snafuno different to someone starting a ‘discussion’ purely to get a rise, judging by the amount of threads you’ve started that appears to be yr only motive.
Ho ho – somebody childishly bleats “na-na ne-na-nah, you post lots of threads!” So I retort in a similar vein…and you’ve started precisely how many?
But I digress.
Problem or solution: my motive is to start a discussion on a board that is frequently boring: purely that, a solution.
Notice that I deliberately did not make any comment at the head of the page, first post.
Notice that I have not yet made a comment on the actual subject of the thread, but it must be said that neither has anybody else – so should we make an assumption about the feelings of the usually very vocal members who usually come to the defence of the military, no matter how distasteful the reason for the thread might be? Or should we just chuckle about what happened in the latest edition of Top Gear (like normal)?
Notice that the usual type of post posted is usually of the not awfully interested in discussion type.
Notice that many here are not interested in seeing the world away from their cosy existance.
Notice that many of the ex-military types refuse to even contemplate the idea that the military do occasionally do things wrong in the eyes of the law that making interesting reading to our countries enemies and terrorists eager for reasons to tempt fence sitters. (And if it has got to this stage then me posting something here that has made the national news isn’t going to alert them)
Your motive, at this point, appears to be to, um, ‘troll’ me into not asking questions, to prevent discussion, and (maybe?) start a flame war. You point out that I have started quite a few threads and I ask you in return which ones you believe are unnecessary AND why?
Alternatively, being part of the problem, you can just carry on sniping from the sidelines like the troll your post above reveals you to be?
……yes.
Like I said, suit yourself.
What is your solution (see above)?
[general question not aimed at anybody]Can I guess your collective solution is to ignore the really difficult questions by picking on the person asking those question?
Maybe you don’t care. Maybe you believe that they had it coming, they are lying, they are foreign and therefore deserved it – I don’t know, I’ve tried asking but you snipe about trolling. Maybe you believe our soldiers did do naughty things to foreign nationals that would be frowned upon in court – like that marine who executed that wounded Taliban on camera – but are scared to stick your head up and be counted? like I said, I don’t know since nobody is answering.
Maybe you should just reserve your thread reading to those concerning how great Top Gear is or your favourite shoe polish…[/general question not aimed at anybody]
snafuRE 14
“enlighten – you ? In your case, waste of time !
Thank you. I trust that other observers might notice that you ignored the argument and attacked the postee.
What does that say about you and your argument if you’d rather not defend it?
snafuBUT we – being British, stiff upper lip and all that – should never stoop to the kind of levels that terrorists resort to; we have those rules exactly for that reason, because our troops represent Britain and our lofty ideals and beliefs.
They, the terrorists or resistance as they might call themselves, on the other hand, would not be as organised and, since they would have not had any specific central command with the ability to take or make immediate decisions, they would be able to claim (metaphorically, since it would never come to it) that it was down to the invariably untrained irregular militant individual who was out of their control – our troops should never be out of the control of senior officers and certainly not untrained in any aspect…
snafuTrumpy, we heard you the first time…;o)
I did not refer to ‘immigrants’. People could perhaps be ‘imported’ from the overcrowded South East of England to the wastes of the Borders. There then, is an example that serves not to raise socialist hackles.
You can say that now, but I would love to stage a poll asking if readers thought you were referring to the importing of foreigners to Britain or the ‘importing’ of Britons from the South East of England to the ‘wastes of the Borders’. You are not helping yourself when using the word ‘import’ but describing the word ‘export’…
Your undistinguished colleague Snafu has enjoyed higher education – he might be able to assist.
Meow? Not sure I can anyway – too busy at the moment helping you choose the right term for your chosen scenario. Hope it’s nothing long term…
snafu(#3 – I don’t think he likes civvies, full stop!)
snafuBUT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OUT THERE THAT SAYS THEY HAVE BEEN CENSORED!
DON’T YOU THINK THAT IF THEY HAD BEEN CENSORED THEY WOULD HAVE RAISED HELL ABOUT IT – UNLESS THAT IS BEING CENSORED TOO, IN WHICH CASE EXPECT THIS THREAD TO BE MYSTERIOUSLY REMOVED WITHOUT EXPLANATION!
WHY DON’T YOU LOT LISTEN?
Ah yes that even handed and ultra credible publication LOL ; )
Like I said, nothing except from the Huffington Post (which isn’t a patch on how it used to be, and that’s what I told their survey – now sponsored by a bloody tea company for pity’s sake!).
Nothing!
snafuYou had ‘higher education’ ? Blimey ! You found it ‘difficult progressing’ ? Mmm.
