Army risks losing its reputation, warns general

[cemertyone]

We're all "state actors", mate.

No i disagree with your statement that "we are all state actors" but i dont have the time on the library P.C. to argue with you at the moment ...but i will come back to you later in the day to argue why we are not....

 

[cemertyone]

He's right you know, they set up medical facilities, treated their sick children and animals, gave them wireless sets so they could talk to the outside world.................then they machine gunned them.

Or maybe they didn't

Well seeing as my father actually served their during the course of that campaign and in Cyprus and Eden et all i can tell you for a FACT that some of the incidents he described to me where fucking APPALLING.And he quite freely admitted to killing quite a few people during his time there. And the British Army draw no credit from their time there either...why dont you read up on Brigader Kitson`s epoch and policy regarding " Low intensity Warfare" might make you see things in a new light...

 

[Herbert Read]

References please. Or is this yet more anti British army bullshit.

A member of my family also served during this period in malaysia

I would welcome apologies

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

 

[Herbert Read]

Mmm, I think you're letting your anti-militarism delude you.

While it's likely that (as happened in Kenya) there were cases of "search and destroy" missions being used pour encourager les autres, and just as likely that "special forces" would be used for such missions rather than the poor bloody infantry, I have no doubt it wasn't a hard and fast policy applied to every town, village and hamlet (more liely to have been places where insurgent activity was rife), and that it didn't kill "all the locals".

I think you let your lack of knowledge delude you over 2000 civillians were killed. Im glad you can distinguish between an insurgent and a civillian.
Read about low intensity warfare or are you blinded by the propganda and lies of liberal democracy.

 

[Herbert Read]

Not a student of history then, I take it!

Actually mike a B.A Hons student of history, and avid reader of history. You obviously only read your lady bird 123 book of history.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Obviously you flunked the section on giving good clear references, as the Wikipedia article you mention says nothing about

Just like they did in malaysia when they murdered all the locals in the 1950s <snip> just the women and children usually whaen the male insurgents were out of the village on an action.

So perhaps you'd like to reconsider your sources, or render an appology for your own stupidity oh Honourable Bachelor of the Arts.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think you let your lack of knowledge delude you over 2000 civillians were killed. Im glad you can distinguish between an insurgent and a civillian.
Read about low intensity warfare or are you blinded by the propganda and lies of liberal democracy.

A few things, Herb:

1) I don't believe I quantified a body count so "I think you let your lack of knowledge delude you over 2000 civillians were killed" is somewhat misplaced, don't you think?
Or perhaps you're grandstanding to cover your own lack of knowledge?

2) I can't distinguish between an insurgent and a civilian, and haven't claimed to. If (as it seems) you're having problems with understanding the English language, I'll simplify what I wrote just for you. I said:

While it's likely that (as happened in Kenya) there were cases of "search and destroy" missions being used pour encourager les autres, and just as likely that "special forces" would be used for such missions rather than the poor bloody infantry, I have no doubt it wasn't a hard and fast policy applied to every town, village and hamlet (more liely to have been places where insurgent activity was rife), and that it didn't kill "all the locals".
or, in Playschoolese:
"It's likely that search and destroy missions were used to target villages etc were there had been insurgent activity, and the villages and their inhabitants were liquidated to provide encouragement to other villages not to harbour insurgents"
Got that?

3) I'm well aware of low intensity warfare and it's implications. I've owned a copy of Frank Kitson's "Low Intensity Operations" (among other bits and pieces relevant to the subject) for nigh on 20 years, as I believe in knowing how one's enemy thinks.

4) Am I " blinded by the propganda and lies of liberal democracy"? No.
Am I as blinded by ideological bonds as you appear to be? No.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No i disagree with your statement that "we are all state actors" but i dont have the time on the library P.C. to argue with you at the moment ...but i will come back to you later in the day to argue why we are not....

I'm glad you disagree with me. I love a good argument!

My point is we're all state actors, because we're all, whether we like it or not, implicated in a power relationship with the state where we are the subservient part of the relationship. While we have enough autonomy to limit the amount of interaction we have with the state, we can't escape it, and because any interaction with the state legitimates and reinforces the state (even acts of rebellion) then we are "state actors".

 

[Herbert Read]

Obviously you flunked the section on giving good clear references, as the Wikipedia article you mention says nothing about

So perhaps you'd like to reconsider your sources, or render an appology for your own stupidity oh Honourable Bachelor of the Arts.

id suggest you do some reserach im not your tecaher have you never seen the picture of the royal marine holding severed heads or read about the batang massacre.

http://www.troopsoutmovement.com/oliversarmychap5.htm

I suggets you do your won reasearch with secondary material, i have spoken to veterans who are primary sources who have recounted dark tails of the mis spelt low intensity war fare.

