Rules of Engagement surely?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by woqab, Jul 13, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The printed and broadcast media, punters, journalists and politicians are focussing on Chinooks and kit as the stumbling block. They couldn't be more wrong.

    On H9 time and again the really big issue was not so much shortage of Chinooks (although that is a critical issue) but RoE.

    Ask any soldier and he/she will say its our UK Rules of Engagement that are so restrictive it's like fighting with one arm tied behind our backs.

    Time and again (bearing in mind these open, unclas means) we were forced to watch as the TB moved away or routed through or assembled - and we weren't allowed to engage untul certain highly prescriptive conditions were met.

    We were nearly in the dwang upto our nostrils (and this was reported in the Press) merely because we accidentally and tragically shot dead a TB bomb technician in the act. Our crime? He was turning away still holding the 'gubbins' when we fired our warning shots therefore we had breached RoE.

    Time and again the TB escape because as they are not engaging in a hostile act - we can't take them out, like 27 MEU did in Garmsir last September.

    Our Rules of Engagement, it seems to me, are laid down by UK MoD and Home Office lawyers who are so scared of the International Court of Human Rights getting involved, that they make our RoE deliberately so restricitve IOT rule out any possible 'litigation' from TB families.

    So surely its the RoE that is stopping us defeating the enemy - or have I got it all wrong? What do others feel about the RoE issue?
  2. Well i'm a soldier and I say you're talking shite. There are different ROE for different ops and all ROE allow you to defend yourself and your muckers.

    Now do one journo.
  4. 1.) H9 is so yesterday and times have moved on.

    2.) You are spouting sh1te and I suggest you fcuk off.

    3.) This is hardly the place for discussing ROE, is it you dull cnut?
  5. It is when you're a journo fishing for a story.
    How fcuking dumb do they think we are?
  6. Or we've started to deploy people with the mentality and understanding of a 6 year old.
  7. To 'tearsbeforebedtime' and 'ottar' - RoE as an area of concern, NOT what they are or details - but RoE as a label to an issue. You clearly missed the point in your speed to be abusive and foul-mouthed. As for H9 being so 'yesterday', it is not that way for us who were there or for those families who lost loved ones.

    I thought this might have been a forum to elicit intelligent views - thank you 'tearsbeforebedtime' and 'ottar' for proving the opposite.
  8. Yes, so we can read in the papers in a few days how 'serving soldiers', 'military sources' or 'our boys' are complaining about restrictive RoE.

    You're a delicate flower for a 'soldier', aren't you?

    I didn't realise employees of Rupert Murdoch were going toe to toe with the Taliban.

    No, you thought it a good place to get cheap copy because you're too lazy to get off your fat arse and do some investigative journalism and too cowardly to embed.
  9. if you want a fully copy of uk forces PM me I might be able to help :twisted:
  10. For those of us who were out H8/9 and are now out again on H10/11 I would suggest you are out of date. Hence spouting sh1te.

    Questions so far? No, thought not.

    Should we be discusing RoE as a 'label' (whatever the fcuk that is when it is at home)? No.

    If you had the intelligence, you would realise that this is not the correct forum to be discussing this.

    Get a grip and ask a grown up how things have changed (i.e someone who is 'in').

    Oh, and thanks for bringing those who lost their lives here to it you stinking troll. Drop dead and do us all a favour.

    If you wanted a reaction you got one.
  11. Threat > Bang > Ex Threat

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.