Not just higher, but further, and even far higher. And as you are well aware, just with the concept of conversing with the person who taught us, who had gone from being formal and respectful to being just one of the guys, you know?
snafuI didn’t know that we ever had snaff – I have never heard of any army personnel wearing explosive vests or engaging in indiscriminate IED/bombing against soft civilian targets…the trouble is – in certain countries our guys are not fighting uniformed soldiers/troops etc which makes everything a tad more complicated !All an ‘irregular’ fighter has to do to become a ‘civilian’ is to throw away his weapon…not an easy situation for any troops to deal with.
Ok, big question #1 – what do you think this investigation is looking at?
No, our troops don’t wear explosive vests (except on nights out in fancy dress, obviously) blah blah blah. But then again our guys have already had experience of fighting an irregular force who wore civvies, although they had a much better, more coordinated, chain of command than those in Iraq or Afghanistan. If our troops start torturing detainees, as per the US troops at Abu Ghraib, do you think the world will sit back and think ‘there’s a really professional army?’ If our guys just detain people off the street just to hand out beatings before tossing them back in the gutter (something US troops did to relieve their boredom) do you think the locals would believe they were doing a fantastic job and prey for more power to their elbow?
Our troops are supposed to be civilised, from a civilised country; if the ‘uncivilised’ lot go about blowing themselves up, should we stoop to their level? If they plant IED’s, should our boys indiscriminately plant them too? If an irregular fighter throws his weapon away to become civilian again, do you advocate (as it appears from your post) that the all the civilians are therefore open to being gunned down because that is what these terrorists would do?
As I said before some investigations may be ok but the trouble is (and as with many things in life) they will go for the easy targets (ie our troops) when there is probably much worse violence going on all the time (and on a much larger scale) against women/children/their own people who are seen as belonging to different population control fiction factions !
Of course they will go for the easy targets – it is those easy targets who are being investigated!!!
This investigation is not a general one in to what has happened, it is investigating allegations about British troops – not Iraqis. Please read the link in the first post.
I would have thought that most patrol/small unit leaders would normally be SNCO’s or the senior survivor after an engagement !
Just like that marine patrol whose sergeant ‘executed’ that Taliban… Another black mark for the investigation – it might demonstrate that the troops are not ‘civilised’ and not under control.
humans make mistakes epecially when under stress and scared thats when abuse happens,it is not a part of policy. As for trolling i could hardly dare to match you, could i?
Humans do make mistakes, and I expect the investigation will investigate that or else it is not an investigation worth the name.
As for trolling, it doesn’t matter if you match or try to match me – coming in and throwing abuse is what you did, not taking part in the discussion.
Let me throw in my tuppenceworth.
Ok, just this once.
For this thread.
So that you can get it out of your system.
Because you repeat it every single time there is a thread which might question anything that possibly wears camo.
(I’ve seen an angry bullet. Someone drew an angry face on it…)
…if a group of Iraqi civilians dragged some British troops from their vehicles somewhere behind the ‘lines’ and hacked them to death what should my response be?
Gun them down, then hunt down their families and any witnesses and gun them down too, for revenge? I don’t know – I’ve not seen your most recent psych test.
I’ve got one for you: imagine an Iraqi prison, US soldiers in command, prisoners physically and sexually abused, tortured, raped, sodomized, and killed – for the pleasure of those soldiers. What would your response be IF it was found that similar things had been happening to people detained under British control?
Hey – you don’t need to imagine it! A few more for you to think about too…
Spring 2003: Gary Bartlam, a British soldier of the 7th Armoured Brigade, was arrested after submitting film to a photo developers shop in Tamworth, England while on leave. The photographs depict a gagged Iraqi POW suspended hanging by rope from a fork lift, and other pictures seem to show prisoners being forced to perform sexual acts. Bartlam and two other soldiers were convicted at court martial of abuse – a fourth soldier was cleared.
“Photos led to abuse convictions”. BBC News. 23 February 2005May 2003: The Royal Military Police declared that Radhi Natna died of a heart attack while in British custody, yet his family reports that he had no heart trouble; and the Black Watch regiment arrested the 17-year-old Ahmad Jabber Kareem Ali in Basra, who then drowned after being ordered to swim across a river despite not being able to swim, according to his friend Ayad Salim Hanoon.
