Fair enough wrecker.

With the publicity that his story is getting, and the obvious bad reaction from some, if there is anything dodgy about his story I don’t think it will take long to come out.

I don’t know what he saw but I know what his job entails, and I’ve no reason to believe him. No more than the other X-thousand squaddies who have been out there.

Question for those who are or who have been. Do or did you care very much about the whys and wherefores? I’m wondering if most service personnel have the same questions these blokes have had and come to different conclusions.

In the army you either kill or be killed. Simple.

You are not taught to argue with the command … you just do your job. Kill! Kill! Kill! Destroy! Destroy! Destroy! Get your head chop off by the enemy if you pussy foot …

Is it always as simple as that?

The My Lai Massacre was the Vietnam War mass murder of between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians in South Vietnam on March 16, 1968, by United States Army soldiers of “Charlie” Company of 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 11th Brigade of the Americal Division. Victims included women, men, children, and infants. Some of the women were gang-raped and their bodies were later found to be mutilated and many women were allegedly raped prior to the killings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

Would a CO have been wrong to refuse to take part, if ordered to participate the My Lai massacre?

Is it always as simple as that?

It is in chewkw’s maggot infested world of not reading the OP but instead quoting from his favourite book: The Great Big Book of Ranty Bollocks.

Smudger666 – Member

As it is, they signed a contract in full knowledge of what they could be asked to do

Did they? Someone signing up now ought to know that. Someone signing up pre afghanistan/gulf 2, not so much. Doesn’t seem unreasonable that people lose faith in the institution and in the chain of command as usage changes.

kcr – Member
Is it always as simple as that?

Yes. If they are enemy combatants who insist on fighting to the death.

kcr – Member

Would a CO have been wrong to refuse to take part, if ordered to participate the My Lai massacre?

The question you need to ask yourself is whether the British army would give such an order?

deadlydarcy – Member

Is it always as simple as that?

It is in chewkw’s maggot infested world of not reading the OP but instead quoting from his favourite book: The Great Big Book of Ranty Bollocks.

I see someone has objected to my views … 😆

The question is why do you have to be so complicated? 🙄

It’s like everyone wants to be Dear Leader and nobody wants to be a maggot. How can that be? If everyone becomes Dear Leader then there will be no maggots to step on. It’s like working in a company full of managers but no employees … 😆

Tedious.

Take a **** night off chewkw and stop spouting oblique unrelated ranty bollocks on what could be an interesting thread.

yossarian – Member

From reading the article it appears that they refused to take part in actions that ran contrary to what they believed in.

I respect that, it’s unfortunate that more people don’t have the courage of their convictions.

Man staying true to his forum name persona

The question you need to ask yourself is whether the British army would give such an order?

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre (also known as the Amritsar massacre), took place in the Jallianwala Bagh public garden in the northern Indian city of Amritsar on 13 April 1919. The shooting that took place was ordered by Brigadier-General Reginald E.H. Dyer…On hearing that a meeting of 15,000 to 20,000 people including women, children and the elderly had assembled at Jallianwala Bagh, Dyer went with fifty Gurkha riflemen to a raised bank and ordered them to shoot at the crowd. Dyer continued the firing for about ten minutes, until the ammunition supply was almost exhausted; Dyer stated that 1,650 rounds had been fired, a number which seems to have been derived by counting empty cartridge cases picked up by the troops.Official British Indian sources gave a figure of 379 identified dead, with approximately 1,100 wounded. The casualty number estimated by the Indian National Congress was more than 1,500, with approximately 1,000 dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre

Or more recently,

Bloody Sunday —sometimes called the Bogside Massacre[3]— was an incident on 30 January 1972 in the Bogside area of Derry, Northern Ireland, in which 26 unarmed civil-rights protesters and bystanders were shot by soldiers of the British Army.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

Northwind – Member
Smudger666 – Member
As it is, they signed a contract in full knowledge of what they could be asked to do

Did they? Someone signing up now ought to know that. Someone signing up pre afghanistan/gulf 2, not so much. Doesn’t seem unreasonable that people lose faith in the institution and in the chain of command as usage changes.

yes they did – there has never been a clause in the signup forms that said ‘tick here if you want to join up, but in the event we go to war, you want to opt out.’

they got a big poiinty thing that goes bangf – what did they think it was for?

