Armed Forces Day is rightly subdued
I may be counting my chickens, but I suppose at this time of year we ought to be grateful that the massed ranks of the righteous on both sides aren’t making too much of a demonstration out of Armed Forces Day. The Newsletter seems to be making its point on line. Whoops, I’ve just caught up with the Portadown demonstration of just wrath. We’re a long way off from the ideal, that national flags should be treated as just that, rather than party banners, for as long as national gestures of one sort or another spill over into sectarian flashpoints like Drumcree. But you don’t have to be an Irish republican to dismiss the whole event, like military commentator Max Hastings, in the Mail.
It seems to soldiers a mockery that when they are struggling to fight an unpopular and chronically under-resourced war, the British Government’s Big Gesture is to give them a day out with the kiddies in full-dress uniform on the streets of Chatham.You can bet your socks that some idiot minister will say in a speech today that ‘Britain’s Armed Forces are the finest in the world’.
“It is simply the State making a belated gesture of gratitude to men and women serving in the UK Armed forces (Catholic, Protestant and whatever, unionist and probably nationalist)from whatever part of the UK they come from.”
These people are war criminals. Their only defence of “I was only doing my duty by invading Iraq, looting Iraqi houses, blowing up mosques, breaking up Iraqis’ bones with my Brit buddies” is not a cause of celebration.
There should be a march to celebrate the victims of the “Armed Forces”: Not only the civilians they kill and maim but their own families too. The “Armed Forces” are notorious wife beaters, child molesters and drunkards. Ever been near a barracks on “the mainland” with these vermin around?
Reader,
“Are you suggesting that there are British Army Gurkhas double jobbing with the Sultan of Brunei? If not, then what is your point?”
Not at all. There are Gurkha mercenaries hiring themselves out to him. But try googling the sultan and you’ll see what kind of man the Gurkha’s are guarding for cash. His people are on their uppers.
“That’s a bit sweeping.”
Is it? Try googling what they do with their kukris.
“How much slaughtering are they doing right now, and who for? And are you counting the UN missions in that?”
You can google all that as well.
Excellent stuff then, with the usual bunch of bible bashers ‘out’ in force praying for the ‘lost souls’ as they view the parade.
Gragoir, just catching up with the thread. There were a record 8,000 people on last year’s Belfast Pride parade and many thousands more enjoyed the parade from the sidelines. They included nationalists, unionists and people who are neither.
The total number of bible bashers was less than a hundred. I know it’s quintessential to your being to look down your nose at us (especially those who are Prods) but it doesn’t actually fit the reality of Belfast. I’m well aware of its problems; its good side is much better than sneering Dub fellow travellers would allow.
However Afghanistan is a just war and a different conflict – are nationalists going to make the same mistake of 1939 to 1945
John invokes Godwin’s Law! And in such spectacularly crass fashion, too… Please do explain the comparison between the NATO campaign in Afghanistan since 2001 and World War Two, John. Because it’s gone way over my head. This is perhaps the stupidest comment I have read in six years of hanging out on Slugger.
Even if you want to make a moral comparison between Osama bin Laden and Hitler (in which case I suggest you read Raul Hilberg’s The Destruction of the European Jews before you spend the rest of your life making such a tit of yourself) the fact is there are many tin pot dictators with a callous disregard for human life, motivated by some form of racial, religious or political hatred. However, they aren’t all mini-Hitlers, because the states they control mercifully tend to lack the resources of Nazi Germany. I mean, the Taliban were supposed to be a threat to world peace when they controlled, only partially, a country with a GDP roughly the same size as County Tyrone’s and with absolutely no industrial base to speak of? Wise up.
Afghanistan is a fiasco. A total fuck up from start to finish. It’s certainly possible for a foreign power to pacify Afghanistan; but only by devoting resources (in terms of dead young people as well as money) grossly greater than those which NATO countries are willing to spend. The Bundeswehr, for example, don’t patrol at night and don’t patrol on foot. And I’m not making that one up. No-one really takes Afghanistan seriously any more; it was Bush and Blair’s baby and they are thankfully gone. But more people will die in the fag end of a campaign that is going nowhere until troops are finally pulled out, as they inevitably will be.
