Royal Marines : Mission Afghanistan Channel 5

DipStick McSwindler · 28-01-2012 1:20pm #1

This post has been deleted.

RMD · 29-01-2012 12:26am

I'm not sure where to find it, but the maker is Chris Terrell. He also made Commando: On The Frontline which was a brilliant documentary, if this one is of the same quality it will be a great watch.

cruasder777 · 29-01-2012 3:29pm

feeney92 wrote: »

Anybody heard about this documentary?? just wanted to know does anybody know where i can watch it as its not available on the chanel 5 player thingy majig!!

Starts 9pm c5 Monday 30th Jan.

Lemming · 31-01-2012 12:29am

Not sure if this link is geographically restricted by IP address, but here ye go lads;

Episode 1.

bwatson · 31-01-2012 2:19am

Was expecting a good documentary and I certainly wasn't disappointed.

Really enjoyed it. The marines Chris Terrill is with are certainly a very interesting, inspiring bunch of men.

iceage · 31-01-2012 3:20pm

Lemming wrote: »

Not sure if this link is geographically restricted by IP address, but here ye go lads;

Episode 1.

It is Lemming but thanks for the gesture, will track it down elsewhere.

flash1080 · 31-01-2012 4:17pm

Thought the marines were arrogant and ignorant. Calling the Taliban scum for using guerilla warfare... it's just ridiculous.

bwatson · 31-01-2012 4:28pm

flash1080 wrote: »

Thought the marines were arrogant and ignorant. Calling the Taliban scum for using guerilla warfare... it's just ridiculous.

They are at war with them. They have lost dear friends at the hands of these people. They have witnessed the horrific things the taliban do to the local population, we even saw the horrific use of children as a tool/human shield for the taliban in last night's episode. I fully agree with the commandos when they label the taliban as scum.

You are probably the sort who supports the IRA's use of guerrilla tactics and indisriminant bombings but was seething when the Special Air Service plays them at their own game!

cruasder777 · 31-01-2012 5:49pm

flash1080 wrote: »

Thought the marines were arrogant and ignorant. Calling the Taliban scum for using guerilla warfare... it's just ridiculous.

They called them scum because they used women and children as cover and to do their reconassiance.

flash1080 · 31-01-2012 8:08pm

bwatson wrote: »

They are at war with them. They have lost dear friends at the hands of these people. They have witnessed the horrific things the taliban do to the local population, we even saw the horrific use of children as a tool/human shield for the taliban in last night's episode. I fully agree with the commandos when they label the taliban as scum.

You are probably the sort who supports the IRA's use of guerrilla tactics and indisriminant bombings but was seething when the Special Air Service plays them at their own game!

What did they see the local Taliban people do to the local non-Taliban people? Didn't really see the children as human shields in that episode, they were just hanging around the place, it's not as if the suspected Taliban men were firing rounds off while the children were around.

I've obviously got in your head, there's no need to get personal.

Lemming · 31-01-2012 9:52pm

flash1080 wrote: »

Didn't really see the children as human shields in that episode, they were just hanging around the place, it's not as if the suspected Taliban men were firing rounds off while the children were around.

Though not something that happened in last night's episode; the above has happened to British soldiers in recent times. I seem to recall a small snippet in a newspaper sometime mid to late last year (I could be mistaken) where a soldier was saved by his helmet taking the round fired by an insurgent, using a little girl as a human shield. The insurgent managed to get a round off because the soldier would not fire with the child there.

Border-Rat · 31-01-2012 11:43pm

cruasder777 wrote: »

They called them scum because they used women and children as cover and to do their reconassiance.

I'd call people who sexually abuse Afghan children, then film it, beyond scum. Which is what the British army has been in the news recently for.

delta720 · 01-02-2012 12:26am

Border-Rat wrote: »

I'd call people who sexually abuse Afghan children, then film it, beyond scum. Which is what the British army has been in the news recently for.

I really hate feeding a troll, but this really annoyed me.

Border-Rat, Liam Adams sexually abused his own daughter, does that make you, as a republican, a sexual offender?

Just watched the show, thought it was very well done, looking forward to the next episode. I also thought it was interesting how desensitised the guy on his forth tour was about killing someone. It would be interesting to see how people settle back into normal life after serving.

cruasder777 · 01-02-2012 1:05am

Border-Rat wrote: »

I'd call people who sexually abuse Afghan children, then film it, beyond scum. Which is what the British army has been in the news recently for.

