Taleban patients upset troops

Discussion in 'Professionally Qualified, RAMC and QARANC' started by Neuroleptic, Jan 22, 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:

  1. "This is to give them privacy as well, and they will require interpreters and guarding," he said. "That is the way it is. Only if the casualty rates were to grow to an extent that will not happen would we envisage making special facilities available for injured prisoners of war."

    Oh he knows then!
  2. If Terry is not bound by the Geneva Convention can one of the lads hobble over and turn his machine off? That must be hoofing round the campfire "Yeah they stiched me up, fed me then let me go and now I'm back here again! Cheers Suckers".
  3. hmmm... anyone have any imput to this story? :?


    "British soldiers say they are unhappy injured colleagues are being treated on the same ward as Taleban militants at an Afghanistan field hospital.

    Personnel at Camp Bastion in Helmand Province told the BBC they should not be forced to share wards"
  4. Actually once they're healed Taliban injured are normally sent off into the Afghan Judicial system. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not spend any time in Afghan Chokey (the words 'arrses' and 'windsocks' spring to mind).

    Personally I've never heard of this being an issue before and don't believe it should be one now.
  5. I have sympathy - whilst I fully understand and agree with the obligations of the Geneva convention, I do find it disappointing that our injured troops are waking up in sight of the very enemy they were fighting.

    Separate wards/tents perhaps?
  6. a solution may be do not 'injure' Terry, top him. No need for care then!
  7. I have been under the impression that the Geneva and Hague Convensions applied to recognised armed forces and unarmed civilians,since when did the Taliban become either? Is someone playing fast and loose or trying as usual to save money? IF as they say they they are guarded,then why not do so in seperate wards? Less stress for our troops.
  8. Fugly

    Fugly LE DirtyBAT

    Next we'll be hearing that injured lads uniforms have to be removed in case it offends people.

    Oh, wait.......
  9. My kid is not classed under regs as a dependant therefore I am meant to use a German doctor - neither of us can say much in German unless it involves beer and chips/mayo. Therefore, if I have to take him to see a doctor at a military medical centre I have to pay.

    Do these scrotes get billed? I would suggest not. Maybe if I rename my son Ahmed and say the gate guard gave him the flu I will get free treatment for him.
  10. They should receive the same standard of treatment as we do but I agree it should be in an isolated area which is not to the detriment of treatment to our guys.

    Before we get the outrage bus out remember honour and integrity are high on our list of must haves, we should always act in a humane manner yes in the field blow their freckin heads off but removed from the battle field we should remember what makes us British and them a rabble of rag heads don’t lower our standards to theirs..
  11. In '91 I and many other British soldiers had the company of a burnt smelling Iraqi soldier in our field hospital tent and I can't remember anyone making a fuss about it. It was a talking point if nothing else. There are those who oppose it because they are generally disgusted and those who oppose it because it is now fashionable to kick up a fuss. We must treat enemy soldiers too so what is the answer? More field accomodation, medical kit and nurses? Think of the uncountable casualties in both World Wars and ask yourself if this divided luxury was on anyones agenda?
  12. Enemy troops have aways been treated by our medics in the same aid station, it happened in WW1 & 2, Falklands etc etc. If they are neutralised they are no threat. I say again no wounded, no problem.
  13. So here we have 2 soldiers, who rather than going to their chain of command for an answer demand one from the BBC, making it headline news on PM this afternoon. Whats the issue - it seems they are upset that a tiny number of cases occur when T1 casualties wake up and find that we've also treated an Afghan T1 casualty and they may see them in the same ward.

    Sure its not perfect, but we've done it this way since time immemorial, and it is utterly impractical to create a 2nd casualty ward just for Afghans - we've barely got enough resources as it is, so why waste them on the off chance an Afghan comes in too?

    I appreciate (particularly as I've been doing civvy OPTAG this week and have been doing BCD) that its not great, but is it really that big a deal? Why not just tell lads on OPTAG that if the worst happens, they may (emphasis on may) come round and see Terry in front of them, but frankly they're going to be so fecked anyway, that they probably wouldn't notice. By the time they're really concious again, they'll either be in the ward with their mates, or on an aeromed flight home.

    Frankly I'm more pissed off with these guys 'mates' who have managed to create a huge story on the BBC where there really isn't a need for one, and have just created more work for all the Defence Medical people who had to spend their time today explaining this, rather than doing their real jobs.
  14. BBC journos looking for a story and drumming up questions to attain a story from otherwise contented and well looked after soldiers. That's MHO anyway.