Freedom of the Press

11 Sep 2009

So SFSG lose a good man to save a journalist who was warned not to go to the area he did, no doubt trying to get a scoop and "expose" war crimes by the NATO forces for bombing Taliban owned tankers. I hope he remembers his life, his freedom of speech and his free press has been paid for by the blood of the very people he likes to undermine for the cost of a story!
SFSG
RIP fella, stand easy!

16 Sep 2009

Is it the case that this journalist was trying to expose war crimes by NATO Forces, or is this your spin on it?
It is very sad that a soldier died in this manner - but soldiers die all time, after all it is a war fighting operation.
Of course, if indeed it is correct that this journalist was seeking to undermine the very people that died for him then I will retract my comment.
That said, Lyndie England (Abu Graib prison) and the Baha Mousa (the Iraqi killed in UK custody) as well as the News of the World revelations about soldier abuses on operations have the roots of their stories from other members of the armed forces.
I am not sure that the journalists need to undermine NATO - the army do a good enough job of that themselves.

17 Sep 2009

And whilst you sit in your Ivory tower himandher all safe and cosy the rest of us will defend what you have become accustomed to and make sure you still have the freedom you have thanks to those you so clearly detest!!!!
I am not getting into this debate again on here and frankly i am sick to death of reading the poison many of you on here aim at the armed forces, if you spouters are so honourable and can do a better job then why dont you get off your leather sofas in your posh conservatorys and join up.............. oh yes your gutless thats why!!!!

20 Sep 2009

Quote by jumptoit
And whilst you sit in your Ivory tower himandher all safe and cosy the rest of us will defend what you have become accustomed to and make sure you still have the freedom you have thanks to those you so clearly detest!!!!
I am not getting into this debate again on here and frankly i am sick to death of reading the poison many of you on here aim at the armed forces, if you spouters are so honourable and can do a better job then why dont you get off your leather sofas in your posh conservatorys and join up.............. oh yes your gutless thats why!!!!

21 Sep 2009

Quote by Dave__Notts
And whilst you sit in your Ivory tower himandher all safe and cosy the rest of us will defend what you have become accustomed to and make sure you still have the freedom you have thanks to those you so clearly detest!!!!
I am not getting into this debate again on here and frankly i am sick to death of reading the poison many of you on here aim at the armed forces, if you spouters are so honourable and can do a better job then why dont you get off your leather sofas in your posh conservatorys and join up.............. oh yes your gutless thats why!!!!

This is a public forum to debate topics that people may find controversial. All posters have a right to debate thier way of thinking without being abused by other posters.
You have called all people who do not carry arms as gutless. Just remember that the most decorated soldier in World War One was a conscientious objector (William Coltman VC, DCM and Bar & MM and Bar) and his views would not differ from many that disagree with you.
You may even find that some that write in these forums have served in blue, white or green and do not hold your views. If you have a valid point to get across then please make it. If not then let those that wish to discuss it do so
Dave_Notts
I would be interested to find a person that did not agree with Jump.
The Journalist as far as I can tell, was warned not to go there but ignored that advice.
Then a soldier lost his life trying to save him. I would have left him there and not risked any soldiers life, over someone who was too ignorant to listen to damn good advice.

21 Sep 2009

I'll go second. There are people on this site doing all sorts of jobs that require guts, and they aren't necessarily in the services. A nurse who looks after terminally ill patients until they die is the one that comes to mind straight away, is she gutless?

21 Sep 2009

" You may even find that some that write in these forums have served in blue, white or green and do not hold your views "
I presumed that Davey was talking about other armed forces personnel? That is what I was referring too.
I am fully aware there are many on here and not on here, who are quick to slam anyone who works for the armed forces, that has been made apparent on many occasions.
Bottom line is a soldier lost his life over some dozy journalist, who despite being warned not to go, ignored that advice and his actions caused the death of someone else.
I do not class anyone who does not join the armed forces as " gutless " as I would be in that category too, but I also get tired of people knocking our armed forces too.

22 Sep 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
I do not class anyone who does not join the armed forces as " gutless " as I would be in that category too, but I also get tired of people knocking our armed forces too.

Thats called living in a democracy. Freedom to air your views and call to account those that are representing us.
If they work within the law/geneva convention then there is no problem. Go outside and they should be stripped of their uniform, because they have disgraced it, and stripped of their liberty by being held at HM pleasure. Then they may learn that they are not judge, jury and executioner. They are serving members of the armed forces.
You may find that the majority of views that have caused uproar are aimed at these people and not servicemen and women per se.
I have seen other posters who do hate the armed forces. That is their view and entitled to it.
Dave_Notts

22 Sep 2009

Yes Davey I agree they ARE entitled to it but....I have seen people vilified and even banned from here for doing exactly that.
Where does one draw the line on being able to express ones views, as one person will find it offensive and another will not.
Don't throw the AUP at me as I know what that says on here, I am talking about in general terms.