The IRA was riddled with nonces, even female ones.

Briege Meehan, the widow of a former Sinn Fein councillor and leading figure in the IRA, is facing multiple charges of child abuse, including the alleged sexual abuse of her step-daughter

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Widow-of-leading-IRA-figure-faces-sexual-abuse-charges-109154639.html#ixzz1kzRcVmDV

flash1080 · 01-02-2012 12:42pm

cruasder777 wrote: »

The IRA was riddled with nonces, even female ones.
Briege Meehan, the widow of a former Sinn Fein councillor and leading figure in the IRA, is facing multiple charges of child abuse, including the alleged sexual abuse of her step-daughter

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Widow-of-leading-IRA-figure-faces-sexual-abuse-charges-109154639.html#ixzz1kzRcVmDV

What's that got to do with the British military in Afghanistan?

DipStick McSwindler · 01-02-2012 2:32pm

This post has been deleted.

Lemming · 01-02-2012 2:55pm

flash1080 wrote: »

What's that got to do with the British military in Afghanistan?

BR is a card-carrying Chuckie* around these parts, hence both delta720 & crusader's retorts to the troll-post.

* Chuckie: a long-running slang term from the boards.ie politics forum, derived from the IRA mantra "Tiochaid ar la" and plays on the phonetic sound of "Tiochaidh", used to refer to IRA supporters/apologists and/or ardent Sinn Fein supporters.

Border-Rat · 01-02-2012 4:05pm

delta720 wrote: »

I really hate feeding a troll, but this really annoyed me.

Border-Rat, Liam Adams sexually abused his own daughter, does that make you, as a republican, a sexual offender?

Just watched the show, thought it was very well done, looking forward to the next episode. I also thought it was interesting how desensitised the guy on his forth tour was about killing someone. It would be interesting to see how people settle back into normal life after serving.

But we're not talking about Republicans. And I'm not even a Republican. And Republicans have nothing to do with Afghanistan.

And the point is, sex-offender British soldiers regard the Afghan resistance as scum because some of them allegedly use human shields. If thats the case, then the entire British army is comprised of sex offenders.

Not to mention the claims are dubious. For a start, Anglo-Americans lie about such things. First they said Bin Laden used a women as a shield, then they went back on it. They don't know when to tell the truth.

Border-Rat · 01-02-2012 4:10pm

Lemming wrote: »

BR is a card-carrying Chuckie* around these parts, hence both delta720 & crusader's retorts to the troll-post.

* Chuckie: a long-running slang term from the boards.ie politics forum, derived from the IRA mantra "Tiochaid ar la" and plays on the phonetic sound of "Tiochaidh", used to refer to IRA supporters/apologists and/or ardent Sinn Fein supporters.

Lol. Let me point out the stupidity of these statement. Firstly, 'around these parts', these parts being, incidentally, an Irish forum. Secondly, he uses my support of Sinn Fein as some sort of tool of condescension, in relation to 'these parts'. I must inform you, that Sinn Fein is now the second most popular party in the 26 Counties and has complete mandate of Irish people in the 06 Counties.

You speak like I am a supporter of a fringe-group, on a forum for Englishmen. In fact, I am a supporter of a Party of increasing popularity in Ireland, posting on an Irish forum. You're from England, acting like this is a British military sub-forum.

This is an Irish forum, and Sinn Fein is one of the large 3 parties in Ireland. SHOCK - Irish person supports immensely popular Irish Political Party on Irish forum. Who the hell do you think you are?

bwatson · 01-02-2012 7:47pm

Border-Rat wrote: »

Lol. Let me point out the stupidity of these statement. Firstly, 'around these parts', these parts being, incidentally, an Irish forum. Secondly, he uses my support of Sinn Fein as some sort of tool of condescension, in relation to 'these parts'. I must inform you, that Sinn Fein is now the second most popular party in the 26 Counties and has complete mandate of Irish people in the 06 Counties.

You speak like I am a supporter of a fringe-group, on a forum for Englishmen. In fact, I am a supporter of a Party of increasing popularity in Ireland, posting on an Irish forum. You're from England, acting like this is a British military sub-forum.