You want to show your loyalty to the troops? Get them out of pointless foreign wars.
Reader: “A Nationalist can perfectly well be in the army of another country with which his own country is at peace. Only the dissident republicans still think there is a war on.”
Frank Ryan, f’r'instance.
Manfarang: “Bin Laden was a CIA protege.”
Actually, Bin Laden was the product of the Saudi’s parallel aid programs to Afghanistan during the same period, funded by monies from around the Arab word, but, hey, nice try. If this were a game-show, you’d likely get a nice door prize just for playing.
dave: “Once the Union Jack is behind anything, the unionists will blindly support it, be it mass murder or any other nefarious activity, just wrap it up in the union jack and they’ll follow.”
Of course, you should equally acknowledge the parallel equation — once the Union Jack is behind something, nationalists will reflexively disparage and mock it, be it aid to starving kittens or any other laudable activity — just wrap it up in the Union Jack and they’ll howl.
Sammy: “I mean, the Taliban were supposed to be a threat to world peace when they controlled, only partially, a country with a GDP roughly the same size as County Tyrone’s and with absolutely no industrial base to speak of? Wise up.”
Disingenuous, at best. A threat to world peace takes merely a small cadre of fanatics willing to die for their cause, a little money for the necessary materials for a good “false flag” operation and the means to move them into position. The Taliban, with the aid of Al-Qaeda, or, more accurately, Al-Qaeda, hosted by the Taliban, had all of the above.
If they had any real imagination, being located near the Chinese / Pakistani / Indian geo-political nexus, such a threat would be fairly easy.
Big Maggie: There are Gurkha mercenaries hiring themselves out to him.
And to you, all Gurkhas are the same? Just like all Travellers, all Roma and all Unionists, I suppose?
Oh, and by the way, since you say that Gurkhas are ‘slaughtering’ people right now, it’s up to *you* to provide the evidence.
And are the (generic) Gurkhas any worse than the (generic) Irish:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6123026.ece
If a Land of the Toddlers were discovered and Gordon Brown decided that carpet bombing them with live burning kittens and puppies was the only way to protect Britain’s interests, I have no doubt that there would be those who would shrug their shoulders and say that these two year old terrorists should have just given up their gumdrop trees so Britain wouldn’t have been forced to attack them.
Sammy
Were you drunk or upset at 3.20 am this morning when you directed that angry rant at me ?
If you read what I said I was making the point that no matter what conflict the British Army are engaged in there are some nationalists who will always feel the need to oppose the British Army regardless of the opponent. I said this after a couple of nationalist commentators had said unionists would support any conflict by the British Army regardless of the cause – both fair points that deserved to be discussed.
I pointed out the ambivalence by De Velara in World War II and the only recent recognition of the British Legion by nationalism/ROI Govt and the role of non unionist Irish in the First World War.
I wasnt comparing Hitler to Bin Laden or World War 2 to Afghanistan – it was you who did that.
Therefore you and no one else are taking offence at conclusion drawn by no one other than yourself.
As for your down grading Afghanistan – are you saying that post Sept 11 it was wrong to enter there in October 2001 and route the Taleban and scatter Al Qaida ?
Are you suggesting some other strategy – eg we should have left things as they are ?
Please tell what you would have done in October 2001 ?
Because if it is what I said we should have – and indeed did do – then why do you have a problem giving tribute to the troops who laid their lives on the line ?
As for
“I mean, the Taliban were supposed to be a threat to world peace when they controlled, only partially, a country with a GDP roughly the same size as County Tyrone’s and with absolutely no industrial base to speak of? Wise up.”
In all honesty I have to say that is the stupidist and crassest thing I have read on Slugger. Perhaps you think Bin laden wasnt being protected in Afghanistan and he wasnt using it as a traing ground for Al Qaida and using it as a base for launching attacks ?
