ChatterBank1 min ago
He did not fire in panic or fear ?
In the Saville Enquiry soldier, Lance Corporal F, was identified as being responsible for four deaths.
On BBC Radio 4 this morning the following Saville findings were highlighted about Lance Corporal F:-
He did not fire in panic or fear, he fired without giving proper thought to whether he had identified a person posing a threat of causing death or injury.
He shot 4 people dead
He shot at least one person in the Back
He shot at least one person on the Ground.
He shot dead 17-year-old Michael Kelly.
He and other soldiers lost all self-control and none of the casualties was armed with a firearm
Whilst a soldiers job is often a tremendously difficult one , how do you explain a Soldier behaving as Lance Corporal F did - bearing in mind the Saville findings ?
And what if anything should be done to prevent such behaviour in future ?
On BBC Radio 4 this morning the following Saville findings were highlighted about Lance Corporal F:-
He did not fire in panic or fear, he fired without giving proper thought to whether he had identified a person posing a threat of causing death or injury.
He shot 4 people dead
He shot at least one person in the Back
He shot at least one person on the Ground.
He shot dead 17-year-old Michael Kelly.
He and other soldiers lost all self-control and none of the casualties was armed with a firearm
Whilst a soldiers job is often a tremendously difficult one , how do you explain a Soldier behaving as Lance Corporal F did - bearing in mind the Saville findings ?
And what if anything should be done to prevent such behaviour in future ?
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by olddutch. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The commanding officer lost control of his troops.
The report sa\ys Col. Wilford disobeyed the orders given by his superior, Brigadier Pat McClellan, in ordering his men into the Bogside.
That should have been dealt with at the time but I guess that then it would have been seen as admitting fault.
I don't think questions like how do prevent such things in the future mean much applied to an event of 30 years ago.
Hopefully lessons were already learnt
The report sa\ys Col. Wilford disobeyed the orders given by his superior, Brigadier Pat McClellan, in ordering his men into the Bogside.
That should have been dealt with at the time but I guess that then it would have been seen as admitting fault.
I don't think questions like how do prevent such things in the future mean much applied to an event of 30 years ago.
Hopefully lessons were already learnt
Wikipedia states
“Bloodlust is a desire for extreme violence and carnage, often aroused in the heat of battle and leading to uncontrolled slaughter and torture”
“The killer instinct is the human propensity to do whatever it takes to survive or achieve a goal, even killing another human being. Often present in fighting, wars and confrontation, it is believed that some humans possess an ability to kill another human in order to achieve a goal. Examples include soldiers in the army, fighters such as boxers, and mixed martial artists, who often display a form of this when trying to finish off an opponent, whereas it is argued that the main goal is to master self-defense in fighting arts“.
Maybe our propensity for extreme violence is beyond proper understanding. A lot of violence happens because somewhere we have been hurt or because of the way our parents treated us etc. But it seems there is also violence in us that is just “There” Maybe,even when a high degree of professional training and control is applied to Soldiers, the innate tendency to extreme violence cannot always be fully contained in the heat of battle ?
Maybe it has always been so - and always will be ?
“Bloodlust is a desire for extreme violence and carnage, often aroused in the heat of battle and leading to uncontrolled slaughter and torture”
“The killer instinct is the human propensity to do whatever it takes to survive or achieve a goal, even killing another human being. Often present in fighting, wars and confrontation, it is believed that some humans possess an ability to kill another human in order to achieve a goal. Examples include soldiers in the army, fighters such as boxers, and mixed martial artists, who often display a form of this when trying to finish off an opponent, whereas it is argued that the main goal is to master self-defense in fighting arts“.
Maybe our propensity for extreme violence is beyond proper understanding. A lot of violence happens because somewhere we have been hurt or because of the way our parents treated us etc. But it seems there is also violence in us that is just “There” Maybe,even when a high degree of professional training and control is applied to Soldiers, the innate tendency to extreme violence cannot always be fully contained in the heat of battle ?
Maybe it has always been so - and always will be ?
///McGuiness is wholly innocent///
Do you reallly think so mafbog?
That's a very radical view and one i've never seen anyone express on AB before.
///I wasnt ther I dont know exactly how they felt. Hoe can someone guge the fear of someone that many years after. ///
I should try taking more water with it in future LOL.
.
Do you reallly think so mafbog?
That's a very radical view and one i've never seen anyone express on AB before.
///I wasnt ther I dont know exactly how they felt. Hoe can someone guge the fear of someone that many years after. ///
I should try taking more water with it in future LOL.
.
" I'd say they are still at it in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it's just not reported."
flobadob - Id say you're very probably right - war is extreme and evokes extreme behaviours - its another world, another planet with some unspoken rules - brings to mind Jack Nicholsons speech in a Few Good Men where he in the role of Colonel Jessep emphatically declares, "You can't handle the truth!"
Because Jessup defends his country, he does not see why anybody, who has never been on the front line, should even question his methods from "under the blanket of the very freedom I provide",
flobadob - Id say you're very probably right - war is extreme and evokes extreme behaviours - its another world, another planet with some unspoken rules - brings to mind Jack Nicholsons speech in a Few Good Men where he in the role of Colonel Jessep emphatically declares, "You can't handle the truth!"
Because Jessup defends his country, he does not see why anybody, who has never been on the front line, should even question his methods from "under the blanket of the very freedom I provide",
Just in case anybody is any doubt about our behaviour in Ireland the below is part of a speech given to the RIC in 1920
Should the order ("Hands Up") not be immediately obeyed, shoot and shoot with effect. If the persons approaching (a patrol) carry their hands in their pockets, or are in any way suspicious-looking, shoot them down. You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped, and you are bound to get the right parties some time. The more you shoot, the better I will like you, and I assure you no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man.
To listen to some people you'd think that the history of British in Ireland started in the 60's when a small group of trouble makers attacked a peace-loving representative government
Should the order ("Hands Up") not be immediately obeyed, shoot and shoot with effect. If the persons approaching (a patrol) carry their hands in their pockets, or are in any way suspicious-looking, shoot them down. You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped, and you are bound to get the right parties some time. The more you shoot, the better I will like you, and I assure you no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man.
To listen to some people you'd think that the history of British in Ireland started in the 60's when a small group of trouble makers attacked a peace-loving representative government
///.but have Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness ever apologised? ///
There is a difference. Adams and McGuinness never denied they were attacking British Rule or pretended they respected the safety of british soldiers.
The Army however were representing our government on the streets of our country and did have a responsibility to uphold rules of engagement with civilians.
That's one of the things that supposedly distinguishes our troops from terrorists and murderers.
.
There is a difference. Adams and McGuinness never denied they were attacking British Rule or pretended they respected the safety of british soldiers.
The Army however were representing our government on the streets of our country and did have a responsibility to uphold rules of engagement with civilians.
That's one of the things that supposedly distinguishes our troops from terrorists and murderers.
.
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
Jobs & Education2 mins ago
Will You Be Shopping At Boots This...
News10 mins ago
Motoring11 mins ago
ChatterBank16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.