should journalist Stephen Farrel have been rescued at the cost of a commando,s life?

ynotdu

A British special forces soldior was killed in the rescue of the journalist Stephen Farrel yesterday in Afghanistan.

should journalists who go to danger zones without being embedded with troops(it would only have been a matter of time before the site of the explosion would have come under military scrutiny anyway)be rescued?

the fact that embedded journalists can be controlled and only see what an army wants them to see is not lost on me,so to some extent it could be argued that freedom of the press could be compromised.however he was well aware of the risks and decided to take them.

as a result another man lost his life.

my question is should Farrel have been left to his fate?

Jester75

Very interesting question.

For me, the difference would be that a special forces commando's job is doing exactly what he was killed doing, he knew that was a risk and part of his job.

Journalists, on the other hand, are there to report, not to fight. In an ideal world they wouldn't be kidnapped / executed etc

But obviously, journalists going to these countries are well aware that there is a possibility they might not return, could be kidnapped etc.

Regardless of their job, I don't think anyone can say if one man's life is worth more than another, which is the bottom line here.

ynotdu

Thanks for the speedy reply Jester 75.

I agree that special services know what they are getting into(to an extent)they sometimes though it seems to me have to follow the orders of 'looney' politicions rather than the best military thinking.

if i could compare it to something simulor i think people who choose to climb mt everest should not expect others to rescue them if things go wrong.

or i believe a fisherman earning his living getting into difficulties should get the full support of the coastguard and air-sea rescue(risking their lives)
but a 'looney' trying to cross the atlantic in a bath-tub should be left to drown.

is,nt it an abuse of men in uniform to expect them to risk their lives for any 'fool' or should military just always do what they are told?

Jester75

The whole premise upon which the military is built is following orders though isn't it?

I agree a lot of time those orders may not be correct but you're questioning the whole political system then, at the end of the day, those politicians are in most cases elected by the people to represent the people? It's by no means a perfect system but seems to be the best we can manage at this point.

EDIT: If soldiers refuse, they'll be court marshalled and some other soldier will just take his place end up doing the same job.

ynotdu

Jester75 wrote: »

The whole premise upon which the military is built is following orders though isn't it?

I agree a lot of time those orders may not be correct but you're questioning the whole political system then, at the end of the day, those politicians are in most cases elected by the people to represent the people? It's by no means a perfect system but seems to be the best we can manage at this point.

EDIT: If soldiers refuse, they'll be court marshalled and some other soldier will just take his place end up doing the same job.

hard to disagree with anything you have said,and certainly a military without political masters is usually is a disaster!

i suppose what makes it difficult for me is that including but not only the nazi's many outrages acts get carried out under the guise of "I was just following orders"

one recent exception of the rule to me was Mussharf of Pakistan being forced out because he was both President and army leader,it seems to me Pakistan was far better under that type of rule than the mess it is now!

Dang it NOTHING is black or white about war and army :-(

Jester75

Yeah, I totally understand what you're saying.

With any political system, it's rarely just one man alone who is in complete control, they'll normally have a lot of people around them, advisors and what not. I would be of the opinion that these are the people who should be the first line of defense if something is being ordered which is wrong in their eyes.

Obviously if it was something as blatantly wrong as being asked to murder innocent people, I think the individual does need to take some responsibility and refuse, whatever the consequences.

But when it comes to a rescue mission for a kidnapped journalist the lines between what's right and wrong get a bit blurry. If they had known they were going to lose a man, would they still have gone ahead with the mission?

OS119

yes, an attempt to rescue him should have been made even though there was a risk to the lives of those called to rescue him.

he is a British citizen, and is therefore entitled to the protection of the UK government while he goes about his lawful - and vitally important - business.

in my view we don't get into a moral difficulty with idiots trying to row the Atlantic on a lilo - because stupidity is a fall-back position of every citizen, however i think where the line gets blurry is in relation to those who leave their 'parent' country permanently - for tax, weather, or even child-bride reasons - and who subsequently turn around and seek the protection of that parent state donkeys years later when it all goes horribly wrong.

an interesting side note: Stephen Farrell is also an Irish Citizen (like half the foreign correspondants in the western world), did the Irish government also not owe him protection?

Manic Moran

I think it worked out rather well. The capture of the journalist started a sequence of reporting and intelligence gathering which led the military to a Taliban cell with commander. Any commando worth his salt would have liked to have gone in to kill the enemy were there hostages present or not, but the presence of the hostage simply sweetens the deal and aids with the legal justification.