Infact why dont you go and tell it to the families of the several thousand victims of 9-11.
I suppose you would also say there would be no problem with the Taleban getting their hands on Pakistan’s nucleur weapons ?
Try and think clearly if it is possible for you.
Reader,
“And to you, all Gurkhas are the same? Just like all Travellers, all Roma and all Unionists, I suppose?”
Did I say that? I referred to Gurkha mercenaries aka soldiers of fortune/for hire. They’re hardly putting their guns and curved knives at the Sultan of Brunei’s disposal because they admire his tailoring, are they? (He’s Muslim BTW and they’re Hindus.) By the same token they have no affinity with Britain, have they? Britain is simply another paymaster.
“Oh, and by the way, since you say that Gurkhas are ‘slaughtering’ people right now, it’s up to *you* to provide the evidence.”
Since you’re reluctant to google the evidence, here’s a lead or two go get you started. Plenty more to be found—if you’re minded to confront it. (If you’re related to the Gurkhas I’ll understand.)
They’re following an ignoble precedent of course. The Gurkhas slaughtered over unarmed civilians in 1919 in Amritsar. They were under the command of the aptly named Brigadier-General Dyer.
Take a look at what Robert Callen MacKenzie’s Gurkhas got up to in Sierra Leone, 1995-2003.
And nearer to our own day, the Iraq war. I quote:
The British-based Global Risk Strategies is using a far cheaper source for its 1,500-strong private army, which is protecting CPA buildings and other high profile facilities. The company hired over 500 Fijian soldiers and a similar number of Nepalese, who had served in the British Army’s Gurkha regiments, and flew them into Iraq. The Fijian and Nepalese mercenaries are paid just $1,000 per month. An unnamed PMC executive told the Economist: “Why pay for a British platoon to guard a base, when you can hire Gurkhas at a fraction of the cost?”
“And are the (generic) Gurkhas any worse than the (generic) Irish:”
Did I say they were? What’s the relevance of your linked story?
“I know it’s quintessential to your being to look down your nose at us (especially those who are Prods) but it doesn’t actually fit the reality of Belfast.”
Eh na, Sammy Morse, but I’m just reciprocating with the sarky attitude that I find most Unionists are very adept at here on Slugger toward Irish Nationalists, the Catholic faith and the Republic of Ireland. Kinda very easy to do too and I see you are a master at it as well.
BTW, do you find that Unionists live in denial by painting NI as some sort of UK utopia of civil rights, fair play, etc…even despite the recent racist attacks and of course the abominable history of the Troubles?
Gréagóir O Frainclín
Gréagóir,
Ah, now I’m beginning to understand! I asked on some thread or other about the spelling of your name: it was coming up as “Gragoir” I believe.
Now I see that my browser tends to drop the sínte fada in certain circumstances, together with the particular vowel it’s lengthening.
Sorry if this is double-dutch to you, Sammy :^)
Genuine question, since we seem to be into mercenaries and so on. What about the so-called “wild geese”? When they took KIng Louis’ 5 francs, did they cease to be Irish (or Irish Nationalists, if “nationalist” had any meaning in the 17th century)?
HeadTheBall,
Of course the wild geese were mercenaries, as were the Hessians who fought here and in the United States. However, like the Gurkhas they didn’t stop being Irish. In fact in hindsight their taking the King’s franc was a well-thought-out strategy to get in some good work experience before returning to Ireland to put it to good use.
‘Actually, Bin Laden was the product of the Saudi’s parallel aid programs to Afghanistan during the same period, funded by monies from around the Arab word, but, hey, nice try. If this were a game-show, you’d likely get a nice door prize just for playing.’
Poor attempt to absolve the CIA there. Bin Laden’s front organistaion the Maktab al-Khidamar (MAK) was used to funnel money, arms and fighters from around the world into the war aginst the soviets. The MAK was mentored by Pakistan’s ISI which was guess what……the CIA’s primary conduit for prosecutiing the covert war against the soviets. Hekmatyar, a rather unsavoury character was best buds with the CIA for a long time and guess who was a close associate of his…?
