Same s**t diffrent year

[slater]

Grenades won't hurt a tank.

QUOTE

If the soldier was in / on the tank, then the suggestion is that either the assailant was also in or on the tank, so the soldier should be able to tell a rock from a grenade. Or the soldier dismounted the tank, aprehended the assailant and then shot him point blank. If the assailant had thrown the rock, then surely the kill shot would not have been point blank as the assailant would necessarilly be further away than point blank.

Again, please think through what you are being presented with before deciding whether the comments are as merit worthy as they first seem...

I think you will find that most armored vehicles are light tanks with at least one operator out of the top. and yes a grenade can harm a tank, blow off a track, have you ever been in a situation where you are surrounded by a baying mob? Can tell a grenade from a rock, stand by a wall and let some one throw a variety of missiles at you would you be able to tell what is what? I dont think so.  Untill you are actually in these situations you wouldnt even comprehend what goes through your mind and even soldiers have a sense of self survival of himself and his mates. I have never met a suaddie that goes out with the intention of killing someone for no reason and to suggest that the do is an insult to all. I am not suggesting that you form any part of that debate and welcome your views which are mostly common sense.

lewis

[Blatman]

have you ever been in a situation where you are surrounded by a baying mob?

Certainly have. None of them had grenades, but plenty of them were armed with something. Not an experience I care to repeat, although it has happened to me a few times, and I have been on the receiving end of a crowd throwing rocks, bottles, chairs etc. I could pretty much tell what was coming and spent quite a lot of time ducking and covering, whilst trying to watch what was coming to avoid being hit.

And again you miss the point. I'm not trying to justify or otherwise the actions of the troops. The assailant could well have thrown a grenade rather than a rock, the article does say tank, not light tank, so again, a judgement cannot be made on whether the soldiers inside or outside were feeling that their lives were at risk, and again, I'm NOT passing judgement on that. It's the question of abuse and that the shooting is alledged to have been point blank. If it was point blank and justified then I have no problem. But just how did the assailant come to be at point blank range? Yes the assailant could have thrown a grenade, but he didn't. The soldiers must have realised that as they didn't hear an explosion. Doesn't make it right, but none the less it was just a rock. So how did the soldier get to be at point blank range with the assailant when the rock was *thrown*, presumably not from point blank range, otherwise it wouldn't have been thrown, it would have been dropped. So for the kill shot to be at point blank range, either the assailant came to the soldier and was shot, or the soldier dismounted and chased after the assailant, caught him, then shot him. Like I say, if this is justifed because the assailant was a continuing threat, fair enough, but it seems that there is some doubt that the shooting was justified. Unpalatable as it may be, there is at least the possibility that the assailant was shot without justification.

And don't tell me that army don't train for this sort of situation, otherwise the body count in Northern Ireland would be huge. The army got pelted with rocks all the time out there and managed not to shoot all the rock throwers. And it si their training that should help them identify who is a threat, even in a baying mob. And I am sure that the vast majority of our forces are well trained and do repond appropriately to the situation at hand. And yes, this example may be an abberation. I hope it is. But James has now on several occasions stated that the British forces absolutely don't break the rules, when there are plenty of cases under investigation that mean his assertion is almost certainly incorrect. I don't like it any more than anyone else, but I'm also not naieve enough to believe that it doesn't go on. It does. As long as it's a few bad apples, well that's life. But if it's endemic, or ordered by those on high who should know better than to issue immoral orders, that's a different matter.

[Bananaman]

[hilux]

QUOTE

So we kill one of them for every western person killed  

Currently, the official tally is 63 for every coalition soldier however methinks it is probably higher.

[slater]

You have obviously been in situations where missiles were thrown, can I ask were you behind a shield?

And don't tell me that army don't train for this sort of

situation, otherwise the body count in Northern Ireland would be huge. The army got pelted with rocks all the time out there and managed not to shoot all the rock throwers. And it si their training that should help them identify who is a threat, even in a baying mob. And I am sure that the vast majority of our forces are well trained and do repond appropriately to the situation at hand. And yes, this example may be an abberation. I hope it is. But James has now on several occasions stated that the British forces absolutely don't break the rules, when there are plenty of cases under investigation that mean his assertion is almost certainly incorrect. I don't like it any more than anyone else, but I'm also not naieve enough to believe that it doesn't go on. It does. As long as it's a few bad apples, well that's life. But if it's endemic, or ordered by those on high who should know better than to issue immoral orders, that's a different matter.