As long as journalists understand that their press status does not equal immunity, and that if they go a-roaming without escort that they may be captured or killed (Including by Coalition forces if they're in the wrong place at the wrong time), then they should be perfectly free to go where they want. They shouldn't expect to be rescued, as that's intelligence-dependent, but if the intelligence is there, the military is quite willing to go in be there a hostage or not, so it's not hostage-dependent.

NTM

blinding

To be honest I am tired of soldiers and their families whinging about maimings and deaths.

Dont join up or leave as quickly as possible if you are not prepared to be killed or maimed for monarch and country.

Nobody is forcing anyone into the british army.

Zulu

blinding wrote: »

To be honest I am tired of soldiers and their families whinging about maimings and deaths....

...and yet their families didn't ask for them to sign up.
Your lack of sympathy, particularly in the Military forum, is either gross immaturity, or simple trolling.

blinding

Zulu wrote: »

...and yet their families didn't ask for them to sign up.
Your lack of sympathy, particularly in the Military forum, is either gross immaturity, or simple trolling.

Apologies for posting it in the military forum.

But I would say that there is a sizable amount of public opinion that would agree with my views on being part of the military.

minidazzler

blinding wrote: »

Apologies for posting it in the military forum.

But I would say that there is a sizable amount of public opinion that would agree with my views on being part of the military.

Yeah, they are generally called Crusties.

The Commando* knew what he signed up for, I am sad he died, but if not him someone else maybe. The Journo is a twat it was his second time fcuking up and getting kidnapped.

I can't judge whether the men should have rescued him though, I think a good beating may be in order to get the point across to sto fcuking up. He now has the death of 2 men on his hands and I hope it haunts him.

*BBC Called him a Paratrooper, someone here said Commando, which is it?

OS119

blinding wrote: »

But I would say that there is a sizable amount of public opinion that would agree with my views on being part of the military.

its not my fault if you know lots of stupid people and don't read threads before you post in them.

the discussion actually about whether the risking of lots of lives to (hopefully) rescue a life willingly and knowingly placed in danger by its owner is morally justifiable.

you'll find that the 'whinging' about casualties is almost always that had (obviously) better equipment choices been made in the procurement chain, or indeed (obviously) better strategic political choices been made by politicians, those casualties would both be less serious in type and number, and they might not be for causes that that might not deserve such sacrifice.

(unless we're talking about an idiot woman who was quite happy for johnny to join the army, happy to see him away from his drug-taking, chav mates and buying her lots of nice things with the first wage in the family for 20 years, but who got upset when he had to go somewhere sandy and, ultimately, very dangerous indeed.)

ETA: Minidazzler BBC are saying he was a paratrooper, which technically could mean anyone with wings, but in this case its likely that means he was a Para with 1PARA (Special Forces Support Group). family have been informed, the name of the soldier - assuming he's not SF and the Beeb have got the wrong end of the stick - should be released today

Fratton Fred

if he were in the SAS, the MOD would only release the name of his "Normal" regiment though wouldn't they?

Craigsy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if he were in the SAS, the MOD would only release the name of his "Normal" regiment though wouldn't they?

Yeah the standard procedure is to deny he was SF and give his other reg instead.

If 1 para were involved i'd imagine theres a fair chance SAS may have been involved, op barras style all over again

Morlar

I would have a lot more respect in this for the soldiers in this story than for that reckless journalist. It is worth noting that this is this persons 2nd time being kidnapped (2004 in Iraq).

Considering the amount of western journalists who have been kidnapped against those who have not and the odds of one being kidnapped twice it is not unreasonable to assume this man may have been reckless in his behaviour. This action put not just his own life at risk but those of the people he is depending on to go and rescue him.

OS119

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if he were in the SAS, the MOD would only release the name of his "Normal" regiment though wouldn't they?

no, they sometimes give SF unit as well these days, though it depends on the job and the soldiers previous history - and i'm pretty sure there's one name from Iraq/Afghanistan that's not been released, and quite a few photos.

in 'standard' cases they release the unit first, then about a day later they give the name - the indicator in this case is that the BBC are saying 'Paratrooper' whereas if the MoD had informed the press that a paratrooper had been killed the BBC would be saying 'a soldier from x battalion, the parachute regiment'.

semantics i know, but the timings of announcements, the location, the fact the beeb are using 'paratrooper' instead of 'SF soldier' or 'a soldier from x battalion, y regiment' as well as the obvious 'supporting special forces' nature of the task, suggests 1PARA.