“18 Cases That Need Answers”, Tom Newton Dunn Daily Mirror. 5 May 2004September 2003: Corporal Donald Payne of the Queen’s Lancashire Regiment now the 1st Battalion, Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment (King’s, Lancashire and Border), became Britain’s first convicted war criminal after pleading guilty to abusing Iraqi detainees, which resulted in the death of detainee Baha Mousa.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6609237.stmIn addition: Amnesty International claimed that British soldiers had killed innocent civilians who were no threat, had kicked a prisoner to death and that the British military did not investigate the abuses appropriately
http://web.archive.org/web/20050514024519/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140192004?open&of=ENG-IRQIt was claimed that eleven Iraqis had been severely beaten by members of the SAS in Majar al Kabir; they were released and paid compensation for their injuries
“18 Cases That Need Answers”, Tom Newton Dunn Daily Mirror. 5 May 2004
In your world-view, whatever my opinion, I’d be wrong and those Iraqi civilians would be right.
Who do you think I am? How much importance do you believe I’ve got? I did not sanction that investigation, I didn’t ask for it to take place, I did not petition: I merely posted a link here that showed that an international investigation is to take place on top of the Iraq Historical Allegations Team’s investigation, started in 2010…
A more level-headed observer might conclude that some of you might have guilty consciences…;o)
Only reason is so that PIL can line their pockets with yet more taxpayers money under the guise of ‘righting wrongs’.
If you can’t stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them….
So you are not interested in making sure that there is absolutely no substance to the allegations, not interested in clearing the good name of our military? You are happy that our ‘boys’ get the same sort of international reputation that the US military has acquired through diligently believing that they never do any wrong, whatsoever?
Where can I find the door to your world of absolute morality ? I expect there to be a sign above the door reading “Fools Paradise”.
Number 10 for the latter, deffo… So you would rather be a terrorist than a ‘Worlds Policeman’? It might grind my teeth to even think it but do as you would be done by sets a good example, likewise an eye for an eye turns the whole world blind…
“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
George Orwell
…You ever see the film A Few Food Men? No? How about A Few Good Men (much better known)? No matter how good and proper your intentions, abuse (and more) does not make things good and proper. A wrong is still a wrong.
snafuAnd my point is that no matter how they may be treated by their leaders or their terrorists they should not be treated that way by our troops.
snafuNo, I didn’t have the stomach.
No? But rumour has it…;o)
Snaffle…
I am not saying that no cases get investigated…there are good and bad eggs in every walk of life – but most cases with our lads are relatively minor…life is cheap in many countries around the world and some ordinary folk suffer far worse abuse from their own leaders and religious ‘leaders’…therefore the whole thing is one sided and unbalanced !
So are you saying you feel it is ok for our troops to treat other people differently from how they would be treated in, say, Europe?
Life might well be cheap but that does not ever give us the right to treat them like they are lesser human beings: untermensch, sub human, one step up from being a monkey – think Nazis and how they treated Jews, selective East Europeans, that sort of thing – even if they do themselves.
Re 34
CDWe have history on this point – don’t we ?
I know nothing about the mechanics of the distastful act you’ve mentioned. That doesn’t prevent me from weighing evidence when deciding culpability.
Bravo, you know right from wrong. Hopefully.
I know plenty about the mechanics of war in contrast to the trouble seeking socialists on this Forum who endlessly seek to make trouble wherever they can sense an opportunity to decry and impugn the valiant efforts of our Armed forces – don’t give them any more ‘ammunition’.
And…maybe you don’t.
You do not need to know that rape is wrong to come to a conclusion about it, just as you do not need to be, for example, a US soldier or an Iraqi to know that taking photo’s of naked Iraqi prisoners, in sexual positions, for fun, is wrong. Or maybe it is right, in your eyes?
May I ask you what the difference was between the Allied armies in 1945 and the Nazi armies in 1945? (I know, and guess you do too, that there were a fair proportion of other nationals rather than just Germans fighting to the end in Berlin). My answer is that the Allied armies won – we get to write the history books and ignore the ‘occasional’ incident by ‘our’ troops that, when mirrored by a German or Japanese, resulted in prison or a death sentence.
Well, these days it doesn’t matter who wins or loses – the investigation is a good thing because it should prove rumours false. Unless you know something to the contrary…?
I’m sorry, but I literally have no idea what you are talking about; I think you may be responding to a post that wasn’t even directed at you (and I have avoided using the quote facility where possible)?
Nope, got the right guy:
In your world-view, whatever my opinion, I’d be wrong and those Iraqi civilians would be right.
You seem to believe I have a world view, that your opinion is wrong and my view right.
We are discussing on a forum, yet you believe that I should judge you based on the scenario you set up (and ignored mine, I noticed) and that whatever you said would be wrong. We are discussing, and I am taking the view that this investigation NEEDS to take place so that, internationally, the files can be closed (with or without prosecutions, it would eventually be closed) but – and this is to all – I am not the one who stood up and said “we need an investigation so that all the baby-bayoneting soldiers get revealed for what they are“! I merely posted a link so that interested people here could mouth off about how wonderful our fantastic military is.
