Independent On Sunday

#1
There is nothing in these articles that contributors to this site will be unaware of but they make good reading and I hope will raise public awareness of the situation in Afghanistan. I am a bit long in the tooth now but I feel somewhat guilty I am not out there - ridiculous I know but ......

Betrayal

At the front
 
#2
The Independent deserves praise for devoting so many pages to this subject at the same time as the political parties are self-indulgently flaunting their "achievements". I hope that Parliament will hold the government to account over Afghanistan and Iraq. The slender government majority and the prevailing wind of public opinion should counter the disingenuous assertions that any such questions undermine morale - the contrary is true.
 
#3
This is exactly the sort of coverage needed! Alongside the 'Mail on Sundays' report, the liars in Whitehall have really come in for a malleting this weekend.

Keep it up the press and shame this shower of shoite into giving us the equipment and support we need.
 
#5
When are the electronic media going to get on board? The Press are doing their bit to let people like me know what is going on, but the TV stays remarkably quiet.
That said there was a scary video, taken by a Haliburton truck driver in Iraq, which was shown the other night. Pinned down in his truck he filmed as the Humvees withdrew, leaving him to his fate. he watched the driver of the truck in front being killed and expected them to come for him next. Luckily for him the insurgents faded away.
Haliburton's comment 'These drivers know what the situation is, that's why we pay them 3 to 4 times the going rate.'
 
#6
"Paratroopers and Royal Marines, supported by heavy artillery, have conducted operations described as 'rip and insertions' in the Sangin area."

I support the basic premise of supporting the boys whereever we are getting shot at - but you'd think they would find someone to write who knows at least something about the military.

The Mail is toilet paper, whether conducting a Relief In Place or an insertion; and it is only choosing to write such alarmist stuff for its own political agenda. Remember that. The day the reports don't have political currency is the day they stop running them, no matter how many of us are being killed.
 
#7
Hard_vark said:
"Paratroopers and Royal Marines, supported by heavy artillery, have conducted operations described as 'rip and insertions' in the Sangin area."

I support the basic premise of supporting the boys whereever we are getting shot at - but you'd think they would find someone to write who knows at least something about the military.

The Mail is toilet paper, whether conducting a Relief In Place or an insertion; and it is only choosing to write such alarmist stuff for its own political agenda. Remember that. The day the reports don't have political currency is the day they stop running them, no matter how many of us are being killed.
I find this part of your post difficult to understand, are you there and are therefore saying nothing like that is happening or are you suggesting that the guys are making it up? :?

Perhaps the Mail isn't your favourite paper :wink:
 
#8
Mark Nicol wrote the article in MoS, I think if you knew a bit more about him you would withdraw your comment. He has an interesting family background.
 
#9
Hard_vark said:
and it is only choosing to write such alarmist stuff for its own political agenda. Remember that. The day the reports don't have political currency is the day they stop running them, no matter how many of us are being killed.
We all complain when the press ignore the poor conditions of the troops.

I've said it elsewhere: does it really matter whatever agenda the press have if they are serving ours at the same time?

Like it or not, the media is the best option the forces have to get their message across.

And, yes, the truth can be alarming. Even more alarming is the truth being hidden!
 
#11
nigegilb said:
Mark Nicol wrote the article in MoS, I think if you knew a bit more about him you would withdraw your comment. He has an interesting family background.
Just because his dad was very special doesn't make him so. My Dad is bright and very rich - I'm in the army - go figure. If he is good, two questions: why is he working for the Mail? Why was the article militarily spastic (by which I cite his complete misunderstanding of what a RiP is, as just one example)?
 
#12
Letterwritingman said:
Hard_vark said:
"Paratroopers and Royal Marines, supported by heavy artillery, have conducted operations described as 'rip and insertions' in the Sangin area."

I support the basic premise of supporting the boys whereever we are getting shot at - but you'd think they would find someone to write who knows at least something about the military.