Quite right they do train but it was always a different situation in NI and they didnt just throw rocks, Petrol bombs, nail bombs etc. Ive seen mates running well alight. things changed when the powers that be deemed that no retaliatory action or should be taken that looked agresive, but NI is miles away from the current conflicts.

One mans point blanc does not necessarily meet anothers   but I bow to your argument and do soldiers break the rules, sometimes   there are always some bad eggs in every basket as you know but the majority are doing a b****y good job.

Lewis

[James]

Grenades won't hurt a tank.

If the soldier was in / on the tank, then the suggestion is that either the assailant was also in or on the tank, so the soldier should be able to tell a rock from a grenade. Or the soldier dismounted the tank, aprehended the assailant and then shot him point blank. If the assailant had thrown the rock, then surely the kill shot would not have been point blank as the assailant would necessarilly be further away than point blank.

Again, please think through what you are being presented with before deciding whether the comments are as merit worthy as they first seem...

A grenade at close range could quite happily pop a track off a light armoured vehicle. and as has been mentioned in the heat of battle you have a split second to make a decession.

Without knowing ALL of the fqacts of the situation it would be impossible to decide what had happened and whether "Point Blank" was an accurate desciption.

[Blatman]

You have obviously been in situations where missiles were thrown, can I ask were you behind a shield?

I wish... No I was unprotected in each instance, and I agree that when it happened the first time, I thought I was going to die. Never been so close to actually p*****g myself when sober. You don't get used to it, but having experienced it, and without the benefit of formal training, when it happened again, I was better able to control myself and my fear. I still don't reccommend it though, unless you have a shield to hide behind. These days, noisy crowds kinda bother me...

8."He recalls: "The officer showed me another photograph of a man... [and] insisted that I knew where he lived. I told him I did not know, otherwise I would take him there. The more I told them I couldn't help, the more the officer instructed the soldiers to beat me further. The soldiers were hitting me with their fists, kicking me and bringing their rifle butts down on to my head and body. I was hit hard in the stomach by a soldier who had picked up a hammer."

An officer sugesting that the squadies were under orders NOT acting on there own inative also if they were hitting them with there fits how were they using the riffle buts to hit him as well? the article certainly reads as if we are talking about the same people here.

So it's impossible for a squaddie to put his weapen down, use his fists, then pick his weapon up and use that?

And orders or not, squaddies have a duty under the Geneva convention to disobey an immoral order and report the oficer giving it. I can't believe you actuially think that "I was only obeying orders" is a suitable defence.

On arrival at Shaibah he was forced into a kneeling stress position on pebbled ground. In a letter to the Ministry of Defence his lawyers allege that he was barefoot and was dressed only in his underwear. If he moved or rested from the stress position a soldier kicked him in the back, he says. Mr Nassir was in this position for three hours before being taken to an interrogation. He estimates that over an eight-hour period he was interrogated eight times before returning to his permanently dark prison cell."

So he has said that he was wearing nothing but his underwear but they obviously alowed him to wear his watch

Don't need a watch to estimate, same as the guy who claims he was hit with hammers. It's a best guess.

When I got the s**t kicked out of me (richly deserved some of you are thinking...) the cops asked me how long the attack lasted for. I answered. Do you think I was A) Timing the attack with a stopwatch, B) guessing, C) estimating as best I coud, or D) just lying for effect in the hope of finding an ambulance chasing lawyer?

Without knowing ALL of the fqacts of the situation it would be impossible to decide what had happened and whether "Point Blank" was an accurate desciption.

Precisely. At least you're thinking, questioning, examining what may or may not be going on, which is a start. NONE of us have the facts and we can trawl the internet all we want to find things that support our own position. It's also nice to have that freedom to do so without fear of being carted off somewhere by the men in black coats

And as I have said all along, I will and do support our service men and women 100%. But I also accept that mistakes can happen, dis-information and propaganda can happen, and abuses can happen. I also accept that the thse things can and do happen whichever side of the fence you happen to be on.