And talking of the quote function; could you possibly make several smaller post, rather than one large one, it will make it so much easier to use the quote function in return (without having to delete 95% of your post).
I doubt it; already been accused of trying to get a record for the number of posts posted (or something; he was raving rabidly) and I try to snip each quote down to just the relevant points (unless there is a chance that they will delete their post later – which has happened and caused confusion due to those who just put the post number as reference; the post number isn’t deleted with its post so we all move up…).
Also, unlike some I am not here all day so there is usually a big batch of posts to reply to and I know I can upset Charlies day (and maybe a few others too) by making a really long post that he just falls asleep reading and thereby loses the thread.;o)
snafuNo, seriously…..I DON’T!
My original post in this thread was directed only at the post directly above it; I wasn’t discussing anything with you whatsoever. I’ve edited my post so that there can be no mistake…
…take a couple of deep breaths…..and read my original post again. See?
No, but leave it. We don’t agree – agreed?
I hope you are not suggesting that there was no difference between the ideology of Britain and Germany during the Second World War except that the Allies got to write the history books?
No. Had they won we all might be happily poking fun at the lesser people, and complaining about the emissions from the concentration camp chimneys…
And generally speaking – they are treated very well by our troops…as I posted earlier – an ‘irregular’ can become a ‘civilian’ simply by throwing away their weapon(s) ; )
But it is not the irregular who is the subject of the investigation, is it.
You can keep repeating that and I can keep repeating that too, but in essence it will have nothing to do with the investigation: if there is a scenario where one man with a gun was seen discarding his weapon and running into a crowded market place, soldiers flattening that market place and killing 50-100 civilians would not get away with claiming that the exercise was justified. I do not know what I would do, what I would expect to be done in my name nor whether that lone ‘un’-gunman should be allowed to escape to prevent innocents being killed; what would you do?
I only wish he was standing by a big pile of murdering scum. They murder out troops,their own people and just for good measure shoot a little girl in the head for wanting an education then run away and hide. Those that moan about the actions of British Service personnel really do not have a clue about what they are up against!
Please, go back to your crayons and stop thumping your head repeatedly against the wall for fun.
I have a very good idea of what our troops are up against, the problem is that all the time our troops – who should be operating under things like Geneva – go freelance and play like the bad guys then they create problems further down the line.
That marine shoots a wounded Taliban dead on camera and you whine – but the publicity it generates worldwide does not put the British military in a good light; stupid crazies like Lee Rigby’s killers can use that sort of nutjob idiocy to justify their actions. Is that all right with you?
You know that thing about ‘for want of a horseshoe, a battle was lost…‘? How about it starts instead with some lowly dumb private who happily slots an innocent passerby, for no reason other than because he can, which leads that guys family to revolt against the army that shot their father/brother/son/husband which snowballs on into, oh, I don’t know, lets say a vengeful suicide bomber in a crowed department store in Oxford Street in the week before Christmas… No, that is not my dream – it is a fear, a nightmare, a worst case scenario. And, I admit, it is not even my worst case scenario but that of the security services (or was, about four-five years ago) in London; it is what I was told when I asked a chief inspector in the Met the stupid question how does what happens out there affect us in Britain.
So you want me to stand in front of a crowd of rabid Islamists, Iraqis, Afghans? I’ll stand there with you, mate, and lets hope the army are there to rescue us. But if they are not radical but revolting due to some stupid action (see above) by one of those soldiers then you are on your own, because that is the sort of thing these investigations are to sort out.
snafuWe do not pretend that all our soldiers behaved with total propriety in extreme circumstances…
The Telegraph – knowing well their readership – might not, but there are many right here who do.
SNAFU I wlll go back to my crayons when you stand up for our armed forces. You are just intent on making trouble and running this country down. In my opinion you are a pr*t dont bother replying to me as I have no further interest in what you think. I will blank you from now on!
You just don’t get it, do you?
Our armed forces are great, they are fantastic – but they (and us, of course) have been let down by a minority. A minority like, for example, those paras who lied for forty years about coming under fire to justify the Bloody Sunday Massacre, or British war criminal Donald Payne who was the only soldier to admit to abusing prisoners (others denied it and thus got away with it) which resulted in the death of Baha Mousa. Do you see?
And am I making trouble because I am not bowing to your belief that there is nothing to see here?
