Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

So you disagree with industrial action then,.

Surely you didn't just equate a military coups d'état to industrial action? Surely?

If so that's a new low for Dakka's very own Underhive.

No I equated a hyphesised industrial action to an industrial action.

Even the Independent didn't claim the general was threatening a coup. Really you should actually read what the general wrote rather than the hysteria.

To top it off its an anonymous report, that was leaked, not a formal proposal. Likely some despairing notes that are little more than venting taken way out of consequence.
Any military orders, proposals and policies as such are signed and labeled.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

After all this general has done nothing wrong,

If his name is ever revealed, assuming that this individual exists and actually is serving, just watch how quickly the 'retires'.

Which still doesnt mean he has done anything wrong.

He wouldn't be the first victim of press hysteria in British political history.

I have read what the general said to the reporter, Orlanth, I've read it about a dozen times and his intentions are crystal clear. He talked of fair means or foul.

If serving officers want to resign en masse then that is their right in a democracy.

Foul means is a completely different ball game. For you to compare military action against a democratically elected government to a 24hr tube strike on the London underground speaks volumes.

That this senior officer even mentioned the use of foul means as a potential threat against Corbyn, is grounds for dismissal in my book.

The Prime minister should launch an urgent inquiry and come down on this general like a ton of wet concrete.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

So you disagree with industrial action then,.

Surely you didn't just equate a military coups d'état to industrial action? Surely?

If so that's a new low for Dakka's very own Underhive.

 Orlanth wrote:

After all this general has done nothing wrong,

If his name is ever revealed, assuming that this individual exists and actually is serving, just watch how quickly the 'retires'.

Your eyes do not deceive you - he/she did say that.

 Orlanth wrote:

Which still doesnt mean he has done anything wrong.

Yes he did, he talked to the press without authorisation, this is something that the military takes seriously and is regarded as being 'very naughty'. IIRC someone of his rank requires ministerial approval before they can speak to the press.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Which still doesnt mean he has done anything wrong.

Yes he did, he talked to the press without authorisation

No he didnt his unlabelled notes were leaked to the press. We dont even know whose notes they were.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

, this is something that the military takes seriously and is regarded as being 'very naughty'.

Indeed so, this is the second leak to the press in a fewe weeks. The fist being regarding the drone strike against those poor poor ISIL terrorists.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

IIRC someone of his rank requires ministerial approval before they can speak to the press.

The army has its own press office, ministerial permission is required for things being discussed at the MoD.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I have read what the general said to the reporter, Orlanth, I've read it about a dozen times and his intentions are crystal clear. He talked of fair means or foul.

Which means what exactly?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Foul means is a completely different ball game. For you to compare military action against a democratically elected government to a 24hr tube strike on the London underground speaks volumes.

Ordering soldiers to barracks would be foul means. Soldiers and police are not allowed to down tools, so an effective industrial action would be foul means.

Foul means doesnt necessary mean a coup or military action. It would be very unlikely if it did.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

That this senior officer even mentioned the use of foul means as a potential threat against Corbyn, is grounds for dismissal in my book.

This general who wrote anonymous notes leaked to the press (by foul means) has no obligation of loyalty to Corbyn. He can state his opinions.
We do not live in a police state, he is entirtled to say he is opposed to Corbyn and beleives Corbyn to be a threat to national security. After all Cameron has already claimed as such.

You are also missing one thing, if Corbyn IS a danger to national security, and if he betrays the UK to our enemies. Then it will be this general's duty to disobey him. Service personnel are servants of the monarch and the state (civil service) in that order. They are never servants of the Prime Minister.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The Prime minister should launch an urgent inquiry and come down on this general like a ton of wet concrete.

The general should be told to shut up. The source of the leak should be come down on with a ton of wet concrete.

 Orlanth wrote:

Indeed so, this is the second leak to the press in a fewe weeks. The fist being regarding the drone strike against those poor poor ISIL terrorists.

So he did do something wrong then.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Indeed so, this is the second leak to the press in a fewe weeks. The fist being regarding the drone strike against those poor poor ISIL terrorists.

So he did do something wrong then.

Are you blaming the unknown general for leaking his own notes to the press and also leaking drone strikes to the press?

Rule 1 is important, even when you disagree with what someone is saying. Calling them stupid twice in one post is not being polite, motyak

You are also missing one thing, if Corbyn IS a danger to national security, and if he betrays the UK to our enemies. Then it will be this general's duty to disobey him. Service personnel are servants of the monarch and the state (civil service) in that order. They are never servants of the Prime Minister.

