@shadowen Said
Nearly a quarter of a million British troops have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We don't have a quarter of a million troops. Haven't had since the end of WWII. We only had around 150'00 at the height of the Cold War when the armed forces were on permanent 48 hour notice for hostilities.
I don't know where you get your figures from, but 250'000 sure as heck aint on the plot.
And as expected, you turn your bile to personal abuse. Just because I don't slavishly follow your point of view and express my own.
Yes, I have an opinion. Yes, I express it. That's my crime isn't it..?
You see, Shade, we have this funny thing here. It's called The Law. It makes specific rules which all are required to follow without exception.
One peculiar little aspect of it is that if a group of people take part in a criminal enterprise knowingly and of their own free will, all are guilty of the crime. It doesn't matter which one of the group pulls the trigger which commits the murder, all those involved who take part, aid and abet and conspire to cover up the event are equally guilty.
We've become accustomed to reading of cases where (and this is a phrase that has passed into common parlance here) "Regimental Amnesia" occurs. That is, when an incident occurs, nobody saw anything. Nobody knows anything. Nobody can remember anything.
That makes everybody guilty.
But of course, the lickspittle toadies who support such activity won't recognise that. They prefer to talk of "mates" and "comradeship" as if it is a noble thing to collude in crime and murder.
Whether it is the war itself as an enterprise, or the multitude of single events which have been alleged (and the British government are no longer pursuing because one corrupt lawyer gave them the get out of jail card they leapt upon and exploited to the max), each individual did not act alone.
He was covered for by his "mates"... his "comrades" who are all as guilty as him, by association and as a result of their conspiracy.
Now, I fully expect more of your personal abuse as a response to this. It won't surprise me. It's all you have in the absence of any other defence.
To Just Passing I say that I agree your comments in principle about those who truly attempt to rationalise their situation, but those individuals are not the poorly educated, bottom end of the social scale citizens that swelled the ranks in 1914 and marched off to war full of misplaced patriotism and with the image of Kitchener's pointing finger forefront in their minds. There was no Geneva Convention in 1914. The war poets of Flanders and Ypres didn't seek publicity on a massive scale. Most of what they wrote was for their own peace of mind, but gained prominence later.
The modern soldier has grown up in a liberal society with a comprehensive state education and with the experience of the history of the 20th century in his mind.
He knows what he is doing when he goes to joins the military. His reasons and motivations for joining the army are not the same. And he also knows the laws and rules he is expected to follow and yet chooses to ignore.
He knows the Nuremburg Defence is not valid. He can't claim to be "following orders" when he knows the orders he is given may be conspicuously unlawful. And yet he obeys them just the same.
And then attempts to justify it all with cod-poetry which is given prominence on social media and by the mass of it becomes an attempt at justification and absolution.
Shade will resort to his usual bullying tactics.
He probably learned them in the army.