of them of Ant Middleton aren't the issue here, I merely used him as an example of a serving soldier who wasn't impressed by some of the behaviour of his fellow soldiers …. "take your tongue out of his arse" …. grow up.

I was not by the way calling into question the courage of the people who serve with the parachute regiment or any other branch of the armed services for that matter, so I'm not sure why you needed the list of achievements, I was calling into question the level of intelligence of folk who must have known what they were doing was utterly unacceptable and yet being daft enough to put it on social media … a professional army needs brains as well as brawn … and that in a democracy especially means not only being apolitical but being seen to be apolitical.


Ant middleton also served and saw combat with the Royal Marines and the SBS. In his book he comments strongly on the different behaviours he witnessed and partook in, in both the paras and marines.

The police officer incident isn’t also as easily described as him “kicking **** out a police officer”, albeit he took full responsibility for his actions.