If Corbyn went before the British public and said if you vote for me, I'll scrap trident and pull us out of NATO, and the British public said yeah, we like that, and voted him in...

Are you seriously saying that is justification for the British army to launch a military coup against Corbyn?

God help us...

 Orlanth wrote:

Are you blaming the unknown general for leaking his own notes to the press and also leaking drone strikes to the press?

Yes, and technically, yes, although there is no guarantee that this 'General' exists and its even less likely that these leaks originate from the same source.

Good old Orlanth and your toothless personal attacks, ironically coupled with a habit of posting flying rodent gak crazy things.

Why the hell is 'bat' filtered by the idiotic profanity filter?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

You are also missing one thing, if Corbyn IS a danger to national security, and if he betrays the UK to our enemies. Then it will be this general's duty to disobey him. Service personnel are servants of the monarch and the state (civil service) in that order. They are never servants of the Prime Minister.

If Corbyn went before the British public and said if you vote for me, I'll scrap trident and pull us out of NATO, and the British public said yeah, we like that, and voted him in...

Are you seriously saying that is justification for the British army to launch a military coup against Corbyn?

God help us...

1. As stated earlier there is noone calling for a coup. Yet you and you alone keep on claiming there is. You cannot honestly critique something if you so blatantly dishonest about how what you oppose represents itself.

2. The public can decide to vote for a party thats promises to take the UK out of NATO and ban Trident. Its the other things Labour governments might do which cross the line. Like what Blair tried over Gibraltar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Are you blaming the unknown general for leaking his own notes to the press and also leaking drone strikes to the press?

Yes, and technically, yes, although there is no guarantee that this 'General' exists

In which case there is no scandal, move on.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

and its even less likely that these leaks originate from the same source.

I wouldn't say that. We don't know who the leaks are but someone with access to MoD or army documents is giving them to the press in order to stir up trouble.
It could be the same person. The civil service was heavily New Labourised (it is supposed to be apolitical) and it is no stretch to imaging that a serviceman or civil servant who hates the fact we have a Tory government is trying to make mischief.
It is indeed not unlikely more than one person fits this description and we could have multiple independent leaks. But without a crystal ball or a peek into MI5 secret files we wont know for sure unless there is a public prosecution of the whistleblower.

That is unlikely any action is possible over the memos, but if they catch the traitor sending info about drone strikes to the press (in other words leaking military secrets) then I hope they get a trial and a long stay in prison if convicted.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Good old Orlanth and your toothless personal attacks, ironically coupled with a habit of posting flying rodent gak crazy things.

So its 'crazy' to suggest that a general isnt leaking his own controversial memos?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Why the hell is 'bat' filtered by the idiotic profanity filter?

It was the other half of bats**t that hit the filter, but the filter edits both halves. You can say bat and have it pass through ok.

 Orlanth wrote:
posting flying rodent gak crazy things.

So its 'crazy' to suggest that a general isnt leaking his own controversial memos?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
In Britain, does the PM have a place in the chain of military command? (Presumably at the top?) Just curious. Also, Corbyn is note PM yet, is that correct?

Sorry, just gathering a little background info before coming to a conclusion.

The PM is not the commander in chief.

Corbyn is leader of the opposition and gets his chance to become PM at the next General Election in 2015 (unless the Conservatives lose a vote of confidence before then.)

This general's comments are similar to various comments made in the previous five years when the coalition government was reducing the armed forces.

K. I could be wrong, but it doesn't sound like he can be prosecuted at this point. He hasn't done anything but make a boast of his intent, which is to oppose a figure who is not at this point his superior.

Pretty low-brow, but it doesn't sound treasonous at this point.

Actually doing it, on the other hand, now that would be bad.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

So its 'crazy' to suggest that a general isnt leaking his own controversial memos?

Its crazy to equate industrial action to a coup. Utterly mental.

Ok, ok.

I will repeat NOONE IS CALLING FOR A COUP.

People like you and Do_I_Not_Like_That are twisting wording to make the claim. Your coup claims are BASELESS. Got it? Lets move on then.

Now I would suggest you refrain from making the same blatantly daft assumptions even when their falseness is repeatedly logically explained to you, calling me 'mental', and flagging the mods for me claiming your comments are stupid. Two out of three is bad enough.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No such luck I'm afraid, Frazz. Damned Liberals got their way with their human rights act. Mutiny and treason are no longer punishable by death. A cosy jail cell is the punishment.

