ARmy Rumour SErvice

The thing is, like Tumbledown, Bloody Sunday et al there will be a caveat at the start to say 'the following is based on doeumentary evidence' followed no doubt by ' some scenes were included for continuity' or 'This is a true story but the names and events have been dramatised or some scenes reflect the work of the author'

My favourite quote is 'this is a true story but some names and events have been adapted or changed for the sake of continuity'

In other words it's all MICKEY MOUSE!

Originally Posted by Sven

I always thought that brother NCOs would step in if any were even remotely likely to behave in the way this load of sh1t suggests.

So - whence cometh the remark about 'wall of silence'?

The writer of the play has his say in Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../03/do0304.xml

Originally Posted by OldRedCap

Originally Posted by Sven

I always thought that brother NCOs would step in if any were even remotely likely to behave in the way this load of sh1t suggests.

So - whence cometh the remark about 'wall of silence'?

I know not, Old RC, Kipling, Longfellow??

Nice bit of titilation for the sofabourne morality brigade.
Nice bit of propaganda for the radical mullahs to stir up some hatred.
Potentially lethal for guys still on the streets in that corner of a far away land.

In my opinion this sort of stuff is irresponsible, dangerous and inappropriate. No good came come of it.
Are we going to pull out because of it? No.
Are we going to train our soldiers better? We're already trying our best.
Will people (on both sides) die because of a made up story about somebody getting beaten? Almost certainly.
The author should be feeling the mark of cain on that one.

This sort of program might be appropriate in the years following whenever we get the feck out of dodge. But not before. I think.

Theres quite an interesting piece on this in this week's Radio Times (the one with Dr Who on the front). As well as a very eloquent rebuttal from Tim Collins himself.

I'll see if it's up on the RT website... if not, will post excerpts.

"[Tony Marchant's] The Mark of Cain fails to capture the realities and the subtleties of the most professional army in the world. Instead it panders to the popular prejudices against the British army and what it's soldiers do - a judgment made by our friends and enemies alike."

"On Operation Telic 2 in 2003, unlike the circumstances portrayed in MoC, soldiers found themselves living in the burnt-out remains of Saddam's army barracks, with no chairs, tables and certainly no beds.
The men worked 20-hour shifts in stifling heat, under the constant attacks of gangs looters and insurgents.
Their greatest allies were the long suffering people of Iraq, who tried to conduct their lives in among the chaos as the tiny minority of gangs, thieves, released criminals, and the Saddam loyalists known as the 'Fedayeen' terrified the neighborhoods and murdered at will."

"The reality is that the British Army, insufficient in numbers and working within the RoE, find themselves confronted with insurgents trained in neighboring Iran and have been left behind by the pace of events in southern Iraq. The people of Iraq, who once looked to the British Army with such hope, are being left to their countrymen.
A move applauded in this country by Trendy Liberals - Who don't have to live in Iraq."

Lt. Col. Tim Collins (Ret.)[Radio Times, 31 Mar- Apr 6 '07]

It's a much longer piece but you'll have to buy the RT yourself to read it all.

A drama-documentary about the events at Breadbasket, which used real witnesses evidence given 'on the record', might well be an interesting and valuable piece of television; I actually thought Paul Greengrass's 'Bloody Sunday' was compelling, disturbing and a legitimate piece of film-making. This is likely to be b0llocks, IMHO, rooted in the writer's anti-military prejudices and making rare and unusual events appear to be commonplace. Having read the author's piece in the Torygraph today, it isn't difficult to see where he is coming from.

Originally Posted by Biscuits_AB

So, you're saying what exactly? That soldiers don't know any better, are incapable of differentiating between what is right and what is wrong, or is this another one of your attempts to create debate?

Are you in closer touch with the Army than Max Hasting? If so, in what capacity?

Try not to turn this into a petty personal war Caubeen, I am asking reasonable questions based upon Purve's 'good point' that soldiers should watch this so that they see what kind of people they should not turn into.

Personally speaking, I would put money on 99.99% of all soldiers already having the good sense to have made their minds up on that issue long ago, without any prompting by any journalist.

If I recall correctly, you were up in arms about the recent Courts Martials where soldiers were accused of having behaved in a manner which was unacceptable. So which way is it to be?

Here we go again . . .

1. I've said nothing here about soldiers' attitudes. But read again (assuming you bothered the first time) what Hastings writes :

First, soldiers under the stresses of mortal peril do not always maintain the standards of boy scouts. In my own researches on World War II, I have often encountered examples of prisoners being shot.
On other occasions, prisoners were shot in response to alleged atrocities committed by the other side.
. . . there have always been a few men who committed monstrous acts, because conflict itself is monstrous. In the old days, however, no one cared - not the high command, not the politicians, not the media.
You could kick an Adeni or Greek Cypriot or Kenyan Mau-Mau suspect half to death, even kill him, with little chance that questions would be asked.

2. I am in closer routine touch with the army than MH is, as he would acknowledge. I know him professionally, and have worked with him. But I'm not jeopardising PERSEC to indulge you with details.

3. Any "petty personal war" is yours alone. I merely posted to praise both Hastings and Purves. Do you have a problem with that?

4. I would put the % very high, but not as absurdly high as you do.

5. Give chapter and verse for any inconsistency.

Frankly, it's not clear what on earth you're drivelling about.