This is an Irish forum, and Sinn Fein is one of the large 3 parties in Ireland. SHOCK - Irish person supports immensely popular Irish Political Party on Irish forum. Who the hell do you think you are?

This is a military sub forum of an Irish website, not an Irish military sub forum. People are free to discuss military issues of interest regardless of the nation of origin. Secondly, people like you seem intent on manipulating a vast number of threads, creating heated political discussion. There are politics forums for you if you wish to engage in such debates. Of course political issues will inevitably envoke discussion on this board at times, but do you really feel the need to disrupt every thread with your boring, predictable tirades of anti-British folly?

By the way, you still appear to be confusing the British and the English. Your geography, as we know, is piss poor. Your political awareness doesn't seem to be too hot either.

RMD · 02-02-2012 12:19am

Border-Rat wrote: »

But we're not talking about Republicans. And I'm not even a Republican. And Republicans have nothing to do with Afghanistan.

And the point is, sex-offender British soldiers regard the Afghan resistance as scum because some of them allegedly use human shields. If thats the case, then the entire British army is comprised of sex offenders.

Not to mention the claims are dubious. For a start, Anglo-Americans lie about such things. First they said Bin Laden used a women as a shield, then they went back on it. They don't know when to tell the truth.

To label an entire force because of the actions of a tiny minority of scumbags is pure ignorance. If you wish to do so, I'll be able to label pretty much any organization you hold in high regard as a group of scumbags because of the actions of a tiny few. There's very very few groups which don't have a scumbag which filtered past the selection process.

If you wish to turn this into politics, the Taliban are a minority group who hold no regard for womens' rights or the rights of many minority groups such as homosexuals, people of other religions or people of different ethnic backgrounds. Their interpretation of Sharia law is incredibly strict disregarding what many would view as basic civil liberties and they're a genuine danger to Western civilians happily harbouring extremist organizations. Ye, I can see why people call them scum.

Lemming · 02-02-2012 12:32am

Border-Rat wrote: »

Lol. Let me point out the stupidity of these statement. Firstly, 'around these parts', these parts being, incidentally, an Irish forum.

You might want to reconsider what you address as "stupid" given the tripe you've just written. The internet is global, not national, and this is an Irish-based forum, and Irish-run company yes, but you'll find a great many nationalities posting here, both resident in Ireland and not resident in Ireland.

"These parts" refers to boards.ie since I do not know you from adam in real-life; I have only the drivel you post on boards.ie with which to form opinion of you and hence the choice of words. If I have offended your suave, sophisticated, leftright-wing ideology by giving you impression other than the most simple of explanation to misreading my words, may I respectfully suggest that you call someone who cares what you think, because I don't.

Secondly, he uses my support of Sinn Fein as some sort of tool of condescension, in relation to 'these parts'. I must inform you, that Sinn Fein is now the second most popular party in the 26 Counties and has complete mandate of Irish people in the 06 Counties.

You have much to learn about politics, the politics of the republic of Ireland, the relationship between the republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the UK if you genuinely believe that SF are on a meteoric rise. They are not, and the only gains they have received outside of acting like chicken-hawks on poor & disadvantaged areas south of the border has been an "anybody but the regular crowd in revenge" vote. Hardly a ringing endorsement of a party that is also widely recognised as morally bankrupt, with no credible, viable policy or notions of policy outside of the "Northern Ireland question".

You speak like I am a supporter of a fringe-group, on a forum for Englishmen. In fact, I am a supporter of a Party of increasing popularity in Ireland, posting on an Irish forum. You're from England, acting like this is a British military sub-forum.

Ummm ..... who said I was from England now?

This is an Irish forum, and Sinn Fein is one of the large 3 parties in Ireland. SHOCK - Irish person supports immensely popular Irish Political Party on Irish forum. Who the hell do you think you are?

There's a waft of something in the air .... not sure if anyone else can smell it? As for me? I'm a card-carrying member of the anti-bullsh*t party, me.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 02-02-2012 5:45pm

Border-Rat wrote: »

This is an Irish forum, and Sinn Fein is one of the large 3 parties in Ireland. SHOCK - Irish person supports immensely popular Irish Political Party on Irish forum. Who the hell do you think you are?