Really?
Article 2 – Right to life
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No such luck I'm afraid, Frazz. Damned Liberals got their way with their human rights act. Mutiny and treason are no longer punishable by death. A cosy jail cell is the punishment.

Really?
Article 2 – Right to life
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Which sums up why using drones on scum who join ISIS fighting in Syria is legal.
Though this is US law relating to US citizens who are targeted.
However our principles are very similar except that we don't have a death penalty as a result of a legal conviction.

Though Dreadclaw in context Do_I_Not_Like_That is discussing what he would see done to a general who dares not love comrade Corbyn rather than anyone NATO countries are actually targeting.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No such luck I'm afraid, Frazz. Damned Liberals got their way with their human rights act. Mutiny and treason are no longer punishable by death. A cosy jail cell is the punishment.

Really?
Article 2 – Right to life
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Which sums up why using drones on scum who join ISIS fighting in Syria is legal.
Though this is US law relating to US citizens who are targeted.
However our principles are very similar except that we don't have a death penalty as a result of a legal conviction.

Though Dreadclaw in context Do_I_Not_Like_That is discussing what he would see done to a general who dares not love comrade Corbyn rather than anyone NATO countries are actually targeting.

I thought it was more, what'd they'd see done to stupid military officials making stupid comments about democratically elected individuals?

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:


I thought it was more, what'd they'd see done to stupid military officials making stupid comments about democratically elected individuals?

Who aren't yet elected to a relevant office.
And yet we thought that because we lived in a democracy we were entitled to free speech.

Corbyn isnt even our Great Leader yet, and there is a very good chance Labour could disappear onto the fringe in the 2020 election, or they will hold their own rebellion against Corbyn.
Nevertheless the Stalinism is starting early. I wonder if the forum Corbynistas are practicing for when they are rounding up dissidents who dare critique the regime. - That by the way was a joke.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No such luck I'm afraid, Frazz. Damned Liberals got their way with their human rights act. Mutiny and treason are no longer punishable by death. A cosy jail cell is the punishment.

Really?
Article 2 – Right to life
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Which sums up why using drones on scum who join ISIS fighting in Syria is legal.
Though this is US law relating to US citizens who are targeted.
However our principles are very similar except that we don't have a death penalty as a result of a legal conviction.

Though Dreadclaw in context Do_I_Not_Like_That is discussing what he would see done to a general who dares not love comrade Corbyn rather than anyone NATO countries are actually targeting.

I thought it was more, what'd they'd see done to stupid military officials making stupid comments about democratically elected individuals?

Individuals who are not their military superiors? Nothing, probably. Possibly a dressing-down from their direct superior an an admonition not to act like a bell end, but that seems like it'd be the end of it.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No such luck I'm afraid, Frazz. Damned Liberals got their way with their human rights act. Mutiny and treason are no longer punishable by death. A cosy jail cell is the punishment.

Really?
Article 2 – Right to life
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

Which sums up why using drones on scum who join ISIS fighting in Syria is legal.
Though this is US law relating to US citizens who are targeted.
However our principles are very similar except that we don't have a death penalty as a result of a legal conviction.

Though Dreadclaw in context Do_I_Not_Like_That is discussing what he would see done to a general who dares not love comrade Corbyn rather than anyone NATO countries are actually targeting.

I thought it was more, what'd they'd see done to stupid military officials making stupid comments about democratically elected individuals?

Individuals who are not their military superiors? Nothing, probably. Possibly a dressing-down from their direct superior an an admonition not to act like a bell end, but that seems like it'd be the end of it.

A reasonable assessment. and a reasonable outcome. With further mitigation that most generals in service today would have experienced the Troubles and are not in any way happy with Corbyn's relationship with Sinn Fein. Knowing people who have been killed or maimed by terrorists doesnt help you with this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11879164/We-victims-of-the-IRA-are-furious-about-Jeremy-Corbyn.html

In our society of 'tolerance' and 'sensitivity' military personnel who critique Corbyn could justifiably claim that they were provoked by his inappropriate and inflammatory behaviour. That is an excuse that has worked often enough in New Britain in less clear circumstances.

This brings tear to my eye. America isnt the only crazy plce with crazy politics

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This brings tear to my eye. America isnt the only crazy plce with crazy politics

North Korea is also in the running.

Corbyn is a diehard international leftist (IE bolshevik, marxist, etc) who has openly blamed NATO for the actions of Russia and seems to hate Western society. I don't blame a general for having those feelings at all.

