Cruel Brittania

#1
Lefty, scouse, Guardian Journalist has written a book detailing torture methods used by the Brit military and debunks the "myth" that we fought a clean war. Firstly I didn't think there was any such thing as a clean war...war is war after all, and what possible point can there be to shit on your own doorstep like this unless you are a squaddy-hating lefty cock????
The methods seem to have been..wait for it....sleep deprivation, stress positions, and threats....oh the shame of it.
 
#2
Well if beheading and beatings carried out by the opposition are considered OK by the whining knob jockey who wrote the heap of festering shit, maybe the Brit mil should have gone with those.
 
#3
You could also stick em in a room and blast out Discharge's Hear Nothing See Nothing Say Nothing album. If you have me guarding them, it's not classed as torture as the guard is merely listening to some music while on duty.
 
#5
The article I read was referring to ww2, we were apparently fairly beastly to some SS pow's, don't know whats in the rest of the book though.
 
T

Taffd

Guest
#6
This all boils down to opinions. Opinions on whether torture is acceptable, or not. There is no grey area - it is acceptable or it is not.

Those who find it acceptable often fail to realise that their acceptance renders them liable to it.
 
#8
We always knew we were going to be on the receiving end....made no difference if we were playing by the the Marquess of Queensberry rules or not. If you're seriously suggesting that rough handling to maintain 'shock of capture' is the same as electric shocks or other forms of serious torture you should be writing for the Guardian
 
#9
The article I read was referring to ww2, we were apparently fairly beastly to some SS pow's, don't know whats in the rest of the book though.
Not just the SS, as my Grandfather wrote in a article during his time in Burma "No quarter were asked and NONE were given!" I know he also bayoneted a Jap just to get his blanket off him.
 
#10
I know he also bayoneted a Jap just to get his blanket off him.


Yeah, but the war had ended three years previously, so it was a bit harsh. He could've just asked nicely.
 
#12
Are you going to link to it or are we only to discuss your tantalising snippets?

Naming the book could be a start......

:roll:
Cruel Brittania by Ian Cobain
 
#13
Not just the SS, as my Grandfather wrote in a article during his time in Burma "No quarter were asked and NONE were given!" I know he also bayoneted a Jap just to get his blanket off him.
Thats the problem mate...revisionist fuckwits have the luxury of distance from events and have generally never been in harms way themselves.
 
#14
Thats the problem mate...revisionist fuckwits have the luxury of distance from events and have generally never been in harms way themselves.
Indeed, by todays standards even the Dambusters are War Criminals and not just for mentioning Black Labradors.
 
T

Taffd

Guest
#15
Thats the problem mate...revisionist fuckwits have the luxury of distance from events and have generally never been in harms way themselves.
Call me a revisionist fuckwit if you will, but I don't see how being in harm's way entitles you to torture somebody.
 

DieHard

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
Tie him to a chair and slowly roast his bollocks with a lighter while blowing hot air from a hair dryer into one ear.
If he won't tell you where he got his info this way, try asking him politely.
Sounds like someone else just jumping on the wagon to slag of HM Forces.
My wife tortures me when I hide the tv remote. But that's a bit too strong to tell
 
T

Taffd

Guest
#17
Indeed, by todays standards even the Dambusters are War Criminals and not just for mentioning Black Labradors.
According to the rules of war, they were. Just because some may find it justifiable, it does not alter the illlegality of it. It is a mistake to equate right and wrong with legal and illegal.
 
#18
According to the rules of war, they were. Just because some may find it justifiable, it does not alter the illlegality of it. It is a mistake to equate right and wrong with legal and illegal.
If the Germans had a problem with it they were more than welcome to start a war over i.... oh wait.
 
#19
Well if beheading and beatings carried out by the opposition are considered OK by the whining knob jockey who wrote the heap of festering shit, maybe the Brit mil should have gone with those.
opposition doesn't claim to "bring peace and democracy" and other crap-talk.
i see nothing (per se) wrong with "dirty" techniques at war- after all, war is a war- but I do not like all that western (mostly USA's, and, obviously, British) hypocrisy about "we are civilized, they are barbarians".
 
T

Taffd

Guest
#20
I think mankind is capable of bestial excess and it's not specifically innate to any race.

The rules of war, Geneva Convention, Human Rights Charter etc, are merely countries'/societies' recognition of this and define things that are considered 'beyond the pale'.

The rights or wrongs of individual instances of war crimes are, and always will be, matters of personal opinion.

It's worthy of note in the case of torture, that torture is rarely, if ever, an officially sanctioned punishment for those found guilty of something.

Other than when used to terrorise, it seems to be routinely practised on 'suspects', those in law deemed innocent. And once deemed justified or acceptable, it's justified or acceptable for everybody. All one needs to be is a suspect. And for that, all you need is an accuser.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top