I have something to say...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
I respect the rules of the site and will not name names/s. As an ex serving soldier in the British Army, I would like other members to express their views on the following. When I joined up I accepted that no matter where I was sent I would serve to the best of my ability and never, never desert my mates should things get a bit hot. I couldn't see the point or logic in joining if all I wanted to do was sit in Blighty as an "armchair soldier". And yet there has been a lot of coverage in the last year about a privileged person being sent back home because bullets, bombs and shells might actually harm him with the excuse of "attracting fire on to his men"? This Establishment response seems to be saying that one persons life is worth more than any other British soldier serving in a hostile environment, no matter what rank they may be. I am sure that the mothers, wives, children and etcetera. of those maimed or killed in the Middle East for example would think very differently. And yet they were not given the choice of bringing their loved one back home when matters became dangerous and their lives put at risk? Indeed when I signed along the dotted line, I don't recall being given the option to pack my bags if bullets,grenades and rockets were being sent in my direction. And yet my parents always considered my life as equal to all my mates and just as worthy, and their parents thought the same I am sure! Why not the same rule for all serving personnel - or does it mean that the rest of us are considered by the Establishment to be just common cannon fodder and not worth being given the same privileged treatment?Incidentally when I was kitted out in my 'battle gear', not even my mother would have recognised me, so picking out an individual by the enemy would be virtually impossible.
 
#2
Moved this bizarre post from JU forum. woopert and forastero, apologies didn't know where else to put it (honest hehe), kindly smite it with your orbital laser as required.
 
#3
Strange first post, so F**k off you journo scum
 

Ravers

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#4
there has been a lot of coverage in the last year about a privileged person being sent back home because bullets, bombs and shells might actually harm him with the excuse of "attracting fire on to his men"?
Hey what can I say, I was getting bored and my balls were well overdue an emptying into some posh tart from Surrey. If you had the contacts that I do, you would have also pulled some strings given the same situation.
 
#5
I respect the rules of the site and will not name names/s. As an ex serving soldier in the British Army, I would like other members to express their views on the following. When I joined up I accepted that no matter where I was sent I would serve to the best of my ability and never, never desert my mates should things get a bit hot. I couldn't see the point or logic in joining if all I wanted to do was sit in Blighty as an "armchair soldier". And yet there has been a lot of coverage in the last year about a privileged person being sent back home because bullets, bombs and shells might actually harm him with the excuse of "attracting fire on to his men"? This Establishment response seems to be saying that one persons life is worth more than any other British soldier serving in a hostile environment, no matter what rank they may be. I am sure that the mothers, wives, children and etcetera. of those maimed or killed in the Middle East for example would think very differently. And yet they were not given the choice of bringing their loved one back home when matters became dangerous and their lives put at risk? Indeed when I signed along the dotted line, I don't recall being given the option to pack my bags if bullets,grenades and rockets were being sent in my direction. And yet my parents always considered my life as equal to all my mates and just as worthy, and their parents thought the same I am sure! Why not the same rule for all serving personnel - or does it mean that the rest of us are considered by the Establishment to be just common cannon fodder and not worth being given the same privileged treatment?Incidentally when I was kitted out in my 'battle gear', not even my mother would have recognised me, so picking out an individual by the enemy would be virtually impossible.
I've never met anyone who has got things so back to front in all my life. Harry (for that's who I assume you're referring to) couldn't be more keen to play his part. The Government however has decided that your life is too precious to have him in theatre with you and attracting the sort of attention Terry would focus on you if he knew who was in your location.
It's not a case of picking out the individual, in fact that compounds the problem, everyone would be at a higher risk because he cannot easily be identified. In NI when serving with the Engineers the officers would wear ORs cap badges so they didn't draw fire. If H was easily identifiable then the risk would be less great to those around him.
You want to stop worrying about whether Mummy loves you as much as his Daddy loves him and consider some of the traits that make a soldier, try loyalty for one.
From where I stand you're a thick, jack, walking inferiority complex who should never be wearing a uniform, either that or your name's Gordon Brown, either way you're a tosser so do one.

Hope I haven't stolen anyone's thunder.
 
#6
Strange first post, so F**k off you journo scum
And very, very out of date too? If he's wanting to write a story about the same "privileged person" I think he is. You'll note that said person immediately volunteered for the one role where he reckoned he would be allowed to go back.

I hope the new government might allow a more adult attitude in the MOD to both VVIPs and their desire to serve.
 
#7
Ex "serving" soldier, my arse! Are there any non-serving soldiers? Who says "Blighty" these days, how long has Afghanistan been in the Middle East, and what the f*ck is "battle gear"? Go away, knobber!
 

Travelgall

MIA
Kit Reviewer
#8
Either this is a staggeringly poor piss take, or the individual in question has lost his way from the Socialist Workers Party web site. Either way, as Markintime so eloquently ( that's "Posh speak" to you Comrade) said "you're a tosser so do one".
 

Travelgall

MIA
Kit Reviewer
#11
Ex "serving" soldier, my arse! Are there any non-serving soldiers? Who says "Blighty" these days, how long has Afghanistan been in the Middle East, and what the f*ck is "battle gear"? Go away, knobber!
Spot on Col. "Battle Gear". Next time try "Webbing" or "CEFO".
 
#12
'battle gear'

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! If you can't even bluff\use the correct terms then don't even bother trying waster!
 
#16
I am slightly depressed that an ex-soldier can hold such a short sighted, self-obsessed, un-informed opinion. There is nothing more that can be added to Markintimes post. Hopefully you now realise that you are a halfwit... but I doubt it.
 
#19
Even though he's not one of 'Them'.
Fuckingkongo is..bell end. The guy he's ranting about has more balls in his little finger that the worm who started the thread..Pointless bit of toejam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top