Imagine a world as black and white as that. Terrifying.

deadlydarcy – Member

Take a **** night off chewkw and stop spouting oblique unrelated ranty bollocks on what could be an interesting thread.

😆 No, really. It’s like the tail wagging the dog in the OP’s article. The army personnel telling the entire country (military) what’s right and wrong … (I used this phrase (tail wagging the dog) today in a bureaucratic environment and I got starts for it).

kcr – Member

… took place in the Jallianwala Bagh public garden in the northern Indian city of Amritsar on 13 April 1919.

Ya, I bet those were some of the same COs in 1914-1918 that ordered the men to walk slowly towards the German machine gun position in WWI? See the connection? You have maggots in charge hence you get that. Walking towards the machine guns … bloody hell you walk first!

… was an incident on 30 January 1972 …

Okay, this is still rather fresh in mind for many so you can argue in many ways: Choose whichever version you like.

1. Shoot everything that moves because they (army) panic.
2. Shoot everything that moves because they (army) were attacked by mobs.
3. Shoot everything that moves because the army can …
4. Shoot everything that moves because they were given the order.

Therefore, if history taught us well that when as army you shoot when you are given the order etc, then what is the reason(s) to encourage a person to sign up to join the army nowadays I do not know. The risk is there … for taking orders (good and bad) to shoot and they know it.

🙄

Smudger666 – Member

yes they did – there has never been a clause in the signup forms that said ‘tick here if you want to join up, but in the event we go to war, you want to opt out.’

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I suspect so but… The point isn’t “we might go to war”, it’s the kind of war and the justification for the war. Oil, lies, dodgy dossiers and imaginary terrorists.

Northwind – Member

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I suspect so but… The point isn’t “we might go to war”, it’s the kind of war and the justification for the war. Oil, lies, dodgy dossiers and imaginary terrorists.

You see you think too much. The debate/discussion is for the politicians to pass their time and not for those on the ground shooting … they get the job done and are not there to argue. The argument/discussion comes prior to signing to shoot …

Sorry Northwind, no tone of voice on t’internet…..

I was trying to point out that they joined up without a get out clause – there isn’t one. When they decided to bunk off, they were jailed. They knew in advance what the consequences would be.

I wouldn’t call them heroes for breaking a contract.

The article is clearly written by some commiehippyveggiebeatnick, getting off from Listening to rock and roll music and bad-mouthing your country, I’ll bet! 😉

The debate/discussion is for the politicians to pass their time and not for those on the ground shooting … they get the job done and are not there to argue. The argument/discussion comes prior to signing to shoot ..

NUremberg

TBH you are clearly quite bright but really WhyTF you do this Maggot stuff is a mystery to me, i can see why you could not do it in public

Junkyard – lazarus

NUremberg

There are many evil political masters so you decide.

TBH you are clearly quite bright but really WhyTF you do this Maggot stuff is a mystery to me, i can see why you could not do it in public

You get a star for using positive terms there.

As for the maggot stuff … that’s based on observation of daily life. They all over and especially in a bureaucratic environment.

Yawn

chewkw, I salute your courage, your strength, and your indefatigability

In principle I have zero time for conscientious objectors, bunch of whiny cowards who should be shot at dawn.

However, with regard to our US led actions in the Middle East, I applaud the conscientious objectors, and only wish more service personnel would have the moral fortitude and courage to do the right thing.

Do or did you care very much about the whys and wherefores?

