Hurrah for Hereford!
I see the SAS has forsaken the nightspots of Hereford and nipped over to Libya whilst we were asleep in our beds. They brought back 150 civilian oil workers in danger of being held as human hostages. Good, good. That is their function; that is the function of our government that trains and pays them. That is why we pay our taxes.
They arrived in civilian clothing on regular flights and collected their weapons from the diplomatic bags. You can hear the carping from here already.
You mean they didn’t play fair with those innocent Libyans? They hoodwinked them? I heard that one of them crept up behind a civilian guard brandishing an AK47 and silently slit his throat! Didn’t give him any warning whatsoever. Noooo! There’s one for the war crimes tribunal. The ‘Cameron has blood on his hands’ banners are probably being printed as we speak.
Elsewhere, the Foreign Office has its knickers in a twist because Cameron claimed , in an off the record briefing, which was passed onto someone not present at the briefing, and therefore, by their tortuous rules, not bound by the off the record bit – that Britain had paid ‘bribes’ to get flights into and out of Libya. No bribes, No Siree, we paid no bribes, squeaked the Foreign Office, we merely paid ‘enhanced landing fees owing to the current difficult conditions at Tripoli airport’.
When are we going to stop being so schizophrenic about our defence? You either have a defence force and accept that they won’t always issue a 28 day warning (with accompanying appeal) that if you don’t put down your gun and stop threatening British citizens, we may be forced to shout at you in a threatening manner – or don’t expect us to have a defence force. At the moment we have a defence force which is expected to protect us against people who apply none of the Geneva conventions, indeed who are proud of their unconventional warfare, and yet we send our young men to fight them hobbled by convoluted Human Rights legislation. Those same terrorists are only too happy to retreat behind the comforting blanket of intricate legal waltzes and claim ‘abuse of process’.
We have been treated to alarming headlines for months. ‘Britain complicit in torture’ alleged Rangzieb Ahmed, and the main stream media were only too happy to publicise his claims. He was convicted of a terrorist offence. The gist of his defence was that it mattered not a jot whether he was guilty or not, indeed he admitted he was a terrorist, but, he claimed, it was an abuse of process to try him, for he had been held in a Pakistani prison, and wasn’t it well known that the USA supported Pakistan?, and further, wasn’t it well known that the USA and Britain were closely linked? Therefore – cue more lurid headlines, Britain was complicit in his torture!
Torture which he claimed amounted to one fingernail being removed from his left hand. (Not that this ever stopped newspapers referring to his fingernails being removed). Lo! When he was interviewed by the British some time later, had he not had a bandage on his left hand? But he hadn’t actually mentioned his fingernail during that interview! Why, surely his interviewer realised that the bandage was proof that his fingernail had been pulled by Pakistan on American instructions and thus the British should have refused to interview him? How could they now use that interview as part of the case convicting him of being a terrorist?
Quite easily it seems, for unfortunately for Rangzieb, he had many years beforehand told his brother-in-law that his fingernail had been removed by his previous Indian captors when he was part of a Kashmiri terrorist organisation fighting India. His brother-in-law gave evidence. The Supreme Court ruled:
“Rangzieb was not tortured by or on behalf of the British, nor with their encouragement and he was not tortured at any time before the single occasion when he said he was seen by British officers. Indeed, whether or not he was tortured at all is not properly resolved”.
Do you see any headlines saying ‘Britain not complicit in Torture? No, I thought not.
February 28, 2011 at 09:18
-
Many years ago, and before Al Qaeda was invented, I was involved – very
much on the periphery – in an anti-terrorist exercise.
At an early briefing a group of about ten guys appeared, all dressed in
random civvies. They kept themselves to themselves; no noise, no show-boating,
nothing in any way ostentatious. And none of them looked like Dolph
Lundgren.
A whisper soon went round; they were the boys from Hereford.
Whether it was their reputation or not, I don’t know, but they oozed
confidence and competence, but most of all menace. They looked downright
evil.
If they’re coming to get you, be very afraid I think.
- February 27, 2011 at 11:36
-
“Torture which he claimed amounted to one fingernail being removed from his
left hand. ”
And if he’d nicked summat, his religion would have decreed more than a
fingernail being removed.
- February 27, 2011 at 11:00
-
Wasn’t it the RAF that actually shipped the rescued out? Last time I
looked, the SAS and SBS aren’t equipped with their own fleets of Hercules… As
I understand it the ground forces were there to secure the area for the
aircraft to land in relative safety.
