• Thank you all very much for sharing your time with us in 2025. We hope you all have a safe and happy 2026!

How should the UK government deal with IS?

Liverpoolphil said:
I'm going to take a guess you are talking about Bloody Sunday and the actions of the Para's ?

I'm also going to suggest that it's a very emotive subject that also effected my family over there as well and this is prob not the time and place to discuss it
Click to expand...

No different to any other subject on here. Just an example of why some would not have full trust in the British armed forces.

I do not wish to know every detailed movement of the army, but as mentioned above, you gave the impression they do things in our interest that the general public might not approve of.
 
garyinderry said:
No different to any other subject on here. Just an example of why some would not have full trust in the British armed forces.

I do not wish to know every detailed movement of the army, but as mentioned above, you gave the impression they do things in our interest that the general public might not approve of.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I gave no such impression

Unless you can point it out to me
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FairwayDodger said:
I can appreciate the need for secrecy in the short term for some operations and we maybe don't need precise operational details of anything. However, the implication that some of what goes on would cause unrest suggests there is stuff that the public would not approve of or condone. Fear of public disapproval alone is not sufficient reason for secrecy.
Click to expand...

I'm with the Military guys on this one.

As long as operations conform to Geneva Conventions, I'm satisfied. There should be very strong action, and public, taken when these conventions are broken however. Torture, for example, is unacceptable anywhere. Guantanemo Bay facility should not exist imo. It was an Obama pledge to get rid of it which, if he fails to do so, will be his biggest failure imo. There is no way any country can point at another and say 'that is wrong and unacceptable' if they are allowing or actively facilitating equivalent breaches!

The gory nature of war is not necessary to broadcast imo. Dad never talked about the details of his exploits in WW2, save the funny bits, and I think that's pretty common. I've been past Headley Court enough times to realise what the consequences of war can be!
 
FairwayDodger said:
Not for the first time, you have missed the point.
Click to expand...


Ok I'll sum it up

You believe by going by Adey's comment that the military carry out ops that will upset the British Public

Now I believe that what will upset the british public is people get hurt in those operations - the public know every single person who has been either hurt or killed in an operation but they don't know the gory details and they dont need to know

So I take Adeys comment exactly how I see it - there are details of things that happen or have happened in both Iraq and Afghan that will upset the public - those details aren't the actions of the British military over there it's the seeing Young ladies raped and mutliated to an inch of their lives ,children stolen from families and taught to fight at the age of 7 plus many other horror stories that happen

Those will upset the British Public so not every single detail is released - it serves no purpose at all.

If you think going by one statement that there is something else going on then I'm sorry but there isn't - it's people doing there job within the laws written down in the Geneva Convention and cleared by Security councils
 
Again, not what I'm driving at. I'm not hinting at anything untoward.

The public don't just have a right to know about what is done in our name, we have an obligation to know. Not just out of concern for the populations of the countries our forces go to but out of respect for our military personnel who risk life and limb on our behalf.
 
There seems to be some confusion here. You seem to talk about what the military sees and the need to protect us from those gory details and we are concerned about what the military gets up to in our name when you say these details have to be kept from us.
 
FairwayDodger said:
Again, not what I'm driving at. I'm not hinting at anything untoward.

The public don't just have a right to know about what is done in our name, we have an obligation to know. Not just out of concern for the populations of the countries our forces go to but out of respect for our military personnel who risk life and limb on our behalf.
Click to expand...

I would agree with the outline premise, but I don't think we need operational detail. Military operations quite often include local intelligence. I'm happy with that particular info to remain secret. Not just to protect the asset on the ground for the current operation, but also to provide protection for future similar operations..
I do have concerns regarding some of the actions on the ground, but I'm not there and don't know enough about the situation to fully grasp the detail in isolation..

So you could say I'm middle ground in this particular discussion...
 
What details exactly would you like ?

Would you like to know the details every single time a patrol goes out from a FOB ?

Do you want to know targets ? Names ? Places ?

Would you like a daily report on national telly of what is happening so that you know what they are doing ?

Who else ? A daily report on the police ? Secret Service ?

You want it out of respect for the people of the military yet you want to know what they are up too ?!

Our RAF right now are bombing strategic targets in areas covered by IS - what more details would you like

In Afghan they are continuing to train the Afghan army so that thru can govern their own country

There are exercises going on all around the world - would you like details of them also ignoring any security risks attached ?

What exactly would you like to know ?

If you believe there is nothing untoward going on then why the demand to ensure the public knows what they are doing ?
 
Liverpoolphil said:
What exactly would you like to know ?
Click to expand...

Again, you're being deliberately obtuse. I've quite clearly stated my understanding of the need for secrecy of some operational details.

The public need to know as much information as possible regardless of whether it is upsetting or not. What's so hard to understand about that?

This whole debate started because I questioned the military "covering up" facts (again, for the avoidance of doubt, not necessarily anything untoward) for no reason other than they would "unsettle" the public.
 
FairwayDodger said:
Again, you're being deliberately obtuse. I've quite clearly stated my understanding of the need for secrecy of some operational details.

The public need to know as much information as possible regardless of whether it is upsetting or not. What's so hard to understand about that?

This whole debate started because I questioned the military "covering up" facts (again, for the avoidance of doubt, not necessarily anything untoward) for no reason other than they would "unsettle" the public.
Click to expand...

But you questioned the military "covering" up based on one quote from Adey - that's it , nothing else at all - you have gained all your suspicions about "covering up" from one quote.

I'll say it agsin - the public do know as much as they possibly are able to know before security is involved

The upsetting things that people don't get told are the gory details - that's it - nothing bring covered up just the gory details of war not being handed out publically
 
Liverpoolphil said:
...
cleared by Security councils
Click to expand...

The latest Resolution allowing ISAF action in Afghanistan only did so for a further year - until 2004!

Earlier ones were restricted to Kabul province.

I'd be interested to know what Resolution they are using as authority! I do know that the Taliban is a named terrorist organisation/regime though, as part of another, early, resolution, along with Al Qaeda, so there may be another one covering it, or it may just be a particularly long 'winding down/handover' exercise.

Btw. This is no criticism of the 'men on the ground (and in the air)' who plan and carry out the operations. If they have been told that 'it has been sanctioned' that's all they need to know! The flavour of the politician that made the decision is irrelevant to their role!
 
Last edited:
FairwayDodger said:
Ach I give up, you just don't seem capable of comprehending the point I'm trying to make. :(
Click to expand...

When then tell me plain and simple if I have missed your point ?

It appears you believe there is covering up going on because of what Adey said ? Am I wrong or right ?

You want the public to know what the military is up too as long as it doesn't breach security - the public do know as much as they are able to know

So have I missed something ?
 
FairwayDodger said:
I have given up but will respond (once again!!!!) just to this particular point. You are wrong.
Click to expand...

So where has the covering up that you mention in post 153 come from ? Especially when you think there is nothing untoward going on ?

Is it derived from a lack of trust of the military based on something else before this thread started because it appears on here to a reaction to what Adey has said ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mudball
Polishing super scruffed boots
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Mudball
Mudball
S
Newbie feeling completely lost
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
garyinderry
garyinderry
cookelad
Ball played by someone from another group
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
6K
Backache
B
H
Golf trolley diagnosis experts??
Replies
4
Views
907
Haydenm96
H
H
Deal breakers for joining courses
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
24K
KenL
KenL
Top