SASR "Execute" unarmed Afghan

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
yeah, always easy to win wars like that..... we drop fire on people, blow then into atoms but upfront and personal is a bit naughty ?
You can win wars without breaking the LAOC, you just have to be professional, well equipped, have good leadership and the right tactics and strategy.
 

MoleBath

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Why?

There needs to be an acceptance of what is socially and militarily acceptable. Sometimes, the two aren't the same.

I don't agree that it's right/fair to judge from the safety and comfort of an armchair and I'm strongly suspicious of a situation where everyone is running around with a camera on them all the time, even in this post-Shiner era.

However, there's also the question of military discipline. It seems that the SASR has had similar issues to some SEAL units, with a few rather dangerous (in all senses of the word) even threatening other members of their units to stay silent.
Without phones matters can be dealt with internally. A good officer always knows what his men are doing and should have a feel for what they are thinking. Also if a phone/camera is lost or captured the other side get a major int boost
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Without phones matters can be dealt with internally. A good officer always knows what his men are doing and should have a feel for what they are thinking. Also if a phone/camera is lost or captured the other side get a major int boost
In theory. I'd suggest that the first two sentences really haven't been happening. And no, I'm not being sanctimonious.
 

Nato123

On ROPS
On ROPs
You can win wars without breaking the LAOC, you just have to be professional, well equipped, have good leadership and the right tactics and strategy.

You be'd hard pushed to name one 'recent' enemy we've have who played fair ..hence getting our arrses kicked before we sussed out the game.

Warfare is shit, the sooner our Generals and Government accept that and let us fight it with a winning mentality not restricted by whiny bleeding hearts the better - cos it always ends with those who did no fighting shaking fecking hands anyway
 
Last edited:

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
You be'd hard pushed to name one 'recent' enemy we've have who played fair ..hence getting our arrses kicked before we sussed out the game.

Warfare is shit, the sooner our Generals and Government accept that and let us fight it with a winning mentality not restricted by whiny bleeding hearts the better - cos it all ends ends with those who did no fighting shaking fecking hands anyway
Just because the enemy don't "play fair" as you put it, does mean we have to stoop to their level.

All you are saying is that you don't have the savvy to win the fight.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Just because the enemy don't "play fair" as you put it, does mean we have to stoop to their level.

All you are saying is that you don't have the savvy to win the fight.
The problem is that in some parts of the world - including many that we've been to recently - you have to prove to the enemy that you're more savage than they are to be respected.

That was understood even up into the 1970s and 80s.

I agree that gratuitous cruelty has no place. I also feel that to hold ourselves to increasingly impossible standards hampers us militarily whilst earning us no kudos at all with those who oppose us.

This is a nuanced debate that could run to hours in the same room or thousands of typed words, so I hope that you can see in these few words the point I'm trying to make.
 

Nato123

On ROPS
On ROPs
Just because the enemy don't "play fair" as you put it, does mean we have to stoop to their level.

All you are saying is that you don't have the savvy to win the fight.
'Savvy'... Stoop to their Level ... How quaint .

No, what I'm actually saying is fight to win , not be restricted by stupid convention that see us lose Soldiers and battles to keep some Col Blimp happy at home .... yes, YOU.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
The problem is that in some parts of the world - including many that we've been to recently - you have to prove to the enemy that you're more savage than they are to be respected.

That was understood even up into the 1970s and 80s.

I agree that gratuitous cruelty has no place. I also feel that to hold ourselves to increasingly impossible standards hampers us militarily whilst earning us no kudos at all with those who oppose us.

This is a nuanced debate that could run to hours in the same room or thousands of typed words, so I hope that you can see in these few words the point I'm trying to make.
As in the Blackman case or ideed the one above, its not an impossible standard to not shoot a disarmed or wounded prisoner. Or any prisoner for that matter.

You can be savage in the fight, but once you have control don't give into your base instincts.
 
Just because the enemy don't "play fair" as you put it, does mean we have to stoop to their level.

All you are saying is that you don't have the savvy to win the fight.
How the hell can you "play fair" against savages ?

The mental torture that our forces must go through fighting people who are peacefull farmers one minute, then bombers the next...... I just can't comprehend the torture they go through......
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
'Savvy'... Stoop to their Level ... How quaint .

No, what I'm actually saying is fight to win , not be restricted by stupid convention that see us lose Soldiers and battles to keep some Col Blimp happy at home .... yes, YOU.
The fight had already been won, the victim unarmed and defenceless, and in the Blackman case, wounded, killing either of them was completely unnecessary.
 
The problem is that in some parts of the world - including many that we've been to recently - you have to prove to the enemy that you're more savage than they are to be respected.
Citation needed.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Citation needed.
Not really, it's a cultural thing. One that is referred to in several histories by some of Them who were in the Middle East in the 1970s, for instance.

But it's perhaps best illustrated by the breakdown in the Middle East since the demise of such as Saddam and Qaddafi. One reason George Bush Sr. left Saddam in place after GW1 was regional stability - and look at the loons who've risen since these 'nasty dictators' have gone.

Part of the reason that the fundamentalists didn't get any traction while they were still around was the ruthlessness with which they were dealt.
 

TamH70

MIA
Just because the enemy don't "play fair" as you put it, does mean we have to stoop to their level.

All you are saying is that you don't have the savvy to win the fight.
Oh.

Really.

Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, Kyoto, Kobe, Koln, and insert the name of any number of Japanese and German towns and cities and villages and hamlets here would beg to differ, as we visited upon them what they visited upon Warsaw, London, Glasgow, Belfast, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Nanking and Peking, and insert the name of any number of our and Allied towns and cities and villages and hamlets here.

Our side won that war. And I lose no sleep at all at the methods we used to do so because **** them. It's called "war" and they did it first but we did it better.

We haven't won any victories in the War On Terror. Our troops, after vast expenditure in both blood and treasure, had to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's a fair argument that we left those places worse than when we went in.

I wonder what the point of going to war was when we had no idea from our political masters of how to actually win the thing.
 
Not really, it's a cultural thing. One that is referred to in several histories by some of Them who were in the Middle East in the 1970s, for instance.

But it's perhaps best illustrated by the breakdown in the Middle East since the demise of such as Saddam and Qaddafi. One reason George Bush Sr. left Saddam in place after GW1 was regional stability - and look at the loons who've risen since these 'nasty dictators' have gone.

Part of the reason that the fundamentalists didn't get any traction while they were still around was the ruthlessness with which they were dealt.
So you made it up.

The savagery you refer to was not a "cultural" thing - it was a strategy conceived by small groups of individuals for political purposes.
 
Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, Kyoto, Kobe, Koln, and insert the name of any number of Japanese and German towns and cities and villages and hamlets here would beg to differ, as we visited upon them what they visited upon Warsaw, London, Glasgow, Belfast, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Nanking and Peking, and insert the name of any number of our and Allied towns and cities and villages and hamlets here.
Apparently at the Nuremburg trials the allies were going to indite the German leadership for unrestricted bombing such as Warsaw, Rotterdam and Coventry,etc. Then thought........Oh hang on!
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top