Linda Norgrove.....
Discussion
There's a thread on here with numerous posts asking why we haven't tried to resue the two Britons captured by Pirates.
If it was tried and they were killed, I've no doubt the same responses we see on here would be on that thread. Full credit to the US Forces for putting their lives on the line to attempt a rescue.
In 2006, a group of looney extreme 'Christians' were taken hostage in Iraq. They went to Irag and just blundered about, despite all the warnings. Of the four taken hostage, one was killed. They were rescued by UK,US and Canadian special forces. The three rescued men refused to thank the soldiers and condemned the military. If you wander around a dangerous country at war, it shouldn't be a suprise if anything bad happens to you. The military shouldn't be held responsible for the outcome.
If it was tried and they were killed, I've no doubt the same responses we see on here would be on that thread. Full credit to the US Forces for putting their lives on the line to attempt a rescue.
In 2006, a group of looney extreme 'Christians' were taken hostage in Iraq. They went to Irag and just blundered about, despite all the warnings. Of the four taken hostage, one was killed. They were rescued by UK,US and Canadian special forces. The three rescued men refused to thank the soldiers and condemned the military. If you wander around a dangerous country at war, it shouldn't be a suprise if anything bad happens to you. The military shouldn't be held responsible for the outcome.
dandarez said:
Soldiers have a choice too. They don't have to join up! Shall we ban all aid workers then?
The risk assessment in this case was a cock-up. That's why CMD looked a pale colour of sh*te yesterday.
1 hostage is gonna be high risk in any assessment.
For example, if there had been say 4 or 5 hostages and just one had been killed, you would now be hearing about a 90 per cent successful intervention.
In the Norgrove episode it can only be looked at in one way: 100 per cent failure!
No, they don't have to join up - would you rather no-one joined the armed forces?The risk assessment in this case was a cock-up. That's why CMD looked a pale colour of sh*te yesterday.
1 hostage is gonna be high risk in any assessment.
For example, if there had been say 4 or 5 hostages and just one had been killed, you would now be hearing about a 90 per cent successful intervention.
In the Norgrove episode it can only be looked at in one way: 100 per cent failure!
The latest
http://news.scotsman.com/news/Disciplinary-action-...
I think the US Mil is being very honest this time.
http://news.scotsman.com/news/Disciplinary-action-...
I think the US Mil is being very honest this time.
Maybe aid workers should be asked to complete a basic form before they are granted visa access etc:
YOUR GOVERNMENT'S COURSE OF ACTION WHEN YOU ARE TAKEN HOSTAGE:
1: TAKE NO ACTION. YOU ARE HAPPY TO BE LEFT TO FEND FOR YOURSELF.
(this VISA application will require a £3,000 deposit if you wish for your carcass to be repatriated)
2: I WISH TO BE RESCUED AT GREAT RISK TO THE LIVES OF MY FELLOW COUNTRYMEN AND OUR ALLIES AND I AGREE TO FUNDING THE COST OF ANY OPERATION AND PAYING BLOOD MONEY TO THE FAMILIES OF ANYONE KILLED BECAUSE OF MY ACTIONS.
(this requires and up front deposit and guarantee of £1m)
YOUR GOVERNMENT'S COURSE OF ACTION WHEN YOU ARE TAKEN HOSTAGE:
1: TAKE NO ACTION. YOU ARE HAPPY TO BE LEFT TO FEND FOR YOURSELF.
(this VISA application will require a £3,000 deposit if you wish for your carcass to be repatriated)
2: I WISH TO BE RESCUED AT GREAT RISK TO THE LIVES OF MY FELLOW COUNTRYMEN AND OUR ALLIES AND I AGREE TO FUNDING THE COST OF ANY OPERATION AND PAYING BLOOD MONEY TO THE FAMILIES OF ANYONE KILLED BECAUSE OF MY ACTIONS.
(this requires and up front deposit and guarantee of £1m)
DonkeyApple said:
Maybe aid workers should be asked to complete a basic form before they are granted visa access etc:
Our government strolls around the world causing all sorts of s
t and you have the cheek to complain about a person risking their own life to help with a problem 'we' contributed to. CrashTD said:
DonkeyApple said:
Maybe aid workers should be asked to complete a basic form before they are granted visa access etc:
Our government strolls around the world causing all sorts of st and you have the cheek to complain about a person risking their own life to help with a problem 'we' contributed to. Brave woman, selfless act. Misguided too if she refused protection. Do you think we should have tried to rescue her?
andymadmak said:
CrashTD said:
DonkeyApple said:
Maybe aid workers should be asked to complete a basic form before they are granted visa access etc:
Our government strolls around the world causing all sorts of st and you have the cheek to complain about a person risking their own life to help with a problem 'we' contributed to. Brave woman, selfless act. Misguided too if she refused protection. Do you think we should have tried to rescue her?
Shall we get squaddies to sign the above statement? Are people suggesting you should not rescue squaddies as they knew what they were getting into? Leave them pinned down as they took unnecessary risks to hold a position? No of course not. Same principal in my eyes.