Its not appropriate to broadcast them to the media though.

Eh. Maybe they can put William on the throne and declare a true Monarchy again?

That would be interesting.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Corbyn's opposition to NATO and Britain's nuclear deterrent is well known. Parliament will vote in the next 1-2 years on the question of Britain's nuclear deterrent being renewed.

Given his "whataboutism" regarding Russian imperialism, his opposition to the UK's nuclear arsenal makes perfect sense. Its pretty easy to engage in a hybrid war against an opponent who has let their deterant systems go into decay.

See: Donbas.

Has he made similar statements regarding Russia's 8000 warheads?

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
and seems to hate Western society.

I might have some (occasionally severe) issues with certain western nations, but this guy sounds like a real donkey-cave. How the hell did the labor MPs think that this guy was kosher? Or is it like the US where the left can't be liberal enough and the right can't be conservative enough?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
and seems to hate Western society.

I might have some (occasionally severe) issues with certain western nations, but this guy sounds like a real donkey-cave. How the hell did the labor MPs think that this guy was kosher? Or is it like the US where the left can't be liberal enough and the right can't be conservative enough?

Is he kosher, or is he halal? Would he put his penis into a pig's mouth?

Or is he just another nasty looking communist with a terrible beard? IDK.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Corbyn is a diehard international leftist (IE bolshevik, marxist, etc) who has openly blamed NATO for the actions of Russia and seems to hate Western society. I don't blame a general for having those feelings at all.

The Russian government have been praising his appointment.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11881065/Russian-ambassador-lavishes-praise-on-Jeremy-Corbyn-over-foreign-policy.html

It is logical to do so. Corbyn will end austerity and bring back loony left squandering which will very quickly feth our economy.
Corbyn will get rid of Trident ASAP and make mischief in NATO both of which will weaken the organisation and bolster Putin's adventurism.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

Its not appropriate to broadcast them to the media though.

I very much doubt the author of the comments did. Most likely a disloyal civil servant looking to make mischief.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

Has he made similar statements regarding Russia's 8000 warheads?

Of course not. He isnt concerned about the Crimea either, or pressure on the Baltic states.

For that matter the fether wants to sell out the Falkland islanders and Gibraltarians both of whom have made their feelings very clear about how they want to be governed.
But every true loony lefty knows, equal rights are not for everyone.

 Orlanth wrote:

I will repeat NO ONE IS CALLING FOR A COUP.

No, they are merely hinting at one. Besides it is yourself who equated industrial action to a coup and that is the comment that is so absurd its funny (in a tragic way).

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

Or is he just another nasty looking communist with a terrible beard? IDK.

He isn't a communist and his beard is...a beard?

 Orlanth wrote:
Corbyn will end austerity and bring back loony left squandering which will very quickly feth our economy.

While Dave the pig man and his chums will continue on his road of ideologically driven austerity and me firstism; widening the social and economic gulf that had been closing since the war and enriching themselves and their cronies in the process like all good career politicians. Oh look I can also make inflammatory statements!

 Orlanth wrote:
and flagging the mods for me claiming your comments are stupid.

I have never flagged anything to the mods (well once but that was something about kitchens) for the simple reason that I detest censorship.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Corbyn is a diehard international leftist (IE bolshevik, marxist, etc) who has openly blamed NATO for the actions of Russia and seems to hate Western society. I don't blame a general for having those feelings at all.

Its not appropriate to broadcast them to the media though.

Especially when politician in question might be his boss one day.

And before Orlanth or anybody else chips in about the Queen being head of the army, if PM Corbyn wanted this guy sacked, the Queen would sign it off no problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:


I thought it was more, what'd they'd see done to stupid military officials making stupid comments about democratically elected individuals?

Who aren't yet elected to a relevant office.
And yet we thought that because we lived in a democracy we were entitled to free speech.

Corbyn isnt even our Great Leader yet, and there is a very good chance Labour could disappear onto the fringe in the 2020 election, or they will hold their own rebellion against Corbyn.
Nevertheless the Stalinism is starting early. I wonder if the forum Corbynistas are practicing for when they are rounding up dissidents who dare critique the regime. - That by the way was a joke.

The usual pie in the sky nonsense. Of course generals are entitled to free speech, but there's always been an understanding that they would not become politicised for obvious reasons.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

So you disagree with industrial action then,.

Surely you didn't just equate a military coups d'état to industrial action? Surely?

If so that's a new low for Dakka's very own Underhive.