Don’t forget the boys and girls in blue.
Be that as it may, better late than never.
- February 27, 2011 at 12:41
-
Modern operations are combined ; that’s been so, when ever
necessary, since Mountbatten was 1SL and CDS.
The divers service chiefs still fight their own corners when it comes to
procurement but, paradoxically perhaps, that is a consequence of combined
ops. : a need for more rather than less materiel for it’s bad
enough failing our own chaps ; downright dishonourable failing
those that have summoned us in aid.
ΠΞ
- February
27, 2011 at 11:00
-
-
February 27, 2011 at 11:09
-
There’s a lot of truth in that!
-
February 27, 2011 at 10:42
-
Special Boats (aka Shakyboats or “the Pond Dwellers” ) are the Royal
Marine’s in house Special Forces, although they work very much hand in hand
with “Supply and Stores.” The have been given an increasing role over the past
few years and their role is normally attributed to the SAS
Like this
guys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnhH6xflzHM
giving it large
in the Qali – Al – Jangi rebellion. It was do or die stuff , as the book
“Bloody Heroes” makes plain
- February
27, 2011 at 10:27
-
According to the news this morning, it was Special Boat. Those guys are
really impressive and we’re damn lucky to have them.
I agree wholeheartedly with your comments on this, Anna.
-
February 27, 2011 at 11:34
-
SBS, in the desert, I bet that took them by surprise.
Damn sneaky Brits!
- February 27, 2011 at 10:22
-
When it comes to armed conflict, whether formal or spontaneous, I feel that
anyone holding what appears to be a serious weapon has indicated his consent
to violence. Their reasons don’t come into it. Injuring or killing them may
well be actionable, but it’s not as serious as if they were unarmed. So a
guard holding an AK47 is fair game, even if he was just standing there giving
orders and applying local rules.
Incidentally, this works both ways. Armed response police, a householder
with a baseball bat confronting a burglar, or our troops attempting to keep
the peace in a foreign country; are a more legitimate target than a traffic
warden, lawyer, diversity coordinator or that asshole who lives across the
road.
Just saying, that’s all. Don’t pick up a weapon if you’re not up for
trouble. If you get chance to drop it before you’re killed, then we should go
back to civilised rules. So torture of prisoners is out, but being very mean
to them in a good cause is probably okay.
- February
27, 2011 at 11:02
-
“…a guard holding an AK47 is fair game, even if he was just standing
there giving orders and applying local rules.”
Even better. No Marquis of Queensberry rules in a gunfight. Shoot ‘em
when they can’t shoot back should be the watchword!
-
February 27, 2011 at 10:05
-
Speed Aggression Surprise
All in a day’s work and back in time for tea and toast, I would have
thought.
- February
27, 2011 at 11:00
-
Toast? Not quiche?
I guess it’s true then..
- February 27, 2011 at 09:33
-
I have to say well done to the poster the other day who reminded us that
unpublicised things would be going on behind the scenes. Saturday afternoon
puritans shouldn’t take this as proof of softness…
-
February 27, 2011 at 09:32
-
I was musing on this very topic this morning!
Indeed, I have been very
worried about British armed forces taking action in Libya. I have seen no
evidence whatsoever that any health and safety risk assessment has been
carried out – for the Libyans as well as for our lads – for a start. I feel it
is not appropriate to deploy military personnel unless a process of mediation
at ACAS has been tried. If they are to be deployed then I feel they should
wear safety goggles and High Visibility jackets and should all comply with EU
Working Time Directives in case all involved get tired. And I am very worried
that civilians have been picked up in what might be called a “male and
militarist” environment, such as a Hercules Transport plane or Frigate. This
exposes civilians to negative stereotypes. Which leads to me another point.
How many of our SAS boys are women? Too few to be sure. A case for quotas,
surely!
- February 27, 2011 at
09:46
-
Indeed Gildas, and did those Hercules have suitable facilities for any
women they might be asked to collect. Was proper attention paid to the
possibility of DVT occurring during the flight? Did the SAS find time to
collect those precious and irreplaceable photographic memories of loved ones
or partners – I see a class action looming I fear.
- February 27, 2011 at 10:03
-
This is too shocking, Sister A. I feel I too may have to issue a civil
action for stress!
-
February 27, 2011 at 10:09
-
And no disabled loos…
- February 27, 2011 at
10:17
{ 19 comments }