Should all Friendly Forces deaths be made public?

Discussion in 'Afghanistan' started by Outstanding, Aug 15, 2011.

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:

  1. In a week that has seen the deaths of nearly 50 service personnel in ISAF, UK is reporting only one.

    Should the public be told of all deaths from all nationalities, in order to better inform their views of the sate of the campaign, the ferocity of the fighting and our relative success in Afghanistan?
  2. No, it would push the interesting x-factor news to the back
  3. Casualty Report | ISAF - International Security Assistance Force

    The "Exam Question" is, would UK Public care? We show a general parochialism as it is, are the BBC/ITN/C4 News going to "waste" 1 or 2 minutes of precious airtime to report a French or German death when there are much more important things to discuss (viz. Football all the way to the Vauxhall Conference....)
  4. Set up an e-petition.

    Why do you persist in asking leading questions on here? Are you a secret journo?
    • Like Like x 2
  5. if people cared it would get more coverage, at the moment you'll get something like "a NATO soldier has....." on the scrolling bar but as soon as they know they're not British its forgotten.
  6. Nope, you know it!
  7. Probably not, in the grand scheme of things, but it would bring the level of combat to the door of the great masses. Too many of "der publik" think that we are having minor skirmishes and only suffering the occasional, "unfortunate - almost accidental/avaiodable" death out there. Those who know better realise that the truth maight be unpalatable but it is still true!
  8. What worries me slightly, is that you keep posting questions that you already know the answers to.

    F'instance - Redundancy and LOA - you bloody well know what the outcome is, but you still look for little comments from people on here.

  9. I think that it's unncessary. Already we have three deaths per fatality - an announcement that a soldier has been killed, then his name being released a few days later, and a week on from that there's a video of his hearse puttering through Wooton Basset (until recently). This makes matters protracted enough as it is and exaggerates the casualty rates at a time when the public is unreliable and don't need provoking; expanding it to include all members of ISAF also smacks a little of distasteful grief tourism.
  10. people might also question whether it'll be sorted in 3 years
  11. Don't worry, leave that to others, Enjoy the sunshine.
  12. Having no life and being at a loose end one afternoon, I decided to check out how many coalition troops had died during the year I was in Iraq. I was faintly suprised to find that the total was 815 - the vast majority of them Yanks, but 29 of them British.

    I don't see much point in broadcasting every non-British death but maybe there's something to be said for putting the ISAF grand total out there now and again.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. But that is the reality, not grief tourism at all. Are the public not ready to understand what is being done in their name?
  14. I doubt that any other country reports the deaths of other nations with more than a passing reference, im sure they feel that, whilst sad, at least it wasnt "one of ours". To report the true scale of the combat would also put additional worries on the families of troops out there. Every time the news came on there would be reports of another 2,3 or 4 deaths.
  15. That makes no sense :)

    How about the enemy forces? or is that just being tacky?