No I equated a hyphesised industrial action to an industrial action.

Even the Independent didn't claim the general was threatening a coup. Really you should actually read what the general wrote rather than the hysteria.

To top it off its an anonymous report, that was leaked, not a formal proposal. Likely some despairing notes that are little more than venting taken way out of consequence.
Any military orders, proposals and policies as such are signed and labeled.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

After all this general has done nothing wrong,

If his name is ever revealed, assuming that this individual exists and actually is serving, just watch how quickly the 'retires'.

Which still doesnt mean he has done anything wrong.

He wouldn't be the first victim of press hysteria in British political history.

Perhaps you should follow your advice and read what was actually said. When he talks about foul means, I don't he was intending to blank Corbyn at Armistice day or refuse to salute him if Corbyn became PM. You forget that the Army has form for this whenever a left-wing government takes office.

Ramsey McDonald and Harold Wilson were subject to plots and whispering campaigns from the army.

And for the record, I'm not a Labour party member or a Corbyn fan. I'm a campaigner for Scottish independence. Corbyn is just another obstacle to that.

Also for the record, it was me, and not Silent Puffin who flagged your comment to a MOD on the grounds it was rude and disrespectful. Telling somebody to stick to car and football threads because they disagree with you, is not good form.

I doubt if I've ever agreed with you on anything, but I would never suggest that you should leave this thread...

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Corbyn will end austerity and bring back loony left squandering which will very quickly feth our economy.

While Dave the pig man and his chums will continue on his road of ideologically driven austerity and me firstism; widening the social and economic gulf that had been closing since the war and enriching themselves and their cronies in the process like all good career politicians. Oh look I can also make inflammatory statements!

Too bad Camerons austerity involves starving disabled and other vulnerable people instead of getting rid of degenerate druggies like him. That whole so called elite of druggies, degenerates, manipulators. Engaging in drug-networking, secret cliques with degenerate rituals and mass manipulation. They should be the first to die, not the ones to be enriched.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

I will repeat NO ONE IS CALLING FOR A COUP.

No, they are merely hinting at one. Besides it is yourself who equated industrial action to a coup and that is the comment that is so absurd its funny (in a tragic way).

I will reexplain because you are insistant on missing a simple plainly explained point.

LOGIC CHAIN 1.
1. The army is not allowed to strike, neither is the police.
2. So doing so anyway would be a fair definition of extreme action.
3. A coup on the other hand would be exceptionally unlikely under all circumstances.
4. Therefore a logical interpretation of an extreme reaction to Corbyns policies, should he be elected and propogate them to the detriment of national security, is to down tools.
5. No source has actually mentioned a coup, howeever it was hinted at by the general that a response could go beyond resignations.

LOGIC CHAIN 2.
This was not discussed in the article but I thought I should throw it in here.
1. Corbyn is not unlikely if elected as part of a 2020 Labour government to sell out the Falklanders and Gibraltarians.
2. Blair already sold out the Gibraltarians in a deal from circa 2005 but had to resign due to the Gulf War before the plans to hand over the territory were complete. Evidence of the sell out was around in 2005, it was later double sourced and confirmed in 2011 in an ex-minister memoires.
3. Even if we have a Labour government elected by the people, they do not have a mandate to remove land belonging to British citizens, who have made their own wishes very clear in a democratic process and sell them and their territory out to a foreign state.
4. The military garrison may resist a secret handover of Gibraltar or the Falkands on behalf of the inhabitants as they are duty bound to protect those lands on behalf of Her Majesty and the lawful inhabitants.
5. There are circumstances which could arise where the military is duty bound to disobey the Prime Minister if said Prime Minister sells out the British people. The Army's first loyalty is the the Monarch, then to the state - which means the civil service and the people, not Westminster.

Backing sources:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11863351/Argentina-Jeremy-Corbyn-is-one-of-ours-when-it-comes-to-Falkland-Islands-dispute.html
"How can a politician who clams to care so much about human rights blatantly ignore the most fundamental human right of all – the democratic will of a sovereign people."
Dick Sawle

“I would give back the Malvinas and Gibraltar in the morning if I had the chance”
Jeremy Corbyn

BTW there is no back regarding the Falklands, it has NEVER belonged to Argentina.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Corbyn will end austerity and bring back loony left squandering which will very quickly feth our economy.

While Dave the pig man and his chums will continue on his road of ideologically driven austerity and me firstism; widening the social and economic gulf that had been closing since the war and enriching themselves and their cronies in the process like all good career politicians.