[James]

So we kill one of them for every western person killed  

goodness me thats NOT what I said! but its easier too twist words than offer something constructive isnt it?

[James]

On arrival at Shaibah he was forced into a kneeling stress position on pebbled ground. In a letter to the Ministry of Defence his lawyers allege that he was barefoot and was dressed only in his underwear. If he moved or rested from the stress position a soldier kicked him in the back, he says. Mr Nassir was in this position for three hours before being taken to an interrogation. He estimates that over an eight-hour period he was interrogated eight times before returning to his permanently dark prison cell."

So he has said that he was wearing nothing but his underwear but they obviously alowed him to wear his watch

Don't need a watch to estimate, same as the guy who claims he was hit with hammers. It's a best guess.

When I got the s**t kicked out of me (richly deserved some of you are thinking...) the cops asked me how long the attack lasted for. I answered. Do you think I was A) Timing the attack with a stopwatch, B) guessing, C) estimating as best I coud, or D) just lying for effect in the hope of finding an ambulance chasing lawyer?

The rest of it... well, at least you're thinking, questioning, examining what may or may not be going on, which is a start.

And as I have said all along, I will and do support our service men and women 100%. But I also accept that mistakes can happen, dis-information and propaganda can happen, and abuses can happen. I also accept that the thse things can and do happen whichever side of the fence you happen to be on.

Of course you can pick up your weapon   but thats NOT what the article say's is it. it leaves you having to fill in the gaps. and of course there's alway's the posability that what really happened has been elaborated again IF it happened.

You can tell that you have never served in the forces, because you just dont under stand the chain of command, do you really think that under such circumstances if "Bob" decided that this was wrong and he was going to report his OC for War crimes or crimes against humanity that he would just pop down to his CO's office have a cup of tea explain the problem and it will all be taken care of looked into and Bob wil be back at work in time for cornflakes? it dosnt work like this and you would think long and hard before making any such accusations.

Of course you can estimate time although the more that passes the harder it is to estimate he also specified 3 hours but again I guess he was estimating.

You dont seem to want to belive that maybe this didnt happen and maybe the Lawyer looking after 47 cases (all the same) has shared information between clients or possibly made alot of it up? lets not forget he is a lawyer this means he is working for his clients best ineterests which may noy include the truth or what really happened.

And please dont try telling me that Layers are there to uphold justice I know your not that naive.

[Blatman]

I do want to believe that it didn't happen. But usually there is no smoke without fire.

You can tell that you have never served in the forces, because you just dont under stand the chain of command, do you really think that under such circumstances if "Bob" decided that this was wrong and he was going to report his OC for War crimes or crimes against humanity that he would just pop down to his CO's office have a cup of tea explain the problem and it will all be taken care of looked into and Bob wil be back at work in time for cornflakes? it dosnt work like this and you would think long and hard before making any such accusations.

I do understand the chain of command, and of course I realise that I am over simplifing the situation. BUT, that doesn't change the fact that IF these incidents come to court, the defence of "I was only obeying orders" IS doomed to failure, because the order should be disobeyed. Of course, the person disobeying will be up on insubordination (or whatever) charges, which is where he gets to say *why* he disobeyed. And again, I realise it's an over simplification, and that in the heat of the monent perspectives are different, BUT that still doesn't prove that abuses don't happen on our watch.

And that's twice you've tried to discredit my position by trying to suggest that because I haven't served, I don't understand the position or the arguments. What that says to me is that your argument is so weak, you need to discredit me so that my position is discredited by association. I could do the same to you, but I won't. Keep it on topic and impersonal please.

FWIW, I talk to quite a few soldiers in Helmand. Part of my job makes that possible on a regular basis I always treat them with respect and admiration, and I *always* make a point of telling them that they have my unquestioning loyalty and support. I also had the pleasure to spend a few moments face to face with a small delegation from the para's recently. I made a point of shaking them ALL by the hand and wishing them good luck, and telling them face to face that they had my support and admiration. As a civvy, I can't really do much more.

And with that, I *really will* bid this thread good bye...

[LordB]

now thats a man of very few words

[V 8]

And with that, I *really will* bid this thread good bye...

