General threatens mutiny

dj post 15.41pm Not what the alleged general is saying.
The military do sign up for combat.

Luckygirl post 16.06pm
* but progress is only made towards peace by holding conversations with those we might dislike - however distasteful that might be.*

Peace is sometimes achieved by killing the opposition. The nazis were not stopped by peace negotiations.

rq post 17.30pm
They could still all just walk out though.

Mo Mowlam was heavily criticised in the press for allegedly calling an IRA leader "babe" in a phone call. She went in to the Maze prison and spoke to Loyalist and IRA prisoners. On the conciliation website she says of the IRA "I was prepared to shake hands and treat them as human beings, because otherwise you won't get a good relationship for talking. I believe in talking rather than shooting. That's my basic philosophy on how to bring people to peace"
www.c-r.org/accord/engaging-armed-groups/assessing-groups-and-opportunities-former-government-minister-s

Am I the only person who thinks that Corbyn's view of the IRA, and many others who thought likewise, was largely the reason we reached a peace agreement and the bombing stopped?

No doubt history will be re-written to make it appear so.

I remember the contribution that Mo Mowlam made, but sadly, she is not here to speak up for herself.

I also wonder if this is real.
Gracesgran me too, that's why I asked if it is half-term

The military are entitled to resign en masse I would have thought.

No, soon they don't just resign like the general public can from a job.
They sign on for a specific number of years.
The term is much shorter than it used to be, but you can't just give a week's notice.

Nobody should worry, Corbyn will never be PM.

I think the article is nonsense - saying that the army would not allow the PM to jeopardise the country is crazy - he/she would need the backing of parliament for any decisions. Not that Corbyn is seriously likely to become PM - but he is at least providing an opposition that is not a watered-down version of the government - that has to be good for democracy.

I do not know the details of how the peace agreement was reached in N Ireland, but progress is only made towards peace by holding conversations with those we might dislike - however distasteful that might be. Where would S Africa be without its peace and reconciliation under the leadership of Mandela?

Soldiers went to war when Tony Blair told them lies; that is how the system works. How must those poor soldiers feel now that they know the information on which the decisions were made was false? But that is how it goes - parliament says yes, and off they have to go and risk their lives. So sad. But armies do not take part in the politics, and as far as I am aware, never have.

I think it is extraordinary that a general can be allowed to make a statement like this while students and young people are supposed to be reported and face investigation if they appear to have even investigated fundamentalist views. Mind you a part of me thinks if the armed forces are going to resign en-masse that would save a lot of money!
Am I the only person who thinks that Corbyn's view of the IRA, and many others who thought likewise, was largely the reason we reached a peace agreement and the bombing stopped?

I would think that lots in the armed forces - ordinary soldiers and airmen, etc. - would be glad if Corbyn became PM. They would be very unlikely to end up in Syria in the hands of IS, or be captured by the Taliban.

It is a democracy - if the government in power wants to fight or not fight in any arena, the army has to do its bidding. They may not like it - but that is irrelevant and there could be many soldiers who are not keen on the political background to what they are being asked to do right now, but that is just tough. It is their job. Armies have always fought according to the wishes of their political masters, and their personal views are never taken into account.

I think this general is speaking out of turn - it is not his place to express a political view in his professional capacity; nor indeed to incite mutiny. I cannot help wondering if his words have more to do with protecting military jobs than strategic objections.

So if we find out who is "the senior serving general" (senior of what? senior of them all or of the ones who are considering mutiny?) we can work out who said this (or is said to have said it - anyone cam claim that he has been told things by someone "speaking anonymously" who could be a bloke he met on a number 9 bus)

STB I would say the difference between a mutiny and a coup is that those mutineeing (mutineering?) just sit around saying, "No we won't," to orders, while those carrying out a coup have planned together to do something positive, like turf out those previously in charge and take over actually giving the orders.

He isn't threatening a mutiny because Corbyn isn't PM. He is warning about what could happen in the future if the unlikely and unthinkable happened.

There are always rumours like this whenever there is a hint of a leftwing government in the UK. In the 1960s there were tales that some generals wanted to activate a coup against the Wilson government, then there rumours of an MI5 plot to assassinate Tony Benn.

There will always be rumours about things said by (almost always anonymous) generals or 'senior officers'. It is our equivalent of conspiracy theorists.

General and Senior officers are no more immune than anybody else of saying some really silly things in the heat of the moment.

We get The I so I referred to the information provided in there.

However the Mail on Line reported:

"The senior serving general, speaking anonymously to the Sunday Times, said Mr Corbyn's victory has been greeted with 'wholesale dismay' in the army.

He added: 'There would be mass resignations at all levels and you would face the very real prospect of an event which would effectively be a mutiny.............

'The Army just wouldn't stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul to prevent that. You can't put a maverick in charge of a country's security.' "

Sorry again Gg. I thought you simply "didn't get" the IRA reference.

I am surprised we have 100 generals.

Perhaps it is just said by someone who isnt even in the military.

More that any reference to the IRA didn't seem relevant as far as I was concerned Jbf although, for those who have believed all the hand picked quotes it may seem to be. A coup is a coup and it is treason.

The government is "Her Majesty's Government" which is why any attempt to seize power would be treason.

I also wonder if this is real.

Having looked up the definitions of both mutiny and coup, they are not the same thing. Are they?

Refusing to obey orders is in no way the same thing as trying to seize power from the government, unless I am missing something.

The military are entitled to resign en masse I would have thought. I wouldnt have thought they have any desire to run a country.

Sorry Gracesgran I thought you and Annieb said you did not understand my reference to the IRA.

Their!

There allegiance is to Queen and Country