I must be a prat because I am replying to you, despite you surrendering your opinion…
snafuPhil Shiner: ‘I will not rest until I know how many Iraqis died in British custody’
Hardly a day goes by, says Phil Shiner, without him or someone who works for him receiving abuse or worse.
“They will phone my office, sometimes daily. They’ll shout ‘c*nt’ to whoever answers the phone. I’ve had to train my team to stay calm and put the phone down.”
Has he had death threats? “Plenty, in letters, in packages in the post, in emails. People ask me, ‘Isn’t that what Pat Finucane did, he didn’t take the threats seriously either?’”
At the mention of the Belfast solicitor shot dead in front of his family, there is a pause. Finucane acted against the British Army in human-rights cases on behalf of Irish nationalists, and was murdered by loyalists, possibly working in collusion with elements of the security forces.
Finucane had three children; Shiner has five. So why doesn’t Shiner stop? His answer is instant. “Principles. There’s something in me that says, ‘I’m not going to be bullied. They’ve picked on the wrong person to bully.’”
He’s a Catholic, a committed socialist, who believes passionately in social justice. Those are his guides.
Shiner, 57, is the Birmingham-based lawyer who is the scourge of the British Army, bringing case after case alleging brutality against Iraqi and Afghan prisoners.
Along the way, Shiner and his Public Interest Lawyers firm have earned the hatred of former and serving soldiers and their flag-bearers, including sections of the media. Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail accused Shiner of milking the legal-aid system, earning millions from the public purse to fund his cause: “Shiner is always on the lookout for a jihadist with a grievance which can be used to discredit the Army and win some hard cash.”
Last week, Shiner was on the receiving end again as the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague announced it would launch a preliminary examination of claims that British troops committed war crimes after the invasion of Iraq. The court will study an estimated 60 alleged cases of unlawful killing and 170 of mistreatment of Iraqis in British military custody between 2003 and 2008. The ICC was responding to a complaint made by Shiner and the Berlin-based NGO the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights.
What was his reaction to the news? “That it’s a real breakthrough. Back in 2006, I pursued a much smaller number of torture and killing cases. Then the ICC said they felt sure war crimes had been committed, but they did not have enough of them. This one will involve the examination of far more cases and the prosecutors will have access to thousands of Ministry of Defence [MoD] documents. It’s a real breakthrough that vindicates 10 years’ hard work.”
This is all said in a flat Brummie accent. It’s hard to imagine that in his spare time he is a comic. “Richard Littlejohn said I wasn’t known for my sense of humour. When I did my stage show, I got 37 laughs in five minutes. I’ll stand by that.”
The UK has its own investigatory body, the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT), set up by the MoD. Shiner has little faith in the IHAT. “I’ve no confidence in them. They’re interviewing, but slowly; they’ve had some of the cases 10 years, and there are hundreds of them.”
He’s optimistic of the ICC now getting to grips with the claims, because “the ICC is not woven into our political establishment”. It’s been a rocky road, he admits, but insists, “I’ve never stopped believing in the rule of law.” He hesitates. “If I did, I might as well take up market gardening.”
He has no doubt where it could lead. “All levels, right up to Geoffrey Hoon [the Defence Secretary during the invasion], and those who followed him as Defence Secretary while we were in Iraq, but also the chiefs of intelligence and general staff. It should take in those at the very top, as well as the interrogators below.”
He draws breath. “I believe there are at least another 11 Baha Mousas, 11 other deaths in British custody.”
It was Shiner who doggedly pursued the case of Baha Mousa, the Iraqi hotel receptionist tortured to death by British troops in 2003. One soldier, Corporal Donald Payne, admitted to inhumane treatment of detainees and was imprisoned for one year. He has the distinction of being the only British soldier in history jailed for a war crime.
Six of his colleagues were acquitted and, while the judge was certain Mousa had been subject to sustained assaults and maltreatment over 36 hours, “a more or less obvious closing of ranks” meant other charges had to be dropped.
Shiner is determined to go further. “I’m not going to rest easy until I find out the answer to the question of exactly how many died in British custody.”
It would be far better, he says, if the MoD ceased resisting at every turn. “The MoD needs to stop, accept it and grow up. They’ve been rumbled, they’ve got it wrong. This wasn’t one-off behaviour, it was systemic and they know it.”
His proof is the manuals from the Army’s intelligence and training centre at Chicksands in Bedfordshire. “They show that the training was blatantly unlawful. It’s like they reverse-engineered the ‘Muslim Handbook’. Sexual humiliation plays a big part. They must get the prisoner naked, so the interrogator pretends they must strip for a medical examination.”
He scoffs. “Honestly, what sort of nonsense is that?”