The Mail is toilet paper, whether conducting a Relief In Place or an insertion; and it is only choosing to write such alarmist stuff for its own political agenda. Remember that. The day the reports don't have political currency is the day they stop running them, no matter how many of us are being killed.
I find this part of your post difficult to understand, are you there and are therefore saying nothing like that is happening or are you suggesting that the guys are making it up? :?

Perhaps the Mail isn't your favourite paper :wink:
I can not deny that I detest the Mail.... a lot. I also do not subscribe to the belief that any publicity is good publicity, especially where the Mail is concerned. My mother-in-law reads it for f@cks sake! There is only any point in getting people on side - when they have half a brain cell, and lets face it MAILl readers are not known for their free thinking modern minds.

As for Alarmist: bad sh1t is going down, I know that and would never support attempts to disguise it. However the MAIL have seized on things that aren't quite right in their clumsy attempt to jump on the bandwagon. The major offensive operation is a RiP (doctrinally dull, but not offensive). My point is that there is enough true really bad sh1t to report without exaggerating and losing the faith of those who may be reading with some military nouse about them.
 
#13
Yes this is true. Certain arrse members were quoted. KGB Resident off the top off my head but loads more. Their usernames at the bottom. I was suprised not to see any of the Naafi comments.
 
#14
Hard_vark said:
The Mail is toilet paper, whether conducting a Relief In Place or an insertion; and it is only choosing to write such alarmist stuff for its own political agenda. Remember that. The day the reports don't have political currency is the day they stop running them, no matter how many of us are being killed.
Bang on mate. The Mail in particular is using us in an attempt to throw more muck at Bliar's govt. Hence it's 'Britain's Vietnam' scaremongering today. Shower of spineless girls! If it wasn't so patently obvious what they're up to it could be a Michael Mann film.

Guys, stop believing they care about us. Just stop.
 
#15
Hard_vark said:
nigegilb said:
Mark Nicol wrote the article in MoS, I think if you knew a bit more about him you would withdraw your comment. He has an interesting family background.
Just because his dad was very special doesn't make him so. My Dad is bright and very rich - I'm in the army - go figure. If he is good, two questions: why is he working for the Mail? Why was the article militarily spastic (by which I cite his complete misunderstanding of what a RiP is, as just one example)?
What a specialist correspondent on the Mail - especially defence - writes and what appears in the paper are frequently two different things. Between the time the journo files the story and the paper hits the streets, his copy will have been subject to revision not just by the news editor or, in this case, foreign editor, but also by a down-table sub-editor who will not have a clue what the f*** is going on and changes the wording to suit what he thinks it means.
No reference is made to the journo whose name the piece goes out under, and any sign of what the editors think is 'jargon', i.e. everyday terminology to anybody with a military background, is cut on the grounds that 'nobody will understand it', with the follow-on 'Why can't they just speak plain English?'
The first the poor hack sees of it, is when it appears the next day!!
 
#16
Trackpen said:
Hard_vark said:
nigegilb said:
Mark Nicol wrote the article in MoS, I think if you knew a bit more about him you would withdraw your comment. He has an interesting family background.
Just because his dad was very special doesn't make him so. My Dad is bright and very rich - I'm in the army - go figure. If he is good, two questions: why is he working for the Mail? Why was the article militarily spastic (by which I cite his complete misunderstanding of what a RiP is, as just one example)?
What a specialist correspondent on the Mail - especially defence - writes and what appears in the paper are frequently two different things. Between the time the journo files the story and the paper hits the streets, his copy will have been subject to revision not just by the news editor or, in this case, foreign editor, but also by a down-table sub-editor who will not have a clue what the f*** is going on and changes the wording to suit what he thinks it means.
No reference is made to the journo whose name the piece goes out under, and any sign of what the editors think is 'jargon', i.e. everyday terminology to anybody with a military background, is cut on the grounds that 'nobody will understand it', with the follow-on 'Why can't they just speak plain English?'
The first the poor hack sees of it, is when it appears the next day!!
Yes - some of an article is played about with in order to make it fit into the space allocated by the editor, but ask any of the reporters who post here what they would do if their pieces were changed to say something that they didn't agree with - I believe that McNaes has something to say on the subject.

