The argument seems to be that if anyone disagrees with BEags and his supporters they must be blood thirsty knuckle dragging savages - not so
Sunfish points us to the Manual of Field Security, perhaps he’s forgotten the advice given to interrogators about ‘rough handling’ captives, keeping them off balance, segregating them etc all SOP in the 1980s and 90s, all legal (we were assured at the time).
I'd direct him to the Geneva Convention (1949) where he could see that those who happen to get caught bearing arms whilst in civilian clothing are outside its protection and can even be executed for their activities
Now before this is jumped on as another example of the barbarity of the western military I'm not advocating summary execution, however, those that chose to bear arms against the legal governments of Iraq and Afghanistan should consider themselves fortunate that they still alive after capture and are well treated rather than running for compo for hurt feelings and injuries sustained (not talking the big prisoner abuses here - separate issue IMO) We have seen the treatment metered out to our guys – remember the coppers? Remember the drivers dragged from their vehicles, disarmed and murdered by the side of the road? Let's not blur who's who
To get back to BEags title for this topic – seems a little close to the ‘baby killer’ thing used against the returning Vietnam vets – strange coming from a man that would have had no qualms about dropping ‘instant sunshine’ on Boris’s finest. This isn’t meant as a personal attack BEags, but consider your stand on the war from the word go and ponder the point that your views may be coloured by them – how did you feel when you heard another IRA man had been ‘slotted’? ‘Good, there’s another one gone’ or ‘they’ve violated his basic human rights?’