In one of the cases, the prisoner was made to take his clothes off in front of a lot of people, including women, and made to kneel on all fours. “One of the soldiers gets an erection and says ‘jiggy-jiggy’. He stands by the naked man and masturbates on his back.” In another, “a prisoner had hardcore porn played to him all night. He was asked if he’d masturbated.”
And there was “a woman interrogator who straddled a man, and put her genitals in his face. She said, ‘Do you want that? You can have it if you tell me what I want to know.’”
This, and more, with names, he hopes will come out now the ICC is involved. “It’s part of the training regime at Chicksands – get them naked and keep them naked. The MoD says it’s not systemic but it clearly is.”
His “ultimate goal”, Shiner says, is to achieve “reform of our armed-services personnel so it never happens again. We need to train soldiers and interrogators properly, train them in the basic elements of law.”
He can’t see why the Army can’t be like the police. “If you join the police and you patrol the streets you need to know what the law is. That doesn’t happen in the Army – they’re not taught it.”
He sticks with the police comparison. “It’s very simple: why do we need interrogators to do disrespectful things to people? We don’t. A skilled police questioner knows, when a child has gone missing, if the person in front of them knows where he or she is. They can tell. They know if they’ve got the right person. And they’ve done that without doing anything disrespectful.”
What about the charge that he is unpatriotic? He bristles. “What, that I don’t care about the soldiers? What nonsense. I acted for the Gurkhas from 2002 onwards. In one case I secured £40m in compensation for the Gurkhas captured by the Japanese. The Gurkhas were excluded by the Government from the compensation scheme. I got them compensation.”
He’s acting for one of the mothers of the six British military policemen murdered in Iraq in 2003. And he’s represented the Gulf War veterans affected by Gulf War syndrome. “The list of people I’ve acted for who are serving or ex-serving military personnel is a long one.”
And is he making millions at the taxpayers’ expense, as Littlejohn alleges? “I’ve put in hundreds of thousands of hours into the ICC complaint at my own expense and my team’s expense. We’ve spent a small fortune putting it together. But we’re doing it for free. Why? Because we might be a dying breed, because we’re lawyers of principle. The idea I’ve enriched myself doing this sort of work is nonsense.”
But he’s made his point; why not let them rest? Is he not damaging the nation by constantly bringing these cases? “Listen, the people who are damaging the nation are the senior politicians, civil servants and lawyers who let this happen. Those are the people who are damaging the nation.”
In 2003, he says, “We went into Iraq to win hearts and minds. How could we do that, if people were taken into custody and came out in body bags? We abused women and kids, and expected people not to talk to each other! Well, they did.”
It’s been referred to, he says, as a loss of a moral compass: “But moral compass doesn’t cost money. It’s something drilled into you by training and discipline. The troops should have been told by their commanding officers: ‘There’s a line in the sand and if you cross it you will be found out. You will be dishonourably discharged at best and your Army career will be over. You will have brought shame upon your regiment. You’ve a duty to report to me if anyone crosses that line in the sand.’ With the right ethos and training, the commanding officers could have made sure that ethical principles were applied.”
There is such a thing, I venture, as the “fog of war”. His answer is mocking. “People who say that don’t know what they’re talking about. Iraq wasn’t a war – the fighting lasted just five weeks. After that, we were an occupying power. Afghanistan was not a war. It was a United Nations operation to assist the government there to restore peace to the region.”
Our bad behaviour, he says, has done us harm: “Look at us. We’re supposed to be a democratic nation, a great democratic state that abides by the rule of law. Now countries can turn around and say, ‘No you don’t – you’re not better than us.’ The Syrian government can say, ‘Don’t you dare lecture us on what we would and should not be doing.’”
The blame, he believes, lies with our inability to confront our colonial past, to realise our empire has gone, and that when we had the empire, we did some terrible things. “Nobody has ever made the British public face what their armed forces did in the Second World War and the colonial wars since,” he says. “Germany was divided into four, made to eat humble pie, and national monuments were built commemorating their atrocities. What have we ever done? Nothing.”
He must go. He’s got a “highly confidential” meeting to attend, this time involving the rapes of women. Seemingly, his work never ends. And whose fault is that?
