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