22 Sep 2009

I think both journalist and soldier were simply doing a job they had both chosen to do.
I choose not to be in the military, I make that choice on the basis that I dont want to put my life at risk pursuing wars that I believe in the main are both pointless and badly managed and executed.
I have personally met many old soldiers who dont believe the old lie that it is noble and sweet to die for your country. Of course since th 1950s solsiers saiolors and airman have had a free choice to do this job, something that the old hands didnt have.
I find it quite hard to be proud of the job our soldiers ared doing, partly because they have a free choice to do it and partly because the servicemen who choose to do this job are often mad keen to tackle "the ragheads" This mentality seems to be endemic throughout the ranks.
Consider this point.
If our strategy in Afghanistan is to provide a stable and secure environment for the people should we:
a: Adopt a tactic of sending hundreds of troops out on foot patrols with a view to subduing all insurgents at considerbale risk to personnel.
b: Establish secure contained compunds with easily defended perimeters that have hospitals schools and other facilities needed by the people. In time such compounds would of course expand and over a couple of generations perhaps the sons and grandsons of the insurgents might even begin to think they too would like to join up.
At the moment we are simply pissing in the wind. I think the will to establish a long term strategy that might actually work is undermined by the wish of our armed forces, at all levels, to get stuck into the "enemy".

22 Sep 2009

Quote by kentswingers777
Yes Davey I agree they ARE entitled to it but....I have seen people vilified and even banned from here for doing exactly that.
Where does one draw the line on being able to express ones views, as one person will find it offensive and another will not.
Don't throw the AUP at me as I know what that says on here, I am talking about in general terms.

I would say something along the lines of having a heated debate between two members.
Debate one
Member 1 says: A topic that they give their view on
Member 2 says: A view against member 1 and gives reasons to why they came to that conclusion
Member1 says: Another view against member 1â€™s last statement and gives the reasons why they came to that conclusion
Etc.
Debate two
Member 1 says: A topic that they give their view on
Member 2 says: You are a twat
Debate one in my view is an adult debate and allowed in the AUP. Debate two is abuse and not allowed in the AUP
Hope that clarifies what I think without having to point you at the AUP
Dave_Notts

22 Sep 2009

Quote by benrums0n
I find it quite hard to be proud of the job our soldiers ared doing, partly because they have a free choice to do it and partly because the servicemen who choose to do this job are often mad keen to tackle "the ragheads" This mentality seems to be endemic throughout the ranks.

No one is asking for your pride. But you seem to base it on knowledge of the mentality of over 100,000 people. You must have a massive contacts list to understand that many peoples views.
I've met a few Afghans in my time, therefore I feel able to state:
I find it quite hard to be proud of the job the taliban are doing, partly because they have a free choice to do it and partly because the taliban who choose to do this job are often "rag heads" and are mad keen to tackle "the infadels" This mentality seems to be endemic throughout rag heads.
(I did as much research on mine statement as you seemed to have done on yours!) biggrin

22 Sep 2009

Quote by benrums0n
I think both journalist and soldier were simply doing a job they had both chosen to do.
I choose not to be in the military, I make that choice on the basis that I dont want to put my life at risk pursuing wars that I believe in the main are both pointless and badly managed and executed.
I have personally met many old soldiers who dont believe the old lie that it is noble and sweet to die for your country. Of course since th 1950s solsiers saiolors and airman have had a free choice to do this job, something that the old hands didnt have.
I find it quite hard to be proud of the job our soldiers ared doing, partly because they have a free choice to do it and partly because the servicemen who choose to do this job are often mad keen to tackle "the ragheads" This mentality seems to be endemic throughout the ranks.
Consider this point.
If our strategy in Afghanistan is to provide a stable and secure environment for the people should we:
a: Adopt a tactic of sending hundreds of troops out on foot patrols with a view to subduing all insurgents at considerbale risk to personnel.
b: Establish secure contained compunds with easily defended perimeters that have hospitals schools and other facilities needed by the people. In time such compounds would of course expand and over a couple of generations perhaps the sons and grandsons of the insurgents might even begin to think they too would like to join up.
At the moment we are simply pissing in the wind. I think the will to establish a long term strategy that might actually work is undermined by the wish of our armed forces, at all levels, to get stuck into the "enemy".

:gagged: :gagged: :gagged:

23 Sep 2009

Fair point suffolk and humorously put.
I dont think we have any taliban contributors to the SH forums but Im pretty sure we have a number of serving or recently servings soldiers.
I will accept that there isnt an endemic gung ho attitude if just one of those serving soldiers will come on to the forum and state that they think it is foolish to undertake foot patrols in Afghanistan.
To refute your lovely ironic retort I really should point out that the Taliban kind of have a reaon to fight, being both Afgani and the incumbent government until we invaded.

23 Sep 2009

Just a question.
Are we to believe the only way to make other nations conform, is to kill, maim, blow up, fight, or get killed?