Phil Shiner: The essentials
Born: 1956, in Coventry
Education: Bishop Ullathorne Roman Catholic Comprehensive School; Birmingham University (law)
First major victory: defeats Edwina Currie as a member of Birmingham City Council over a policy she was promoting of housing tenants behind in their rent in a “punishment block” of an old barracks
Moves: from law centre in Birmingham to Barnardo’s in Bradford as a community-development worker, to Birkenhead working for the Labour MP Frank Field. Sets up environmental-law department for Tyndallwoods law firm in Birmingham
Finally: in 1999, launches Public Interest Lawyers
Family: twice married; three children from his first marriage, two from his second, to Rachel, a gastroenterologist
Relaxes: runs (once did a marathon in two hours, 30 minutes), cycles, goes on an annual religious retreat to Iona
Richard Littlejohn mentioned him in a column?
Richard Littlejohn? The Richard Littlejohn who never lets the truth get in the way of a good smear campaign? The Richard Littlejohn who goes on and on about homosexuality so frequently in his columns that questions are asked about what he is trying to hide? The Richard Littlejohn whose catchphrase is you couldn’t make it up despite writing in the Daily Mail where they push the boundaries of fiction beyond the believable edge? The Richard Littlejohn who is a moron?
That Richard Littlejohn?
If Littlejohn is scared enough to mention him there must be something in what Phil Shiner says…
snafuTruth. The Saville inquiry investigated what happened that day – are you saying you have information or detail that was not brought up at the inquiry? The truth should have come from those in authority that day – I can’t imagine you taking the word of an opposing terrorist group as the truth despite the fact that some of those present gave evidence to Saville.
Confused. Just taking the information that is available; the Saville inquiry has pretty well covered all corners, even after the obstruction of imagery and weapons by the MoD. Once again, if you have info that disproves anything…?
Mistake. I expect nothing of the sort. It just seems totally obscene that against an unarmed crowd there appeared to be some sort of mindset that allowed the soldiers to fire on people fleeing gunfire, shoot samaritans as they tried to assist the wounded, even ‘execute’ an injured man as he lay on the ground. Should we change the ideal in the public’s mind that this is what should be expected, rather than be concerned at the one-sided death toll in, ahem, ‘combat’?
No, obviously not every para. Just those who, after that day and to the investigators, knew they were lying, covering up the actions of their mates and not giving the full honest facts at the time. After all, some of them had to have had nothing to hide personally since only 108 bullets were apparently fired by the army that day…
Much as it pains me to use the Daily Mail as a source, this article gives the view of one soldier who testified to Saville that some appeared to demonstrate a disturbing enthusiasm to kill without justification, rather than through necessity or fear:
Bloody Sunday soldiers ‘fired without justification’
A Bloody Sunday paratrooper today said that his colleagues fired without justification.
The former para, identified only as Soldier 027, said just two soldiers – identified as Lance Corporal F and Soldier G – were probably responsible for eight or 10 of the deaths of the 13 unarmed men killed on 30 January 1972 on a Londonderry civil rights march.
The witness, in his statement to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, sitting in London, recalled that one colleague from 1 Para was “exuberant” as a terrifying display of firepower was unleashed against civilians.
Soldier 027’s eyewitness account of the bloodshed in the Bogside is hotly contested.
Dozens of other soldiers are expected to say they fired within rules of engagement and only at threatening targets.
Soldier 027 was giving his live evidence today behind a screen, just yards away from bereaved relatives who believe their loved ones were killed without proper reason.
Several of the 14 injured in the shootings also attended.
The ex-para is in a special protection scheme, paid for by the Northern Ireland Office, to ensure he co-operates with the Government-appointed inquiry which is expected to cost more than £100 million by the time it concludes.
It is believed Soldier 027 fears retribution from his former colleagues. The deal, which includes relocation and a salary, ends when he finishes giving his evidence.
In his statement to the inquiry, Soldier 027 claimed Lance Corporal F began firing “without pause or hesitation” at the centre of the crowd at the rubble barricade in Rossville Street, where six people were killed.
There were “shocked and terrified” people who were shot at while they fled Glendfada Park North and others froze in fear. Four people died in the Glenfada Park area.
Soldier 027 said he stood amid the carnage and never fired a single shot because he could not identify a gunman or a nail-bomber.
In total, 108 bullets were fired on Bloody Sunday.
Soldier 027 recalled being positioned at a wall in Kells Walk, Rossville Street, with his fellow soldiers and scanning the crowd for a target with his rifle at his shoulder.
He recalled one soldier, probably a corporal from Guinness Force, running up beside him and pushing between two soldiers who were firing so that he could begin firing himself.
“He indicated to me that he thought what was happening was great. He was exuberant,” Soldier 027 said in his statement.
“I looked through my sights, scanning across the crowd. I was as keen to find a target as anyone, but I just could not identify a target that appeared to justify engaging. I did not see anyone with a weapon or see or hear an explosive device.