In the Mail article the whole thing is written in just to do one thing - have a go at the government and it prostitutes British soldiers in order to do so. Do You realizes it accuses the Paras as laying down half aimed, haphazard counter fire, of relying on Afghan troops for sustenance and that they only have diseased water to drink "Water has run out, so soldiers drink from disease-carrying rivers. They eat bread scrounged from Afghan troops." Nicol should be pushed out of a platoon house without a rifle for this garbage
 
#17
Sven said:
In the Mail article the whole thing is written in just to do one thing - have a go at the government and it prostitutes British soldiers in order to do so. Do You realizes it accuses the Paras as laying down half aimed, haphazard counter fire, of relying on Afghan troops for sustenance and that they only have diseased water to drink "Water has run out, so soldiers drink from disease-carrying rivers. They eat bread scrounged from Afghan troops." Nicol should be pushed out of a platoon house without a rifle for this garbage
I don't give a damn what agenda the Mail has got going.

However, I know from two different sources who were there (have you been Sven?) that the drinking river-water, scrounging bread happened during the siege of Sangin. And, yes, it was a siege. They were starving and suffering from D&V... I'm amazed they were able to fire back at all, let alone in a desultory manner. They were surrounded and under fire, being shelled 3-5 times a day for weeks.

I also know that running out of rations and water has happened far too many times out there, not just in Sangin.

The Paras have done an incredible job under conditions that are hard for any of us not out there to comprehend. Clearly, Sven, you don't and you dishonour the Paras by refusing to listen to the truth that they're trying to get out.

I'm struggling to discount any of the articles I'm seeing coming out because I've already heard all of this from my son.

Haven't you wondered why so many are quitting?
 
#18
Letterwritingman said:
The Mail is toilet paper
Absolutely right. I absolutely despise that piece of filth. I sense a vote in the mess to get it replaced by the Indy.
 
#19
I was once told by a highly reputable journalist that the Mail's hatred of the forces and desire to do them down is because the editors daughter was once dumped by a Army Officer.
 
#20
ruby2shoes said:
Sven said:
In the Mail article the whole thing is written in just to do one thing - have a go at the government and it prostitutes British soldiers in order to do so. Do You realizes it accuses the Paras as laying down half aimed, haphazard counter fire, of relying on Afghan troops for sustenance and that they only have diseased water to drink "Water has run out, so soldiers drink from disease-carrying rivers. They eat bread scrounged from Afghan troops." Nicol should be pushed out of a platoon house without a rifle for this garbage
I don't give a damn what agenda the Mail has got going.

However, I know from two different sources who were there (have you been Sven?) that the drinking river-water, scrounging bread happened during the siege of Sangin. And, yes, it was a siege. They were starving and suffering from D&V... I'm amazed they were able to fire back at all, let alone in a desultory manner. They were surrounded and under fire, being shelled 3-5 times a day for weeks.

I also know that running out of rations and water has happened far too many times out there, not just in Sangin.

The Paras have done an incredible job under conditions that are hard for any of us not out there to comprehend. Clearly, Sven, you don't and you dishonour the Paras by refusing to listen to the truth that they're trying to get out.

I'm struggling to discount any of the articles I'm seeing coming out because I've already heard all of this from my son.

Haven't you wondered why so many are quitting?
Does he agree that in a firefight the best the soldiers can manage is "desultory" counterfire. Does he say that all he has to drink is filthy river water????, that all he has to drink is Afghan bread. (Water has run out, so soldiers drink from disease-carrying rivers. They eat bread scrounged from Afghan troops.) The Mail is telling (IMO) deliberate lies in order to create an anti government article - in itself not a bad thing but to sully the name of British soldiery in passing is not an aspect of literary "colateral damage" I personally would be willing to accept.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top