No it isn't. It's the 4th largest national party in Ireland and can hardly be said to have immense support.

twinytwo · 02-02-2012 7:19pm

cruasder777 wrote: »

The IRA was riddled with nonces, even female ones.
Briege Meehan, the widow of a former Sinn Fein councillor and leading figure in the IRA, is facing multiple charges of child abuse, including the alleged sexual abuse of her step-daughter

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Widow-of-leading-IRA-figure-faces-sexual-abuse-charges-109154639.html#ixzz1kzRcVmDV

what has that got to do with anything???

DipStick McSwindler · 03-02-2012 12:48pm

This post has been deleted.

Border-Rat · 03-02-2012 2:46pm

Lemming wrote: »

You might want to reconsider what you address as "stupid" given the tripe you've just written. The internet is global, not national, and this is an Irish-based forum, and Irish-run company yes, but you'll find a great many nationalities posting here, both resident in Ireland and not resident in Ireland.

Just to reiterate, you insinuate that an Irishman supporting the second most popular party in Ireland, on a predominantly Irish forum, is a fringe kook. Now, don't get all huffy because I pointed that inconvenience out.

"These parts" refers to boards.ie since I do not know you from adam in real-life; I have only the drivel you post on boards.ie with which to form opinion of you and hence the choice of words. If I have offended your suave, sophisticated, leftright-wing ideology by giving you impression other than the most simple of explanation to misreading my words, may I respectfully suggest that you call someone who cares what you think, because I don't.

Ad hominem.

You have much to learn about politics, the politics of the republic of Ireland, the relationship between the republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the UK if you genuinely believe that SF are on a meteoric rise. They are not, and the only gains they have received outside of acting like chicken-hawks on poor & disadvantaged areas south of the border has been an "anybody but the regular crowd in revenge" vote. Hardly a ringing endorsement of a party that is also widely recognised as morally bankrupt, with no credible, viable policy or notions of policy outside of the "Northern Ireland question".

Sinn Fein is the second most popular party in Ireland.

Ummm ..... who said I was from England now?

Anglo jinjoism. Location: England. Perfectly reasonable deduction on my part, son.

There's a waft of something in the air .... not sure if anyone else can smell it? As for me? I'm a card-carrying member of the anti-bullsh*t party, me.

Ad hominem. Weak.

Border-Rat · 03-02-2012 2:47pm

DanDan6592 wrote: »

No it isn't. It's the 4th largest national party in Ireland and can hardly be said to have immense support.

Sinn Fein is the second most popular party in Ireland.

p1akuw47h5r3it · 03-02-2012 5:27pm

Border-Rat wrote: »

Sinn Fein is the second most popular party in Ireland.

That is from October 7th 2011 and has a margin of error of 3%, meaning that either of those parties could be the 2nd largest as all are within 3% of eachother. And I don't particularly care about polls. It's the last Election that matters.

Anyway it doesn't matter. The thread is about that documentary.

Border-Rat · 03-02-2012 6:47pm

lol denial, denial. And lets not forget who brought the issue up, English trolls.

In regards to this programme, another thing I find hilarious even though I haven't watched it (I heard the announcer say this in the ad) is the claim that the British have the Taliban 'on the retreat'. LOL. On the retreat? The Taliban control the entire Country. In fact, a big contribution to this fact was that the British failed against them in the likes of Sangin, where the Americans had to come in to bail them out. Its just incredibly bald-faced propaganda to tell viewers, on the eve of departure , that the Taliban are finished and insinuate that this is down to Britain in large part.

Lemming · 03-02-2012 7:26pm

Border-Rat wrote: »

lol denial, denial. And lets not forget who brought the issue up, English trolls.

errr, you perhaps?

Border-Rat wrote: »

I'd call people who sexually abuse Afghan children, then film it, beyond scum. Which is what the British army has been in the news recently for.

KickstartHeart · 03-02-2012 8:48pm

Lemming wrote: »

Though not something that happened in last night's episode; the above has happened to British soldiers in recent times. I seem to recall a small snippet in a newspaper sometime mid to late last year (I could be mistaken) where a soldier was saved by his helmet taking the round fired by an insurgent, using a little girl as a human shield. The insurgent managed to get a round off because the soldier would not fire with the child there.