Apparently some US recrutied Mujaheedeen were sent for training to Camp Peary…guess who runs it?
So while Bin Laden might not have had tea and busicuits at Langley, Manfarang aint far off either.
Republican Stones: “Bin Laden’s front organistaion the Maktab al-Khidamar (MAK) was used to funnel money, arms and fighters from around the world into the war aginst the soviets. The MAK was mentored by Pakistan’s ISI which was guess what……the CIA’s primary conduit for prosecutiing the covert war against the soviets.”
Parallel tracks have to go through some of the same stations, RS — interviews with folks in-country clearly defined two operations — the CIA, primarily involved with the Afghani resistance and the Islamic mujaheddin, manned funded by the Arab world and containing elements, such as Bin Ladin, who would kill an American ras soon as look at them. Seeing as both operations were making use of Pakistan as part of their logistical arrangements, of course both operations came to their own accommodations with the ISI.
However, as subsequent events would clearly indicate, the ISI and the CIA were not and are not simpatico — their half-hearted and kack-handed pursuit of AQ is a perfect example — one does not give a couple weeks notice to a guerrilla organization that they’ve been located and an offensive is in the planning stages to go off in near future, as the Pakistanis recently did.
Sometimes, RS, the enemy of my enemy is just my enemy’s enemy. Stalin was just as big a bastard as the other fella and, while the US and the UK aided the Soviets, it certainly didn’t make them friends or fellow-travelers and no-one was terribly surprised when that went to skittles.
‘the CIA, primarily involved with the Afghani resistance and the Islamic mujaheddin, manned funded by the Arab world and containing elements, such as Bin Ladin, who would kill an American ras soon as look at them.’
Right Dread, sure there was no such thing as Camp Peary and Zbigniew Brzezinski was completely wrong when he stated….
“We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again—for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt.”
“the ISI and the CIA were not and are not simpatico”
Nobody stated that they were dread, where did you pick that up? They did however have the same aim…namely to punish the soviets. Everyone is well aware the ISI aren’t exactly zealous in their pursuit of AQ but your attempt to absolve the CIA from helping to create a monster which has turned round and bit it is strange to say the least.
‘Stalin was just as big a bastard as the other fella and, while the US and the UK aided the Soviets, it certainly didn’t make them friends or fellow-travelers and no-one was terribly surprised when that went to skittles. ‘
Who said they were best mates? Again where did you get that from? But the US has a sordid little history of intervention (particularly South America) and there are plenty of people who weren’t surprised now that their little afghan adventure has turned to ‘skittles’.
Point of fact, RS — Zbiggy didn’t work for Reagen, he worked for Carter. As such, the latest he would have had any involvement would have been 1980 (and probably earlier than that — he spent the twilight of the Carter administration making a balls-up of the Iranian hostage crisis). As Bin-Laden didn’t go “in-country” until 1979 and didn’t create M-a-K in 1984, Zbiggy’s comment may be 100% accurate and have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Nice try, tho.
Secondly, nothing in Zbiggy’s statement indicates the level of tutelage / association you are trying to boot-strap — that Bin-Laden is some sort of CIA creation. M-a-K was funded through Arab donations and, while both they and the CIA liaised with the ISI, there is nothing to demonstrate CIA funding of M-a-K, nor CIA training of the same. Wishing it so and misrepresenting a quote does not make it so, RS.
Point of fact dread I never said he worked for Reagan. But he was a US official involved in helping the mujaheedin in Afgahnistan against the soviets.
‘that Bin-Laden is some sort of CIA creation.’
Please show where I have tried to state he was a CIA creation. All I have done is demonstrate your incorrect assertion that the CIA had NOTHING to do with the rise of Bin Laden and his cohorts is exactly that…incorrect.
‘Wishing it so and misrepresenting a quote does not make it so, RS.’
Islamic mujaheedin recieved training at Camp Peary from the CIA. Wishing they didn’t doesn’t make it so Dread. Nice try tho.
