How to kill an army

There have, lately, been many retrospective prosecutions of military personnel for shooting at the enemy while on active service. Apparently, killing enemy combatants is now seen as bad form by the Government and the justice system.

What are the soldiers supposed to do? Wave a stick at them and shout? Careful with what you shout, you can be done for abusive behaviour for shouting at people now. Even if those people are trying to kill you.

I will not be at all surprised if, in the future, there are retrospective prosecutions of soldiers for shouting at the enemy, thereby causing them undue stress and alarm. There will be ISIS fighters on the front page of the Daily Mail with the requisite sad face, tear tracks in the dust on their faces and a headline saying ‘British soldiers called me a sand monkey’.

Two big stories at the moment are the prosecution of ‘Marine A’ for shooting a Taliban soldier who was already wounded, and of two retired soldiers accused of the murder of an IRA man in 1972.

Seriously. This is happening in the UK right now.

The Irish war is gently referred to as ‘the troubles’. It was a goddamn war! People were shooting each other and civilians were getting blown up by bombs. That, to me, suggests more than ‘troubles’.

These prosecutions are going to kill a hell of a lot of British soldiers in the future. The cynic in me suspects that that is what they are intended to achieve.

Put yourself in the soldiers’ shoes. You’re in uniform on the streets of Belfast and you spot a high ranking member of the IRA. You know the IRA set off bombs, you know they kneecap and kill people for any perceived transgression, you know they will kill you, a soldier, if they get the chance. What would you do? Would you shoot or hesitate?

Imagine facing a wounded Taliban. You know a wounded man can still lift a pistol or pull the pin from a grenade or set off a Semtex waistcoat. You know the Taliban are quite ready to die if they can take you with them. What would you do? Shoot or hesitate?

Now re-imagine the scenario as a soldier who knows that if you shoot, the justice system can come after you any time in the future. Even after you retired. If you shoot this enemy combatant, you could face murder charges 35 years in the future.

Now what? Shoot or hesitate?

That knowledge will push you towards ‘hesitate’.

And that will change your future. Instead of the police knocking your door in retirement to serve a warrant for charges, you’ll be going home the following day in a body bag. That moment of hesitation is all the enemy needs, because the enemy has no such threat of future prosecution hanging over them.

That’s how you wipe out an entire army with consummate ease.

All you have to do is put a tiny seed of doubt in their minds. One tiny hint that their job, if done correctly, will land them in jail one day. Put that hint into every soldier’s head with a few well publicised prosecutions and that entire army is doomed. Just make their finger pause on the trigger for a second.

Plenty of time to set off that suicide vest or pull the pin on that grenade…


15 thoughts on “How to kill an army

  1. ACPO and the gubblement have concluded, under Blair it was I think, that the Services would refuse orders to fire on British People.
    Whereas the Police,being mostly half-educated thugs bossed now by Common Purpose graduates at superintendent level and above to the top, will happily do it.

    Therefore the Army in particular must be attenuated, demoralised and disempowered.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. I recall a conversation with an infantry officer back in the 70’s. He had done several tours in Northern Ireland. Much of our talk turned on ‘discipline’. At one point, he said. “When I say Fire, the next thing I want to hear is BANG. Not ‘Are you sure Sir?'”.

    Another part of our talk concerned loyalty – from Officer to Squaddies. He had recently given character evidence in Court in support of a couple of his men who had got into a fight in a pub. Of course, they had been out of order, but there was no possibility that he would not give them good character references before the Magistrates.

    It’s a shame that nobody senior enough to make a stir has resigned in support of their men – how ever long ago those men put their lives on the line.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. This must, I presume, be a further step in the Great Plan. Decry all religions but one which will become useful as a flashpoint when it’s convenient; destroy the family, diminish the role of the father, devalue male role models, make single female parenthood a career choice, parachute women into jobs to which they are unsuited; indoctrinate children with the values which will make them grow up as unquestioning pathetic snowflakes; then, with a police service dedicated to ensuring that the electorate know not to rely on them except for swift reactions to hate crimes – or name-calling as anyone with any sense calls it – “they” can then set about weakening the armed services so they can’t function without support from, well I never, the EUSSR.

    Liked by 2 people

    • It’s pure Frankfurt School philosophy in action.

      I fear for the future. Not mine, because I won’t be around for very much longer, but I have children and grandchildren who will have to deal with the fallout from this insanity. Have we learned nothing from history?

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Been a fine gravy train for Phil Shiner and I see he doesn’t much like being the focus of attention himself.

    And the case has been brought to court by his victims.

    An example must be made of this parasite. A real life sentence, without the least possibility of parole ever – is the best they can hope for, especially as the shyster’s knocking on 61 years of age.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. The circumstances under which you could open fire were detailed on the yellow card which was given to soldiers carrying weapons in Northern Ireland.
    You could shoot anyone who was armed, damaging installations, or if they fled when challenged whether armed or not. You did not have to be shot at first or wait for an order.
    There was no provision for shooting suspected terrorists on sight because it is illegal to shoot unarmed civilians, even criminal ones. You did not and could not “spot” high-ranking terrorists in the street.
    I don’t have to imagine the responibilities and duties of carrying a loaded rifle 30 odd years ago in the UK because I did it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • 40 years ago I could wander around with an air rifle (unloaded and cracked open or cased) and nobody cared. Some did the same with a shotgun or hunting rifle. Try it now. I got much more of a shocked response with a camera fitted with a 500mm lens and a pistol grip remote shutter release. The gun scared nobody.

      30 odd years ago, did you imagine that shooting a terrorist would ever get you prosecuted? Is he unarmed? Are you sure he has no weapon inside his coat? Really, really sure?

      Do you really want to take the chance?

      With the current law, you have to.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Years ago, I worked for a chap who’d been a soldier in Northern Ireland. A couple of anecdotes come to mind. Firstly, he and his squad had been out on patrol and searching a building when they had come upon a man with an Armalite rifle in his hands. He had promptly dropped the gun and stuck his hands high in the air, shouting “Surrender, surrender!”. They for their part had arrested him, confiscated his weapon and taken him back to base. The commanding officer first loudly commended them then quietly told the lot of them to follow him, down into a dark and sound-proofed cellar deep below the base.

      There they received a full-volume bollocking, the gist of which was that if ever they caught an IRA man with a gun in his hands, then he was to be shot dead immediately regardless of any actions like dropping the gun, simply so there would be one less IRA man out there. A shoot on sight policy also ensured that some smart-arse lawyer didn’t get said IRA man off somehow.

      This leads on to the second anecdote: why do you think the Good Friday Agreement came to be? Was it because Tony Blair was a gifted and superlative diplomat, a man of the people, and a saint walking among us all?

      It was not. The reason was simple: the IRA were losing their war by attrition. They were not as good as the British Army, and more IRA recruits were being shot, imprisoned or simply deterred than the IRA could recruit, which resulted in the IRA ranks effectively consisting of a dwindling number of active members, plus a number of politically-leaning blow-hards and cowards.

      These now fill the ranks of Sinn Fein. This is why we can dictate terms to Northern Ireland with such efficiency now: the belligerent and dangerous former IRA members are mostly dead, because we killed them, and the few survivors cannot now rally support for a lost cause.

      Liked by 1 person

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.