I read that too. A guy from the, Royal Anglian regiment, I think they're called. Showed his helmet too. Scary

Lemming · 04-02-2012 12:48am

KickstartHeart wrote: »

I read that too. A guy from the, Royal Anglian regiment, I think they're called. Showed his helmet too. Scary

Aye, I remember reading it and reflecting on just how lucky he was. He could have easily just made an absolute mess of the two insurgents (one with gun) & the little girl with the M2 browning he was manning, and its to his credit that he didn't opt for the easy option. Cold comfort if he had died as a consequence, but that's one little girl who didn't ask to be in harms way and managed to escape without harm because he showed her the due consideration that two of her elder countrymen didn't. I can't recall if he managed to get either of the two insurgents though or if they bolted before he or his section could return fire.

cruasder777 · 04-02-2012 1:05pm

Border-Rat wrote: »

lol denial, denial. And lets not forget who brought the issue up, English trolls.

In regards to this programme, another thing I find hilarious even though I haven't watched it (I heard the announcer say this in the ad) is the claim that the British have the Taliban 'on the retreat'. LOL. On the retreat? The Taliban control the entire Country. In fact, a big contribution to this fact was that the British failed against them in the likes of Sangin, where the Americans had to come in to bail them out. Its just incredibly bald-faced propaganda to tell viewers, on the eve of departure , that the Taliban are finished and insinuate that this is down to Britain in large part.

The "announcer" by which you mean the guy on the ground with the Marines was talking about the particular contact that was taking place, the Taliban were on the retreat.

Why do you have to continually have to make up lies and stir s... for your agenda? Its all abit sad.

The British are still in Sangin, the Americans have arrived with a much larger force and are now in overall command.

mathepac · 04-02-2012 1:48pm

I suppose the real issue for me is why the British government / NATO find it necessary produce so many of these propaganda films about a "war" no-one cares about - other than the families of the dead and injured.

Why the need to make heroes / corpses / cripples out of young men and women for no appreciable gain, other than for the arms manufacturers? The key learning from this kind of conflict in the past surely is that the more foreign military might the invaders show, the higher the recruitment rates to the "insurgents" climb; history just repeats itself.

America hasn't won a war since WWII (and who's been on the up and up since?) and they will lose this one as will their NATO allies and that will not reduce the Taliban or other "insurgent" numbers by a single fighter.

Afghanistan isn't a real country any more than Pakistan, India or Bangladesh. A significant number of the people who inhabit these areas have only ancient tribal and family lands as their territorial markers and don't even acknowledge the authority of central governments, let alone a foreign invasion force. Whatever chance it might have had in succeeding in its objectives (wiping out the Taliban?) it was doomed to fail once that dangerous moron Bush described the "war" as a "Crusade" and the soldiers as "Crusaders".

Sure, you'll get a local to do a piece-to-camera about the deprivations visited on them by the "Taliban" and the more of these I see the more convinced I am that it's all just PR, like in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the wars to support the searches for non-existant WOMD in Iran / Iraq or where-ever.

The first victim of war is truth and that is certainly true in this propaganda exercise.

bwatson · 04-02-2012 2:49pm

Border-Rat wrote: »

lol denial, denial. And lets not forget who brought the issue up, English trolls.

In regards to this programme, another thing I find hilarious even though I haven't watched it (I heard the announcer say this in the ad) is the claim that the British have the Taliban 'on the retreat'. LOL. On the retreat? The Taliban control the entire Country. In fact, a big contribution to this fact was that the British failed against them in the likes of Sangin, where the Americans had to come in to bail them out. Its just incredibly bald-faced propaganda to tell viewers, on the eve of departure , that the Taliban are finished and insinuate that this is down to Britain in large part.

I know there are some on here who have served in the British Army and who have been to Afghanistan. I'm sure they will be fully supportive of the claim that a hell of a lot of progress has been made in Helmand province. You do not hear about it because it is simply not of interest to people like you (by that I mean the average westerner with very limited knowledge of the situation). However, progress is being made, times are changing, and the lives of ordinary afghanis are transforming for the better. This is the opinion of British soldiers I have been lectured by, who have toured Helmand multiple times, and who have witnessed first hand what it is really like in the province.

Still, I don't expect you to even consider this as a possibilty. You are content to wallow in your world of hate and misinformation.

Border-Rat · 04-02-2012 2:54pm

Lemming wrote: »

errr, you perhaps?