 

[Herbert Read]

A few things, Herb:

1) I don't believe I quantified a body count so "I think you let your lack of knowledge delude you over 2000 civillians were killed" is somewhat misplaced, don't you think?
Or perhaps you're grandstanding to cover your own lack of knowledge?

2) I can't distinguish between an insurgent and a civilian, and haven't claimed to. If (as it seems) you're having problems with understanding the English language, I'll simplify what I wrote just for you. I said:

While it's likely that (as happened in Kenya) there were cases of "search and destroy" missions being used pour encourager les autres, and just as likely that "special forces" would be used for such missions rather than the poor bloody infantry, I have no doubt it wasn't a hard and fast policy applied to every town, village and hamlet (more liely to have been places where insurgent activity was rife), and that it didn't kill "all the locals".
or, in Playschoolese:
"It's likely that search and destroy missions were used to target villages etc were there had been insurgent activity, and the villages and their inhabitants were liquidated to provide encouragement to other villages not to harbour insurgents"
Got that?

3) I'm well aware of low intensity warfare and it's implications. I've owned a copy of Frank Kitson's "Low Intensity Operations" (among other bits and pieces relevant to the subject) for nigh on 20 years, as I believe in knowing how one's enemy thinks.

4) Am I " blinded by the propganda and lies of liberal democracy"? No.
Am I as blinded by ideological bonds as you appear to be? No.

Aplos but the SAS, royal marines were involved in low intesity and masssacre of insurgents i am not making up. Sorry if i came accross a twat. i hope you accept my apols.

 

[tobyjug]

A member of my family also served during this period in malaysia

I would welcome apologies

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

I have read that, and can't find any references to large scale atrocities by British troops.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Obviously you flunked the section on giving good clear references, as the Wikipedia article you mention says nothing about

So perhaps you'd like to reconsider your sources, or render an appology for your own stupidity oh Honourable Bachelor of the Arts.

I think either Herbert has:

a) mistakenly extrapolated occasional behaviour into routine behaviour/doctrine, or
b) used the word "all" in error and doesn't have the cojones to admit it.

If I'm wrong I'd love to see some proof that such things happened "...in malaysia when they murdered all the locals in the 1950s <snip> just the women and children usually whaen the male insurgents were out of the village on an action". As Herbert's diatribe does strongly imply that this was the enactment of a widespread policy rather than an occasionally deployed undermining/morale sapping tactic.

You see, as far as I understand it, in low intensity warfare it doesn't make sense to "slash and burn" the opposition, it does however make sense to destabilise and brutalise them.

 

[Herbert Read]

I have read that, and can't find any references to large scale atrocities by British troops.

check out batang massacre

nice picture of royal marine with severed head

http://www.troopsoutmovement.com/oliversarmychap5.htm

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

 

[Herbert Read]

Then its ok for the state to murder occasionally?

Low intensity warfare is a tactic used in all british campaigns from malaysia to northern ireland. Women children and men were murdered in malaysia by special and security forces.

You are using my angry statement that the UK has and will continue to murder civillians to discredit the fact that is does and has done this, this is a bit pathetic!

 

[tobyjug]

check out batang massacre

nice picture of royal marine with severed head

http://www.troopsoutmovement.com/oliversarmychap5.htm

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

I am sorry you keeping bleating on as if every British soldier goes around committing atrocities as a matter of course. You have as yet come up up with zero evidence to back this up. Shit happens in any conflict and more so in guerilla types of war.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Then its ok for the state to murder occasionally?

It's never okay for the state to murder IMO, but coercion and violence are usually powers that a state reserves to itself and which it will attempt (if caught) to justify using. It has happened, it does happen, and it will continue to happen.

Personally I've never been able to fathom the long-term value of the kind of tactics Kitson favoured. They may make the fighting of a battle or war simpler, but they make the peace more fraught with (justifiable imo) angers and hatreds.

 

[Herbert Read]

It's never okay for the state to murder IMO, but coercion and violence are usually powers that a state reserves to itself and which it will attempt (if caught) to justify using. It has happened, it does happen, and it will continue to happen.