troubleshooter

OS119 wrote: »

no, they sometimes give SF unit as well these days, though it depends on the job and the soldiers previous history - and i'm pretty sure there's one name from Iraq/Afghanistan that's not been released, and quite a few photos.

in 'standard' cases they release the unit first, then about a day later they give the name - the indicator in this case is that the BBC are saying 'Paratrooper' whereas if the MoD had informed the press that a paratrooper had been killed the BBC would be saying 'a soldier from x battalion, the parachute regiment'.

semantics i know, but the timings of announcements, the location, the fact the beeb are using 'paratrooper' instead of 'SF soldier' or 'a soldier from x battalion, y regiment' as well as the obvious 'supporting special forces' nature of the task, suggests 1PARA.

From media reports he was from 1 Para/Special forces support group.

iceage

This is not the first time for this guy..He got pinched in Iraq. Personally I think hes a fvckin idiot and its not just a "Commando" that lost his life, his collegue Sultan Munadi was killed as well.

As to the mission....it was obviously agreed that there was a feasable chance of success, or it wouldn't have been undertaken... Stephen Farrell was rescued. Was it a success? Yes. Was it worth it?....

OS119

iceage wrote: »

This is not the first time for this guy..He got pinched in Iraq. Personally I think hes a fvckin idiot and its not just a "Commando" that lost his life, his collegue Sultan Munadi was killed as well.

As to the mission....it was obviously agreed that there was a feasable chance of success, or it wouldn't have been undertaken... Stephen Farrell was rescued. Was it a success? Yes. Was it worth it?....

yes, it was worth it.

horrible as it is to write it out, investigative journalism and an informed public is the absolute be-all and end-all of democracy. without journalists who go where they are told not to we would live in nothing more than a dictatorship.

the soldier died, and his colleagues risked their lives, safeguarding one of the two most fundamental pillars of liberal democracy - a free press.

Fratton Fred

Although ironically, I would suggest he was there looking to see how many dead civilians he could find.

Off he goes, unprotected, to discredit ISAF, gets captured (again) and his interpretor, two civilians and a Para all get killed in the process.

You're right though, freedom of speach is the basis of democracy. it is a shame it comes at such a high price.

Poccington

The dead soldier was serving with 1 Para SFSG.

I hope Mr. Farrell is ****ing pleased with himself. The silly **** was taken prisoner while in Fallujah back in 2004 and this time his abduction was a direct result of his stupid and reckless actions. In the 48 hours before his kidnapping, the German military warned all civilians/westerners to stay out of the area due to the large Taliban presence and the combat Ops being conducted by German forces. The Taliban were setting up road blocks, at one of them a man was beheaded after his truck was stopped. There was fierce fighting between German and Taliban forces.

Despite all this, Mr. Farrell still decided to travel into the area without any kind of protection to chase a story aimed at discrediting ISAF forces operating in the area, the same ISAF forces that rescued him. Funny how that one worked out wasn't it? Then when the raid is finally made what does the stupid **** do? He tries to do a runner in the middle of a firefight.

I've yet to see him once acknowledge the sacrifice of the Para that died trying to rescue him. Instead, this story looks like it's gonna go down as one about "The hero journalist" who did all he could to get a story. I'm reminded of the end of Saving Private Ryan, where a dying Tom Hanks tells Ryan to "Earn this"... If I was Mr. Farrell I would be feeling very, very humble right about now.

Do I think the Para's life was worth rescuing Mr. Farrell? Not particularly. However, the lads did all they could to rescue him with one of them making the ultimate sacrifice in the rescue attempt, that's what sets them apart from lesser men.


RIP to the fallen Para.

Manic Moran

According to the current lead article on Cnn.com...

The British journalist recently freed in a NATO military operation described his Taliban hostage-takers as "hopelessly inept,"

Obviously inept enough to kill one of the British soldiers.

One saving grace:

His blood-soaked helmet was in front of me throughout the flight," Farrell wrote. "I thanked everyone who was still alive to thank. It wasn't, and never will be, enough."

Maybe he'll have finally learned.

NTM

Morlar

Manic Moran wrote: »

Maybe he'll have finally learned.

NTM

I think we will know more after the inevitable book deal.

Poccington

The fallen Para has been named as Cpl John Harrison.

RIP.

Irish_Army01

Poccington wrote: »

The dead soldier was serving with 1 Para SFSG.