"Err", what I spoke of pertains entirely to the British in Afghanistan. I.e. the actions of British soldiers.

bwatson wrote: »

I know there are some on here who have served in the British Army and who have been to Afghanistan. I'm sure they will be fully supportive of the claim that a hell of a lot of progress has been made in Helmand province. You do not hear about it because it is simply not of interest to people like you (by that I mean the average westerner with very limited knowledge of the situation). However, progress is being made, times are changing, and the lives of ordinary afghanis are transforming for the better. This is the opinion of British soldiers I have been lectured by, who have toured Helmand multiple times, and who have witnessed first hand what it is really like in the province.

Still, I don't expect you to even consider this as a possibilty. You are content to wallow in your world of hate and misinformation.

Oh, so I have 'limited knowledge'. Okay. How many sectors of Afghanistan does NATO control at this time?

bwatson · 04-02-2012 2:55pm

mathepac wrote: »

I suppose the real issue for me is why the British government / NATO find it necessary produce so many of these propaganda films about a "war" no-one cares about - other than the families of the dead and injured.

Maybe you aren't in a position to judge. You don't care and the average Irishman doesn't care (why the hell would they?) but I don't think the same could be said of the British public who are quite interested in the welfare of their troops abroad.

Do you think these "propaganda films" would continue to be produced by the BBC, Sky etc if they are proving to be a failure with the public, who do not care?

Border-Rat · 04-02-2012 2:57pm

cruasder777 wrote: »

The "announcer" by which you mean the guy on the ground with the Marines was talking about the particular contact that was taking place, the Taliban were on the retreat.

Why do you have to continually have to make up lies and stir s... for your agenda? Its all abit sad.

The British are still in Sangin, the Americans have arrived with a much larger force and are now in overall command.

I'm 'lying' when I say the Taliban (Or more precisely The Taliban and the 80 or more other resistance factions supporting them) are in effect in control of the Country? Because the announcer insinuated otherwise.

2nd defeat for Britain in 5 years by a few men armed with PKM's

bwatson · 04-02-2012 3:13pm

Border-Rat wrote: »

I'm 'lying' when I say the Taliban (Or more precisely The Taliban and the 80 or more other resistance factions supporting them) are in effect in control of the Country? Because the announcer insinuated otherwise.

2nd defeat for Britain in 5 years by a few men armed with PKM's

Where was this first defeat by a few men armed with PKMs? I assume you are talking of Basra, in which case the insurgents had far more than PKMs. Regardless, you are once again very wrong. On arrival in southern Iraq, the British forces engaged in vicious, brutal combat. Before they left they were conducting patrols among the local population in soft hats, interacting and helping members of the public and the new regime security forces (who are somewhat substandard admittedly, compared to the ANA). I seriously don't think you know what you are on about. "Border-Rat". Indeed. Classy.

Border-Rat · 04-02-2012 3:26pm

bwatson wrote: »

Where was this first defeat by a few men armed with PKMs? I assume you are talking of Basra, in which case the insurgents had far more than PKMs.

What were they armed with?

Regardless, you are once again very wrong. On arrival in southern Iraq, the British forces engaged in vicious, brutal combat. Before they left they were conducting patrols among the local population in soft hats, interacting and helping members of the public and the new regime security forces (who are somewhat substandard admittedly, compared to the ANA).

This is outright lies/fantasy. The British stopped wearing soft-hats in September 2003. Secondly, the JAM had complete control over Basra in 2007. Including the Police. Terrorism over anyone who did not adhere to their extremist views went ignored by the British, who could do nothing. They let the British flee the city without being attacked on retreat to the airport.

I seriously don't think you know what you are on about. "Border-Rat". Indeed. Classy.

lol Irony.

Now, back to your superior knowledge on Afghanistan. How many sectors does NATO control there?

bwatson · 04-02-2012 3:30pm

Border-Rat wrote: »

lol Irony.

Now, back to your superior knowledge on Afghanistan. How many sectors does NATO control there?

Are you not now clutching at straws? Firstly you were making comments about the lack of British capability. Now you begin to expand this to ISAF (including Irish forces) as a whole? Why? Because I asserted that much progress has been made in Helmand, regardless of the fact that it is generally not reported?

