Hacker News Reader

Comment by fnord123 | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, do you really think British soldiers would murder unarmed British civilians on British soil!?

The unilateral declaration of Scottish independence is the unlikely part. I am quite sure the Army would be willing to defend the union by committing the same sorts of acts they did in Ireland with the same level of enthusiasm.

I doubt there’d be too many people in Westminster willing to repeat the Troubles with a similar level of entusiasm.

I think it all depends. Perhaps few if any would want to kick off a violent conflict on purpose, but are plenty of clowns who would stumble into that situation through a series of poor decisions. If someone like the former PM Truss were in power, all bets are off.

That kind of thing would definitely raise Ire in the land.

Time to start finally building that [Irish Sea Bridge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Sea_Bridge)?

That is what happens in 95% or more of other countries. It doesn't even require an actual attempt at independence. Troops shoot their own countrymen really often. That's why they're never used for crowd control. Just look at Kent State or Tiananmen.

Check the other comment, fnord123 is referencing British Army atrocities in Northern Ireland

That too. Basically any solider will open fire on their countrymen for almost any (or no) reason. It's not a pleasant reality, but it is reality...

This is not true. The succession of Norway from the Swedish-Norway union was peaceful because Swedish soldiers didn't want to shoot on what they considered to be their own kind. FWIW I am a (former) soldier and I don't think many would shoot their countrymen for "almost any" reason. I don't think it's the reality at all.

That's fine, but now you have to explain the 1000s of counter examples, across almost all countries, where they did. Why did the US National Guard open fire at Kent state? Why did the PLA roll tanks into Bejing? The same for Peterloo or Bloody Sunday and so on.

Of course, no one ever tells you to shoot "that nice fellow countryman over there". Soldiers are told dangerous (though unarmed) anarchists/bourgeoisie/terrorists need to be stopped. And the vast majority of cases end up with a lot of dead civilians.

I am not judging, I would likely be the same if I were a soldier in that situation. The fact it happens so often shows it isn't down to individual soldiers lacking some moral or ethical quality. It's human nature. It's why armies work. I just think everyone have a (very dangerous, baseless) belief that "that could never happen here "...

This is not “any soldier “, it’s a small percentage

No, it's a small percentage who refuse. Just look at any nation, dozens of examples of massacres vs a very small number of peaceful outcomes.

You've only been able to list 1 example in Norway/Sweden. I gave 3 off of the top of my head across a range of times, countries, cultures etc.

You can "believe" what you want. But the facts are against you here I'm afraid...

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or if you've actually never heard of Bloody Sunday. Apologies if the former.

If the soldiers really did that then don't you think Lance Corporal David James Cleary of the Parachute Regiment would have been arrested and charged with murder instead of covering it up and granting him anonymity as Soldier F?

I don't get why your comments are downvoted. I think there must be a few people here who aren't aware of the actions of Lance Corporal David James Cleary of the Parachute Regiment aka Soldier F during Bloody Sunday - those being that he is accused of murders which were covered up, and was weirdly granted a level of anonymity during his trial for said murders.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com