I hope Mr. Farrell is ****ing pleased with himself. The silly **** was taken prisoner while in Fallujah back in 2004 and this time his abduction was a direct result of his stupid and reckless actions. In the 48 hours before his kidnapping, the German military warned all civilians/westerners to stay out of the area due to the large Taliban presence and the combat Ops being conducted by German forces. The Taliban were setting up road blocks, at one of them a man was beheaded after his truck was stopped. There was fierce fighting between German and Taliban forces.

Despite all this, Mr. Farrell still decided to travel into the area without any kind of protection to chase a story aimed at discrediting ISAF forces operating in the area, the same ISAF forces that rescued him. Funny how that one worked out wasn't it? Then when the raid is finally made what does the stupid **** do? He tries to do a runner in the middle of a firefight.

I've yet to see him once acknowledge the sacrifice of the Para that died trying to rescue him. Instead, this story looks like it's gonna go down as one about "The hero journalist" who did all he could to get a story. I'm reminded of the end of Saving Private Ryan, where a dying Tom Hanks tells Ryan to "Earn this"... If I was Mr. Farrell I would be feeling very, very humble right about now.

Do I think the Para's life was worth rescuing Mr. Farrell? Not particularly. However, the lads did all they could to rescue him with one of them making the ultimate sacrifice in the rescue attempt, that's what sets them apart from lesser men.


RIP to the fallen Para.

Very very well said Buddy..

iceage

OS119 wrote: »

the soldier died, and his colleagues risked their lives, safeguarding one of the two most fundamental pillars of liberal democracy - a free press.

You don't need to jazz this up OS119, the lads were there to do a job mate, go in rescue the hostages, kill anybody who tryed to stop them....its their job and I'm sure they were well and truly up for it. The last thing on any of these guys minds was pillers of liberal democracy etc etc..

Manic Moran wrote: »

Maybe he'll have finally learned.
NTM

I doubt it very much, maybe this might have brought him closer to god, or a Pulitzer....can feel a book coming on me thinks. If he has any balls he should at least apologise to Cpl John Harrisons family and mates personally and make a hefty donation to H4H.

Morlar wrote: »

I think we will know more after the inevitable book deal.

all proceeds donated to his collegues family seems fair to me.


OH..very nicely put Poccington, far more eloquant and to the point, thank you.

OS119

my wife vaguely knew him from school. he was in the year below her.

RIP.

iceage

How remiss of me, Thanks OS119 for reminding me.

RIP Para.

twinytwo

OS119 wrote: »

yes, it was worth it.

horrible as it is to write it out, investigative journalism and an informed public is the absolute be-all and end-all of democracy. without journalists who go where they are told not to we would live in nothing more than a dictatorship.

the soldier died, and his colleagues risked their lives, safeguarding one of the two most fundamental pillars of liberal democracy - a free press.

your joking right... they is no such thing as free press not anymore anyway... the way i see it if someone goes out of their way to put themselves in one of the moist dangerous places on earth then they have accepted and acknowledge the risks involved....but for a soldier to die to save a moron like him...... its sad

Lazairus

Should stephen farell have ran to safety


Should he have ran to saefty or stayed put.
Ie would not the sas be fully aware where the hostages were

minidazzler

Lazairus wrote: »

Should stephen farell have ran to safety


Should he have ran to saefty or stayed put.
Ie would not the sas be fully aware where the hostages were

Stay damn still in a corner.

If you make any sudden movements or run you are WAY more likely to be shot.

ynotdu

Lazairus wrote: »

Should stephen farell have ran to safety


Should he have ran to saefty or stayed put.
Ie would not the sas be fully aware where the hostages were

This video gives a good insight into how the SAS planned for an operation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWOE2oxl62M

and this one shows the operation in progress(it seems the SAS very much knew were the hostages were)I guess they would have preferred to go in darkness but a hostage had been killed.Millions of people watched this Live on TV,this is just a news summary of the days events.

sorry second video would not embed here is the direct link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_p4DmuGyehc

twinytwo

Lazairus wrote: »

Should stephen farell have ran to safety


Should he have ran to saefty or stayed put.
Ie would not the sas be fully aware where the hostages were

i would have though the logical thing to do was hit the floor

ynotdu

twinytwo wrote: »

i would have though the logical thing to do was hit the floor

How can 'logic' come into a hostage scenario if You are the hostage(s)

when the stun grenades and bullets start in most cases people would not know if it was their captors carrying out their threats or a rescue team!

as a slight aside,does anybody know if the Irish rangers have ever had to go into serious action?

Local-womanizer

ynotdu wrote: »

as a slight aside,does anybody know if the Irish rangers have ever had to go into serious action?