Border-Rat · 04-02-2012 4:14pm

bwatson wrote: »

Are you not now clutching at straws? Firstly you were making comments about the lack of British capability. Now you begin to expand this to ISAF (including Irish forces) as a whole? Why? Because I asserted that much progress has been made in Helmand, regardless of the fact that it is generally not reported?

You asserted your superior knowledge on Afghanistan. Can't you answer the question? I know the answer to this, but by your own assertion, you know more than me.

So whats the answer?

mathepac · 04-02-2012 5:44pm

bwatson wrote: »

Maybe you aren't in a position to judge. You don't care and the average Irishman doesn't care (why the hell would they?) but I don't think the same could be said of the British public who are quite interested in the welfare of their troops abroad. ...

Don't try to twist my words - re-read (or read for the first time) what I wrote. As a human being I am perfectly positioned to judge, it's just I don't have my judgement clouded by the unprecedented coverage of the return or dead and broken bodies. Never in the history of war has so much media attention been focused on the dead and injured. The message is clear - these people who killed and maimed our children are evil and deserve to die. This prevents grieving and heart-broken families from asking the question "why were our children put in harm's way?" In other words "What are we doing there? "

bwatson wrote: »

... Do you think these "propaganda films" would continue to be produced by the BBC, Sky etc if they are proving to be a failure with the public, who do not care?

I think the fact that all the news organisations are churning out massive coverage of this obscene war and the sponsored media events surrounding it is precisely because they fear the backlash from the ordinary men and women who are paying the price for this grotesque action.

Can you name a war when there was so much focus on the casualties? In all honesty there hasn't been one. The Americans had to go out and kill Osama Bin Laden and put his body on display to "prove" to the American public that they were achieving their objectives and winning the war. Why did they find it necessary to do that? A dead Muslim in a Muslim country put in cold storage and put on display? Unheard of since the time of the Crusades and that act alone would have given the local "insurgents" plenty of recruits.

Keeping the dead and injured on the front pages pushes the message about the "evil-doers deserving to die and our heroes will kill them". Pure and simple brain-washing and emotional manipulation.

muletide · 04-02-2012 5:50pm

Thread is a disgrace - close now and let the boys get a room

tac foley · 04-02-2012 7:48pm

muletide wrote: »

Thread is a disgrace - close now and let the boys get a room

+1

tac

tac foley · 04-02-2012 8:03pm

[QUOTE=mathepac;76906614The Americans had to go out and kill Osama Bin Laden and put his body on display to "prove" to the American public that they were achieving their objectives and winning the war. Why did they find it necessary to do that? A dead Muslim in a Muslim country put in cold storage and put on display? [/QUOTE]

That comment alone shows how far from reality you have strayed in your diatribe.

You are confusing the death of OBL with that of Ghadaffi, who was actually killed by his fellow-countrymen, and put on display by them.

If a furriner like me came on this board and badmouthed your country and its military the way that you have been doing for the last few pages, I'd be hauled off, quite rightly, in less time that it takes to read one of your posts.

I'm sure that there are boards where you can air your hate-rants opinions with like-minded people. I'd like to think that you'd feel better off on one of them.

Discussion among reasonable-minded contributors, in spite of differences of POVs, is one thing - your contributions, so far, have done little to stay on the thread, and much to cause controversy and ill-feeling - mostly, I have to say, on your part.

You seem, Sir, to be intent on generating upset on any subject that is brought up - a skill that many would envy. You are, however, thirty years too late to fit in your rightful place in the Irish landscape.

Messrs Adams, MacGuiness and Paisley got there before you.

tac

mathepac · 04-02-2012 9:46pm

tac foley wrote: »

That comment alone shows how far from reality you have strayed in your diatribe.

You are confusing the death of OBL with that of Ghadaffi, who was actually killed by his fellow-countrymen, and put on display by them. ...

Granted, mea culpa, I confused two disparate events. I apologise and thanks for pointing that out to me.

tac foley wrote: »

... If a furriner like me came on this board and badmouthed your country and its military the way that you have been doing for the last few pages, I'd be hauled off, quite rightly, in less time that it takes to read one of your posts. ...

You will need to point out to me where specifically where in my posts (3 of them so far I think) and in what terms i "badmouthed" anyone's "country and its military". If you check carefully you will see that my only criticisms were directed at governments, political leaders and the manipulation they use media outlets for. I know some people might find this extraordinary, but it's still OK to have anti-government or anti-majority opinions and voice them in the 21st century.