23 Sep 2009

the Taliban kind of have a reaon to fight, being both Afgani and the incumbent government until we invaded.
it was a government with no legitimacy even within its own borders,imposed on a population by violence and fear and the repression of women under a disgusting use of sharia law,covering up a heroin trade organised and run by the leaders

23 Sep 2009

Quote by benrums0n
Fair point suffolk and humorously put.
I will accept that there isnt an endemic gung ho attitude if just one of those serving soldiers will come on to the forum and state that they think it is foolish to undertake foot patrols in Afghanistan.
To refute your lovely ironic retort I really should point out that the Taliban kind of have a reaon to fight, being both Afgani and the incumbent government until we invaded.

OK, it is foolish to undertake foot patrols in Afghanistan or any other hostile country. It is dangerous, it WILL result in casualties, but it is necessary, and therefore it is as foolish as flying fast air, maintaining FOBs, and any other activity we carry out. You can't control the ground you have won without a presence on that ground. Only men in boots, face to face with the local population control the ground. Driving round in tanks doesn't work. It is a lesson we developed in Malaya, Northern Ireland, and Iraq.
I agree with where you are trying to go with this (I think). It does seem bloody foolish to go out on patrol knowing that Terry Taliban has more than likely put an IED on the route, but that is the nature of fighting a Guerilla army. Is it more or less foolish to charge a machine gun nest with only a rifle? Or run across open ground to try and rescue a man down? Or fly in two AH64 helicopters with Royal Marines strapped to the outside on the wings, into a Taliban compound to recover a fallen comrade?
War makes men make decisions. Those men who make them, make them under very different circumstances than those back here who analyse those decisions.

23 Sep 2009

cheers suff.
My main point is street fighting terrorists is simply futile, we aint gonna "win" and they aint gonna give up.
I think this has been proven over and over in many theatres of operation. I think somebody once said the best definition of madness is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.

23 Sep 2009

Benrums, I agree with you sort of. However, Street fighting terrosists is what we wish we could do, then we would win!! biggrin

:D
Beaucse when it comes to swapping bullets, they lose almost every time (hence why they have moved to IEDs)
But what we are doing is not street fighting the taliban. We are patrolling. This is a key skill that enforces hearts and minds, gathers intel, denies overt use of the ground by the enemy and may more tasks that need to be carried out.
But you are right, keep doing the same thing, and you keep getting the same result. I suppose that's why we still foot patrol, we want the same result. We just have to live with the cost of that result.

24 Sep 2009

Qoute
We are patrolling. This is a key skill that enforces hearts and minds, gathers intel, denies overt use of the ground by the enemy and may more tasks that need to be carried out.
Unquote
Thanks again for debating this issue , it really is a joy to have an adult disucussion without being insulted or made to feel like a pariah. I hope this thread stays that way.
Going back to the bit Ive quoted, I understnd these things are important. Are there any cleverer ways of achieving the same things. For instance having strategically placed watchtowers/ forts. I dont know, I just wondered if there were any obvious alternatives that a mind other than mine can devise.

24 Sep 2009

Quote by benrums0n
Qoute
We are patrolling. This is a key skill that enforces hearts and minds, gathers intel, denies overt use of the ground by the enemy and may more tasks that need to be carried out.
Unquote
Thanks again for debating this issue , it really is a joy to have an adult disucussion without being insulted or made to feel like a pariah. I hope this thread stays that way.
Going back to the bit Ive quoted, I understnd these things are important. Are there any cleverer ways of achieving the same things. For instance having strategically placed watchtowers/ forts. I dont know, I just wondered if there were any obvious alternatives that a mind other than mine can devise.

More than happy to discuss in an adult grown up objective way.
Not sure why you are receptive to discussion in this thread, but seem dead set on being insulting in the other thread, but I am sure you have your reasons. I will endeavour to remain proffessional and treat each thread individually, and not premit my anger at comments from the other thread interfere here.
And to be honest to your question, not really.
Yes there are much more high tech and safer ways to say gather intel. And yes forts and bases well defended can hold that bit of ground, but then you lose the ability to control all the ground, and you lose it to the enemy. You become defence and reactive, and the enemy gains the initiative. The enemy gets to chose the time and place of most engagements as it is, lets not give them any more power. The US has learnt the hard way, that bases only, and patrols in tanks, or reliance on intel and drones, doesn't work on its own. Only a bloke in boots, chatting with the locals, building up a relationship with people on his patch actually gets decent results. But as you point out, that is a guaranteed way of loosing men to IEDs. Look at policing in this country. When the local booby walked the beat, he had his ear open to every thing. Now he sits behind a desk in a fort, he can only react to incidents as they are reported. Obviously it's not as simple as that anology, but hopefully you get my point. We are not patrolling because we have the same mindset of the trenches. We are patroling because it has always given us results in almost every major (and minor) campain we have undertaken since WW2. smile

25 Sep 2009

Thanks for that.
Isnt the problem with guerilla warfare that because the enemy are actually memebers of the local population there isnt any ground to hold.
Isnt it a fair point that we are pissing in the wind (which is why the lives lost and casualties suffered make me so angry) and that to make any sort of headway in afghnaistan we need half a million troops and a commitment of at least 5 years.
Id be very interested to hear your thoughts.