Liberia,they rescued 40 hostages without firing a shot.

ynotdu

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Liberia,they rescued 40 hostages without firing a shot.

Cheers for that Local!

Local-womanizer

ynotdu wrote: »

Cheers for that Local!

No worries,heres a link aswell.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/africa/crack-troops-rescue-hostages-from-gunmen-in-daring-raid-187696.html

ynotdu

Local-womanizer wrote: »

No worries,heres a link aswell.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/africa/crack-troops-rescue-hostages-from-gunmen-in-daring-raid-187696.html

Local! You were SO quick with the link there!

I dont know how i did not hear of that operation,but having read it i feel very proud of the Rangers actions(seems sometimes the best way to DISarm bullies is to decide to use non lethal force)despite being heavily armed

A high risk move by them but not a single injury!

Great work and another example of why Irish peace-keeping troops can often go were another Nation would not be trusted by the native population.

pmg58

The Irish Rangers, and the Royal Irish Rangers are not the same thing.

ynotdu

pmg58 wrote: »

The Irish Rangers, and the Royal Irish Rangers are not the same thing.

Lol pmg,it seems he dicovered his mistake and removed his post anyway!
Dang only I was watching the All Ireland football final i was going to reply to him earlier............was SO much looking forward to putting the record straight!:D

To be fair though it was an interesting video,and i always like sources that ar'nt either Sky BBC FOX or on the other side AL Jazeera!

Facts are always hard to come by!

McArmalite

minidazzler wrote: »

Stay damn still in a corner.

If you make any sudden movements or run you are WAY more likely to be shot.

If someone happens to be Arab like the woman and the baby terrified in the house they are a certainty to be shot regardless by your 'heroic' SAS as happened in this circumstance.

ynotdu

McArmalite wrote: »

If someone happens to be Arab like the woman and the baby terrified in the house they are a certainty to be shot regardless by your 'heroic' SAS as happened in this circumstance.

Hi McArmalite,given the six Counties experiance of the SAS it is hardly surprising so many people feel bitter towards them.
I am not talking about the shoot to kill policy when i say this,but even the SAS are made up of individuals who are going into an operation that they might not come out of alive.

IMO that is heroism and the kill or be killed attitude a person would have to have does often have terrible outcomes.

I would not say this lightly it has taken tonnes of persuasion for me to be sure of it,but the Taleban DO use civilions as Human shields,they are Rotten to the core,just imagine if they had equal fire power to an Army.
NOTHING would be too low an act for them to do in the name of Allah.
Whatever You think about things they get a 10 on the craziness scale:(

McArmalite

ynotdu wrote: »

Hi McArmalite,given the six Counties experiance of the SAS it is hardly surprising so many people feel bitter towards them.
I am not talking about the shoot to kill policy when i say this,but even the SAS are made up of individuals who are going into an operation that they might not come out of alive.

IMO that is heroism and the kill or be killed attitude a person would have to have does often have terrible outcomes.

I would not say this lightly it has taken tonnes of persuasion for me to be sure of it,but the Taleban DO use civilions as Human shields,they are Rotten to the core,just imagine if they had equal fire power to an Army.
NOTHING would be too low an act for them to do in the name of Allah.
Whatever You think about things they get a 10 on the craziness scale:(

I agree with you on the craziness scale of the Taliban, their mad fcukers - but it looks like an unwinnable war to me. If Sept. 11th had not happened, the Taliban, Northern Alliance, the various tribes etc would have been shooting the arse off each other until the end of time. Even if it goes on for 40 years, still unwinnable as far as I can see.

ynotdu

McArmalite wrote: »

I agree with you on the craziness scale of the Taliban, their mad fcukers - but it looks like an unwinnable war to me. If Sept. 11th had not happened, the Taliban, Northern Alliance, the various tribes etc would have been shooting the arse off each other until the end of time. Even if it goes on for 40 years, still unwinnable as far as I can see.

Glad You did not rip into my post!:)

Yes i agree Afghanistan will never be conquered.
It has been attempted throughout history,even the Might of the Soviet Union could only hold a small portion of territory.
in the end it seems only Civil wars sort a Country out:(
in the end i believe no matter how long it takes the Coalition forces will say shag this and go.
what a fate though to be left to the mercies of the Taleban:eek:

iceage

This could take a generation to sort and still Aghanistan will be odds with itself internally. I'm afraid its a case of history repeating itself. The question is does the general public from the nations that make up ISAF have the stomach and fortitude to continue to watch they're young men and women return home injured missing limbs, crippled and in boxes.