So, there's your challenge - point out to me where specifically in my posts and in what specific terms I "badmouthed" anyone's "country and its military".

tac foley wrote: »

... I'm sure that there are boards where you can air your hate-rants opinions with like-minded people. I'd like to think that you'd feel better off on one of them.

Discussion among reasonable-minded contributors, in spite of differences of POVs, is one thing - your contributions, so far, have done little to stay on the thread, and much to cause controversy and ill-feeling - mostly, I have to say, on your part.

You seem, Sir, to be intent on generating upset on any subject that is brought up - a skill that many would envy. You are, however, thirty years too late to fit in your rightful place in the Irish landscape.

Messrs Adams, MacGuiness and Paisley got there before you. ...

If you feel my posts which clearly voice my opposition to the killing and crippling of young men and women in any country under any pretext fit in with the activities allegedly engaged in by the people you mention, then I'm afraid you are mistaking my posts for someone else's. I am against violence in all its form, particularly where it's only objective is profit for those whose lives are not at risk, and the vicarious arousal of a few blood-thirsty armchair squaddies.

My only point is that IMHO governments involved in military actions to protect or gain profits in oil-rich countries or countries them deem to be a threat to those profits, are using the dead and injured bodies of their citizens' children to justify the "rightness" of their profit-driven actions.

A number of the so-called reasonably minded contributors here are very quick to drag the IRA and their own perverse views on Irish politics into this discussion on TV "documentaries". Show me where I made any mention of such matters before now in this thread.

The personal comments directed at me I have not yet reported to the moderators; if they continue I will report the posters for breach of the posting guidelines.

tac foley · 04-02-2012 10:05pm

I'm not only sure that the Mods have read these posts of yours AND mine, but also sure that if they want me off, they'll tell me so, with no hard feelings of any kind on my part.

I'm quite ready to go when asked - I'm a foreign guest here anyhow and understand such that action is often necessary to maintain the required standards. In any event, your posts speak for themselves - your points of view are self-evident, and hardly need me to re-emphasize them in pointless further argument. Rather, then, examine what you have said - bearing in mind that you say that I have made personal comments aimed at you - you, on the other hand have tarred my former brothers-in-arms [and me by inference] as wholesale murderers and slaughterers of the innocent in Iraq and Afghanistan, operating like undisciplined hordes of marauders.

All I'll say to you is this - in a battle scenario the soldier is not thinking of foreign policy, the Standard Barrel Rate, or even what the government is going to ask him to do next. He is thinking about himself and his mates beside him and doing the best he can not to get killed, and if that means killing somebody else, well, that's what soldiers do.

Live with it.

I will not go into any further discussion with you.

Meanwhile, back to the thread...

tac

cruasder777 · 04-02-2012 11:08pm

Border rat and his sock puppet mathepac only come on to troll.

Lemming · 04-02-2012 11:23pm

On a related note - and remembering my old sig.line about arguing with idiots/trolls only to be dragged down to their level and then beaten with experience - Episode two can be found here on Monday evening for those able to access it.

Looking forward to it. I liked Ross Kemp's documentaries, and whilst only having watched a single episode thus far, this one is showing promise of being a decent watch.

Manic Moran · 05-02-2012 2:56am

I should make it a point to keep closer attention to anything involving the British military... On with the Mod hat.

You are probably the sort who supports the IRA's use of guerrilla tactics and indisriminant bombings but was seething when the Special Air Service plays them at their own game!

Warning for that one, Mr Watson. Insulting another member.

Now, to the heart of the matter.

1) The thread is being left open because the show is still running.

2) I don't give a crap who supports what. I give a lot of leeway, but if I see another post on this thread not directly relevant to the episode, there's a ban coming.

3) I am getting a little tired of posts which take every opportunity to dig at various militaries, the British in particular. They may be within the legal letter of the forum charter, but the mods are entrusted to ensure the smooth and enjoyable use of the forum for its intended purpose, which is decidedly not political. As a result, I am going to enact a Boards/Military version of UCMJ Art 134, the prohibition on acts prejudicial to good order. This will take effect as soon as the forum charter gets changed, the process for which I am going to start at this point. It's been a few years since the last update anyway.

NTM

Royal Marines : Mission Afghanistan Channel 5

Comments