Personally I've never been able to fathom the long-term value of the kind of tactics Kitson favoured. They may make the fighting of a battle or war simpler, but they make the peace more fraught with (justifiable imo) angers and hatreds.

just annoys me that the state has the monopoly on violence i would like to get low intesity on on toby jug as he says shit happens

 

[Bob_the_lost]

id suggest you do some reserach im not your tecaher have you never seen the picture of the royal marine holding severed heads or read about the batang massacre.

http://www.troopsoutmovement.com/oliversarmychap5.htm

I suggets you do your won reasearch with secondary material, i have spoken to veterans who are primary sources who have recounted dark tails of the mis spelt low intensity war fare.

You didn't read my post did you, when asked for a reference you posted a wikipedia link, presumably to try and support your assertion. However the link you gave did not support your assertion in any way shape or form. You are comming across as a twat.

 

[Dhimmi]

Not a student of history then, I take it!

It's this ceaseless attention to historical detail that makes U75 what it is today...

 

[Bigdavalad]

check out batang massacre

nice picture of royal marine with severed head

http://www.troopsoutmovement.com/oliversarmychap5.htm

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

I'm sorry, but this is possibly the worst faked photo I've seen in a long time. I'm even sure I've seen the actual picture where the male head comes from, if I remember where I saw it, I'll put it up.

 

[MikeMcc]

Not as bad as the one with the bloke in front of the 'concentration camp'. You can see the white outline all round him where his image was cut and pasted over!

 

[Bigdavalad]

Not as bad as the one with the bloke in front of the 'concentration camp'. You can see the white outline all round him where his image was cut and pasted over!

Was going to mention that one as well, my five year old cousin could knock up better with a box of crayola and a wet break time.

 

[dylanredefined]

I read a horrible annecdote from the mayala emergency .It was the practisce to bring the body of any terrorist killed back to base to be identyifed
One junior officer thought this was too much like hard work so cut the hands and head off and just brought those back . brandishing the head he entered the base with a cheerful "here is another one to cross off you list" to be met by
outraged top brass and he was sent home in disgrace .
Goggle produces thousands of pages about the emergency and atrocities
yet you continue to plug wikepedia and the troops out website the second
site is hardly going to be unbiased is it .

 

[cemertyone]

I'm glad you disagree with me. I love a good argument!

My point is we're all state actors, because we're all, whether we like it or not, implicated in a power relationship with the state where we are the subservient part of the relationship. While we have enough autonomy to limit the amount of interaction we have with the state, we can't escape it, and because any interaction with the state legitimates and reinforces the state (even acts of rebellion) then we are "state actors".

No no no Mr/Miss Panda.. you simply can`t compare me as an individual ( and my actions) in the same light as an organisation such as the Army...we are fundamentally at opposite ends of the " state actor " spectrium.
And my inter-action with any agencies of the state most certainly does not legitimise it in any shape form or manner....i have not given it consent merly because i`m forced to inter-act with it to some degree.
Let me give you an example.......i know enough IRA men from my past who willingly take benifits from the British state...( as a means of futher draining the C of the E in terms of cost to them for staying in the 6 counties) but this does not Legitimise the actions of the goverment in its policy approach to the province, indeed just because they have a certain level of inter-action with government agencies it does not mean that they are then engaged in some form of social contract with them. in fact its the very opposite....

 

[ViolentPanda]

No no no Mr/Miss Panda.. you simply can`t compare me as an individual ( and my actions) in the same light as an organisation such as the Army...

It's Mr.

we are fundamentally at opposite ends of the " state actor " spectrium.
And my inter-action with any agencies of the state most certainly does not legitimise it in any shape form or manner....i have not given it consent merly because i`m forced to inter-act with it to some degree.
Let me give you an example.......i know enough IRA men from my past who willingly take benifits from the British state...( as a means of futher draining the C of the E in terms of cost to them for staying in the 6 counties) but this does not Legitimise the actions of the goverment in its policy approach to the province, indeed just because they have a certain level of inter-action with government agencies it does not mean that they are then engaged in some form of social contract with them. in fact its the very opposite....

Interaction is a tacit consent. That's probably why McGuinness was hot on provos not claiming any benefits from the British state.
I'm sorry mate, but no amount of semantic wheedling, stirring disavowals of complicity and rousing tales of the IRA draining the British exchequer change the simple fact that if you participate at any level you're in a power relationship with the other party, and usually a subservient one at that.

 

[cemertyone]

It's Mr.


Interaction is a tacit consent. That's probably why McGuinness was hot on provos not claiming any benefits from the British state.
I'm sorry mate, but no amount of semantic wheedling, stirring disavowals of complicity and rousing tales of the IRA draining the British exchequer change the simple fact that if you participate at any level you're in a power relationship with the other party, and usually a subservient one at that.

YOU ARE WRONG....but i respect your opinion.......