Very good question, and one I think is approached very selectively by most. I doubt that many squaddies did a lot of soul searching about the political decision to go into Iraq. I can assure you however that you get a very real sense of pride when carrying out disaster relief and getting people out of the shit ops (Sierra leone etc).
A point of interest (perhaps) is that moral courage is a topic taught to all squaddies (or was). They are taught not to blindly follow orders which they know to be morally wrong/ against the ROE/genera convention/etc.

yossarian – Member

chewkw, I salute your courage, your strength, and your indefatigability

Well played sir, well played.

Northwind – Member

yossarian – Member

chewkw, I salute your courage, your strength, and your indefatigability

Well played sir, well played.

You bowwww …!

How is it supposed to work then? The government decides to go to war and the forces have a vote on it?

Not aimed at any particular poster on this thread as such, but conscientious objection is always gonna be a hard concept for the knuckle draggers to get their heads around..

Does the US, with Britain in tow, go to Afghanistan to help women go to school or is it because there is, for example, 90 billion barrels of oil in the Caspian?

I’m sympathetic but this is just nonsense. The occupation of Afghanistan wasn’t and isn’t about Caspian oil – the UNOCAL conspiracy theory just doesn’t add up and didn’t in 2001. There’s already two pipelines from the Caspian to international markets, and the Caspian is the wrong end of Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan and Pakistan were too unstable before invasion, and and and…

You join , you do as you are told. You don’t like that idea you don’t join.
They are disgusting people who besmirch the forces.

How is it supposed to work then? The government decides to go to war and the forces have a vote on it?

There might be something in that.

scotroutes – Member

The government decides to go to war and the forces have a vote on it?

How about we vote for a government, and they should act in an honest and honourable manner on our behalf? 😉

You join , you do as you are told. You don’t like that idea you don’t join.
They are disgusting people who besmirch the forces.

Um….. as above – where does Nuremberg fit into your black and white view?

So the guy who went to jail was in the SS?

Nothing to add to the above, except that I get a boost to my ‘bleeding heart lefty’ points by a dear old work buddy being Joe Glenton’s other half. 8)

She (and she is waaaay better at leftism than me!) works on/in TFL, and was most impressed to see commuters frowning over her man the Metro yesterday. 😆

Um….. as above – where does Nuremberg fit into your black and white view?

+1

So if you’re ordered to round up a load of Jewish women and children and shoot them all are you a disgrace for refusing or a hero for following orders?

mattsccm – Member
You join , you do as you are told. You don’t like that idea you don’t join.
They are disgusting people who besmirch the forces.

Nothing is beyond criticsm. Personally I find the increasing hawkishness of the UK unpalatable. Don’t watch tv much, spent a weekend round my folks and was actually shocked by the number and frequency of recruitment adverts. Always loads of army programs on iPlayer as well, normalising (illegal) war for another generation.

mattsccm – Member

They are disgusting people who besmirch the forces.

What, politicians? Agreed.

footflaps – Member

Um….. as above – where does Nuremberg fit into your black and white view?

+1

So if you’re ordered to round up a load of Jewish women and children and shoot them all are you a disgrace for refusing or a hero for following orders?

You are Not making sense.

You are comparing the British forces to Nuremberg? I mean British forces going mad looney crazy mass murdering?

When in the recent history did that happened where the British forces deliberately go out to exterminate a race? Yes, perhaps to a group of people perceived to be “sympathetic” to their enemy but an entire race?

C’mom … even fat boy and little man did not do that …

Ya, right … 🙄

The ability/requirement to follow orders without question is the military’s greatest source of strength AND weakness.

I should imagine that it takes a bloody brave person to be within an institution, stand up and state publicly

No doubt it does, but

As is often the case with a lot of guys, I went AWOL.’

Glenton spent two years on the run before handing himself in. He was sentenced to nine months in prison (mainly on charges related to going AWOL and talking to the media),

Running away THEN claiming conscientious objection probably doesn’t

When in the recent history did that happened where the British force deliberately go out to exterminate a race?

Unless you’re really thick – you know full well that’s a total straw man. 🙄