“I have a clear memory of consciously thinking ‘what are they firing at?’ and feeling some inadequacy. What was I not seeing that I ought to be seeing?”
The paras, believing they could be attacked by IRA gunmen, were psyched up for battle, according to Soldier 027.
A briefing held the Saturday evening had left the soldiers remarking how they could be “getting kills” the following day, he said.
The paras in his section had passed around dumdum bullets as they waited in the armoured vehicles ready to go into the Bogside, he said.
Soldier 027 said he joined the Parachute Regiment in 1971 when he was 19 years old and was a radio operator in the regiment’s anti-tank platoon on Bloody Sunday.
“Unspeakable acts took place on Bloody Sunday,” he said in his inquiry statement.
“There was no justification for a single shot I saw fired. The only threat was a large assembly of people and we were all experienced soldiers who had been through riot situations before.”
He added: “Events that day within my own platoon were triggered by two individuals with a game plan and when they saw they could bring it into action, they did so and others joined in. There was no command to prevent or stop this happening.”
The march occurred at a politically sensitive point in Ireland’s troubles. Internment, which was introduced in August 1971, had escalated the violence on the streets and made rioting and sniper fire against British soldiers commonplace.
The paras, whom Soldier 027 has dubbed “the army’s rottweilers”, were, he said, arrogant and elitist shock troops who were deployed for efficient clear-up or arrest operations.
People in authority needed to accept some of the blame for Bloody Sunday, Soldier 027 said.
He added: “The responsibility for its (1 Paras) actions lies with those who selected and directed an outfit like that. It is noticeable that no one in authority has taken responsibility for orchestrating the situation.”
Soldier 027 recalled that on Bloody Sunday his platoon moved in south down Rossville Street in armoured vans after getting the go-ahead from Major Ted Loden, Commander of the Support unit.
There was an intense feeling of adrenalin and apprehension as the paras, with their blackened faces, de-bussed quickly and approached their task. They were convinced they were about to face gunman, Soldier 027 claimed.
A crowd of people were facing them from the rubble barricade, slightly to the east of the Rossville Flats.
As 027’s section reached the pavement by the end of the small wall one of his colleagues went into a kneeling position, raised his rifle to his shoulder and began firing, he alleged in his statement.
Soldier 027 said he saw two people at the barricade fall.
His statement added: “Within seconds, other soldiers came on the scene, some kneeling and some standing, joined in the firing.”
His impression was that the burst of fire from the Kells Walk was “continuous and sustained firing over a period of several minutes”.
He added: “I had the distinct impression that this was a case of some soldiers realising this was an opportunity to fire their weapon and they didn’t want to miss the chance.”
Of Lance Corporal F and Soldier G, now deceased, he said: “My impression has always been that the two of them … had a preconceived idea of what they were going to do that day and set about doing it as a pair of oppos.”
He received a ceasefire over his radio and relayed the message to his fellow paras.
Lance Corporal F and Soldier G, who “worked in concert in all that they did” according to 027, moved to the west, closely followed by Soldiers E and H.
They ran towards Glenfada Park North and F and G continued in the same vein as at Kells Walk.
At least one person was on the ground as he approached the scene. He saw a crowd of “about 40 shocked and terrified people” along the south side of the car park trying to flee.
In his statement he continued: “They were in the process of exiting the southwest corner of the car park when, in the presence of the shattering noise of the SLR’s (self-loading rifles) they became submissive and acquiescent. Some froze in a static huddle.
“I saw no civilians with weapons, no threatening gesture, neither could I see or hear any explosive devices during the entire situation.
“I was not personally at risk from anything that I could see and it never entered my head to fire my weapon.”
He said he felt “mentally overloaded and seized up” and added “it was surreal – as if the events took place outside normal time”.
He believed that four soldiers fired rounds while he was in Glenfada Park with F and G particularly appearing to “assert themselves and influence events”.
His statement added: “I have always been satisfied in my own mind that Lance Corporal F and Soldier G probably shot eight or 10 people that day.”
He alleged that much of his statement to the Royal Military Police, taken immediately after Bloody Sunday, was fabricated by others in which “facts have been altered and added” to justify the shooting.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-142962/Bloody-Sunday-soldiers-fired-justification.html
Such blood-lust could do nothing but help the IRA, boosting recruitment (as I’ve already said) and strengthening their grip on those with even the slenderest feeling of injustice.
snafuCasual… – left it (stupidly) to autocorrect.
Derry – went with the spelling on the reports I referred to; it is both Derry and Londonderry in two different reports I found on the National Archives website. But if it is acceptable for the Protestant Apprentice Boys of Derry then what can I say…?
Sign In