We'll see  

[James]

Precisely. At least you're thinking, questioning, examining what may or may not be going on, which is a start.

And as I have said all along, I will and do support our service men and women 100%. But I also accept that mistakes can happen, dis-information and propaganda can happen, and abuses can happen. I also accept that the thse things can and do happen whichever side of the fence you happen to be on.

Do you find it impossible not to be condescending or is it too easy for you?  

Look of course there are some situations where a SMALL number of people may have done things which were simply wrong.

Im not Naive to belive that these things dont happen Who invented the concentration camp? BUT what I get upset about is when people make statements like " Troops are trained in torture techinques" and the Term "Abuse" paints a very diffrent picture to that of a few people not conducting themselves the way they should be or have sworn too. but again If they were acting without orders from above?

I feel that our involvment in Afghanistan is questionable and as I have said earlier I dont know what the solution to the problem is? BUT I do support our troops, so at least we can agree on that point  

Ive been in there position and ive put my life on the line and would have gladly given it without question but my experinces do give me strong feelings as I know what it feels like not knowing whats going to happen in the next two minutes and if you will see your family and country again.

[James]

You can tell that you have never served in the forces, because you just dont under stand the chain of command, do you really think that under such circumstances if "Bob" decided that this was wrong and he was going to report his OC for War crimes or crimes against humanity that he would just pop down to his CO's office have a cup of tea explain the problem and it will all be taken care of looked into and Bob wil be back at work in time for cornflakes? it dosnt work like this and you would think long and hard before making any such accusations.

I do understand the chain of command, and of course I realise that I am over simplifing the situation. BUT, that doesn't change the fact that IF these incidents come to court, the defence of "I was only obeying orders" IS doomed to failure, because the order should be disobeyed. Of course, the person disobeying will be up on insubordination (or whatever) charges, which is where he gets to say *why* he disobeyed. And again, I realise it's an over simplification, and that in the heat of the monent perspectives are different, BUT that still doesn't prove that abuses don't happen on our watch.

And that's twice you've tried to discredit my position by trying to suggest that because I haven't served, I don't understand the position or the arguments. What that says to me is that your argument is so weak, you need to discredit me so that my position is discredited by association. I could do the same to you, but I won't. Keep it on topic and impersonal please.

FWIW, I talk to quite a few soldiers in Helmand. Part of my job makes that possible on a regular basis I always treat them with respect and admiration, and I *always* make a point of telling them that they have my unquestioning loyalty and support. I also had the pleasure to spend a few moments face to face with a small delegation from the para's recently. I made a point of shaking them ALL by the hand and wishing them good luck, and telling them face to face that they had my support and admiration. As a civvy, I can't really do much more.

And with that, I *really will* bid this thread good bye...

"No smoke without fire" yeh a term I am sure was cooked up by the media

NO I am not trying to discredit you at all you seem to have had a strong opinion's against how our troops have conducted themselves o.k later you say you support them great but you have been trying to make a point that these aleged abuses have happend.

What I have tried to say is that if you have been in the postition that our troops have been then you may have had a differing opinion than you have had with regards to the March. I am sorry that you have failed to realise that.

As for my most recent comment re:- "the chain of command" again not trying to discredit you its a simple fact that IF you havent served its hard to understand how this works these men are your freinds and familly you spend more time with them than anyone else. therefore if you decided to take action against them this is not easy to do and weather its right or wrong if you were to do this you may not ever make it to trial.

As for keeping it impersonel please take your own advice "you presumably usually vote for a political party who would deport these radicals? Not that you'd admit to voting BNP 'cos it's politically incorrect to do so. Yet more irony..."

"At least you're thinking, questioning, examining what may or may not be going on, which is a start."

Great the March is not going to happen, that was my concern and I am happy that the powers that be have seen sence on the matter, obviuosly there are many out there that felt it was in very bad taste.

I dont feel the need to add anything further.

[stephenh]

Hey guys, this is getting much too heavy for a car club website surely?    

I'm a member of a certain service and fellowship organisation and club, and we have 2 subjects which we are urged to avoid because they can cause such heated feelings. They are religion and politics! I think it is quite wise!!