RS: “Point of fact dread I never said he worked for Reagan. But he was a US official involved in helping the mujaheedin in Afgahnistan against the soviets.”
Mayhap, but it has no bearing on the topic at hand. Anyone capable of reading a calender would have realized the above. The M-a-K was not the whole of the mujaheedin. M-a-K wasn’t even a significant fraction of the mujaheedin (about 100 fighters).
RS: “Please show where I have tried to state he was a CIA creation. All I have done is demonstrate your incorrect assertion that the CIA had NOTHING to do with the rise of Bin Laden and his cohorts is exactly that…incorrect.”
Firstly, you asserted that Manfarang was wasn’t far off in his original assertion that “Bin Laden was a CIA protege.” This is, on its face, incorrect.
Moving beyond that, you’ve not demonstrated *any* direct links between the CIA and O-b-L. You have noted that there is a single potential nexus point in the ISI, but, seeing as both entities were using Pakistan for logistical purposes, that’s hardly surprising and hardly proof of any association. If anything, the Russians created the atmosphere in which O-b-L took to the field
RS: “Islamic mujaheedin recieved (sic) training at Camp Peary from the CIA. ”
Hardly a secret and not proof of the CIA aiding O-b-L. M-a-K received no CIA training. Their funding was donations from the Arab world and Muslims in the west, not the CIA or the US gov’t. His contacts in the US were radical, not guys in Langley.
If any entity was responsible for the rise of the Taliban and, as a consequence, the rise of the AQ and O-b-L, it was the American Congress during the period that lavishly funded the proxy war against the Russians and nary a nickel for the post-war rebuilding.
But, then, you’re the fella who cannot tell the difference between the hundred fellas in the M-a-K and the Afghani resistance… or read a calendar. What’s the matter, RS — do they all look alike to you?
“Ah, now I’m beginning to understand! I asked on some thread or other about the spelling of your name: it was coming up as “Gragoir” I believe.
Now I see that my browser tends to drop the sínte fada in certain circumstances, together with the particular vowel it’s lengthening.”
Exactly Big Maggie, spot on!
Dread, keep it up.
Hi Maggie,
Apologies for delay in replying (time zones again).
“..a well-thought-out strategy..”
I have never been sure that robbing the Irish people of their natural leadership to serve the reactionary regimes of Europe was a good strategy longer term, but we may have to agree to differ on the “Wild Geese”.
Regards,
‘the CIA, primarily involved with the Afghani resistance and the Islamic mujaheddin, manned funded by the Arab world and containing elements, such as Bin Ladin, who would kill an American ras soon as look at them.’
Sorry Dread, the above is what you stated. But you then proceeded to admit islamic mujaheddin were trained at Camp Peary by guess who…?
‘If anything, the Russians created the atmosphere in which O-b-L took to the field’
Jesus wept would there have been a soviet invasion without the russians?
‘ M-a-K received no CIA training.’
But islamic mujaheddin did…on US soil. Which you have now admitted after first saying the likes of them wouldn’t have.
‘If any entity was responsible for the rise of the Taliban and, as a consequence, the rise of the AQ and O-b-L, it was the American Congress during the period that lavishly funded the proxy war against the Russians and nary a nickel for the post-war rebuilding.’
It seems you have now come round to agreeing with me that the USA are partly responsible. Well done.
‘But, then, you’re the fella who cannot tell the difference between the hundred fellas in the M-a-K and the Afghani resistance… or read a calendar. What’s the matter, RS—do they all look alike to you?’
Sorry Dread but you are the fella who first said the likes of the MAK would have nothing to do with yanks they finally admitted that indeed Islamic mujaheddin were trained by yanks on US soil. And btw, you were the first one to mention Reagan, not I. I merely have shown that you were incorrect…it was you who tried to slap a timetable on the issue, not I. Fianlly your being a little naive if you think none of the billions that the CIA funnelled through the ISI ended up where you are desperately trying to convince us it didn’t.