Please don't take me up wrong I 100% support the Troops that are there and I do believe they are having a major inpact on the Taliban but dreading it when I hear of the reports of lads and lasses getting fvcked up on sky news, CNN etc..

troubleshooter

McArmalite wrote: »

If someone happens to be Arab like the woman and the baby terrified in the house they are a certainty to be shot regardless by your 'heroic' SAS as happened in this circumstance.

Can you back up your claim or is it just more emotional claptrap ?

The SAS raid houses every day in Afghanistan and don't deliberately shoot women and children.

ynotdu

Afghan president re-opens probe into reporter's death
(AFP) – 4 days ago
KABUL — President Hamid Karzai on Wednesday ordered a second investigation into the killing of an Afghan reporter during a British commando raid that rescued his Western colleague, his office said.
The president told the interior ministry and National Directorate for Security to re-open inquiries into the death last week of Sultan Munadi, a 34-year-old father of two.
Karzai issued the order after meeting Munadi's family at his palace in Kabul and hearing their version of the events that led to his death.
Munadi and Stephen Farrell, both working for The New York Times, were snatched by Taliban rebels while investigating suspected civilian deaths in a NATO air strike in the northern Kunduz province earlier this month.
A dramatic airborne commando raid last Wednesday saw British-Irish citizen Farrell whisked to safety but Munadi killed in the crossfire, his bullet-riddled body left at the scene for his family to collect.
Karzai met Munadi's father and brother and "assured them of a serious investigation into his death," the presidency said.
Based on investigations carried out by Qurban Mohammad, the reporter's father, and witnesses, Munadi's "martyrdom case is totally different to what is said by media and coalition forces," said the statement.
"Listening to Qurban Mohammad, the president ordered the interior ministry and National Directorate of Security to launch a re-investigation," it said.
Initial investigations showed Munadi was killed by gunfire at close-range, the statement said.
Munadi's brother Mohammad Osman told AFP that he believed the fatal shot entered vertically from under his chin and was fired from such close range that it left burn marks on the skin around the wound.
"He had a gun shot from under his chin with a skin burn. This is not possible unless he is shot with gun barrel touching his skin," said Osman.
Munadi's death caused heartbreak and anger among his colleagues, some of whom accused international forces of double standards in their dealings with Afghans and Westerners.
The operation sparked a blacklash over the use of British troops with reports saying that negotiations had been under way to free the pair and after a British soldier, and an Afghan woman and child were also killed in the raid.
It has been unclear whether Munadi was killed by insurgents or troops.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband rebuffed calls for an inquiry, insisting the raid was the only way to secure the men's release.
Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

Related articles

• Afghan president assures thorough probe into murder of journalist
  Xinhua - 4 days ago
• US journo rescued, Afghan journo died
  Straight Goods - 4 days ago
• Sorry Jocelyn, Cpl. John Harrison can't save you
  RenewAmerica - 6 days ago
• More coverage (22) »

Add News to your Google Homepage

iceage

<deleted>

Manic Moran

McArmalite wrote: »

If someone happens to be Arab like the woman and the baby terrified in the house they are a certainty to be shot regardless by your 'heroic' SAS as happened in this circumstance.

OK, I'm getting fed up with your vendetta. Using my Moderator Powers a bit (Do I need a cape?), 'infraction' awarded. Congratulations.

For the benefit of all, this is the text of the notification message.

Utterly unsupportable statement made with the apparent goal of doing nothing but causing angst.

There are ways of discussing the issues you have with the British military. You have consistently failed to find them and have instead infected other reasonable threads with your off-topic rantings.

I suggest you identify a more reasonable and substantial method of expressing your opinion, or your sojourn in the Military subforum will not last for much longer.

Holding a minority viewpoint is not against the Charter, you are welcome to propound your position in an appropriate thread and in an appropriate manner. This thread and this manner, however, is not it.

NTM

Local-womanizer

Its sad to see soldiers put into this postion,a fight that has no peaceful outcome in sight.

Its also a sh1tty postion for the ordinary,peaceful Afghanis to be in.Without the ISAF troops the Taliban would run riot in the country.

At least at the moment with the ISAF troops there,Afghanis have some chance of an ordinary life,but how long will the west be willing to keep its troops in the firing line for the Afghani people.

As with Iceage,I support the troops abroad,but its hard to support the war,mostly for their own sake as its difficult to see the light at the end of the tunnel tbh.