CrashTD said:
DonkeyApple said:
Maybe aid workers should be asked to complete a basic form before they are granted visa access etc:
Our government strolls around the world causing all sorts of st and you have the cheek to complain about a person risking their own life to help with a problem 'we' contributed to. DonkeyApple said:
CrashTD said:
DonkeyApple said:
Maybe aid workers should be asked to complete a basic form before they are granted visa access etc:
Our government strolls around the world causing all sorts of st and you have the cheek to complain about a person risking their own life to help with a problem 'we' contributed to. DonkeyApple said:
Maybe aid workers should be asked to complete a basic form before they are granted visa access etc:
YOUR GOVERNMENT'S COURSE OF ACTION WHEN YOU ARE TAKEN HOSTAGE:
1: TAKE NO ACTION. YOU ARE HAPPY TO BE LEFT TO FEND FOR YOURSELF.
(this VISA application will require a £3,000 deposit if you wish for your carcass to be repatriated)
2: I WISH TO BE RESCUED AT GREAT RISK TO THE LIVES OF MY FELLOW COUNTRYMEN AND OUR ALLIES AND I AGREE TO FUNDING THE COST OF ANY OPERATION AND PAYING BLOOD MONEY TO THE FAMILIES OF ANYONE KILLED BECAUSE OF MY ACTIONS.
(this requires and up front deposit and guarantee of £1m)
Not a half bad ideaYOUR GOVERNMENT'S COURSE OF ACTION WHEN YOU ARE TAKEN HOSTAGE:
1: TAKE NO ACTION. YOU ARE HAPPY TO BE LEFT TO FEND FOR YOURSELF.
(this VISA application will require a £3,000 deposit if you wish for your carcass to be repatriated)
2: I WISH TO BE RESCUED AT GREAT RISK TO THE LIVES OF MY FELLOW COUNTRYMEN AND OUR ALLIES AND I AGREE TO FUNDING THE COST OF ANY OPERATION AND PAYING BLOOD MONEY TO THE FAMILIES OF ANYONE KILLED BECAUSE OF MY ACTIONS.
(this requires and up front deposit and guarantee of £1m)
If everyone knows that aid workers won't be rescued it greatly reduces their value to both sides.
It makes aid workers safer as they have less value to the locals so they can give aid more easily and it means less risk to the troops as there is less rescue missions.
If an aid worker is taken hostage then they wipe out everyone where they are being held.
DonkeyApple said:
Maybe aid workers should be asked to complete a basic form before they are granted visa access etc:
YOUR GOVERNMENT'S COURSE OF ACTION WHEN YOU ARE TAKEN HOSTAGE:
1: TAKE NO ACTION. YOU ARE HAPPY TO BE LEFT TO FEND FOR YOURSELF.
(this VISA application will require a £3,000 deposit if you wish for your carcass to be repatriated)
2: I WISH TO BE RESCUED AT GREAT RISK TO THE LIVES OF MY FELLOW COUNTRYMEN AND OUR ALLIES AND I AGREE TO FUNDING THE COST OF ANY OPERATION AND PAYING BLOOD MONEY TO THE FAMILIES OF ANYONE KILLED BECAUSE OF MY ACTIONS.
(this requires and up front deposit and guarantee of £1m)
Something to add that keeps batting around in my mind. YOUR GOVERNMENT'S COURSE OF ACTION WHEN YOU ARE TAKEN HOSTAGE:
1: TAKE NO ACTION. YOU ARE HAPPY TO BE LEFT TO FEND FOR YOURSELF.
(this VISA application will require a £3,000 deposit if you wish for your carcass to be repatriated)
2: I WISH TO BE RESCUED AT GREAT RISK TO THE LIVES OF MY FELLOW COUNTRYMEN AND OUR ALLIES AND I AGREE TO FUNDING THE COST OF ANY OPERATION AND PAYING BLOOD MONEY TO THE FAMILIES OF ANYONE KILLED BECAUSE OF MY ACTIONS.
(this requires and up front deposit and guarantee of £1m)
3. Whatever the outcome we will hunt you down with extreme prejudice.
Make it expensive for the takers in life and limb. Can o worms there though, not sure I have thought it through.
All of you saying it's her own fault for refusing to have an armed guard, I'd like to remind you of the following.
The British army has had a very similar philosophy for years. General service has felt that foot patrols and the eschewing of helmets in favour of caps / hats/ berets is more likely to win over the trust of the local population than turning up in an APC and tank tooled up and ready for bear. The latter would be safer and less likely to incur casualties but makes it much harder to get the job done. Our SF have taken things much further in terms of attempting to integrate with the local population - Borneo for example.
I would imagine when trying to help a distrustful population as an aid worker, earning their trust is going to be much much harder when being followed by a couple of private security chaps - who lets face it, if the only part of what you see in the media is correct, do like to "dress to impress". If the choice is to eschew the guards and get the job done or to have the guards and waste your time, then her decision becomes less easy to criticise.
The British army has had a very similar philosophy for years. General service has felt that foot patrols and the eschewing of helmets in favour of caps / hats/ berets is more likely to win over the trust of the local population than turning up in an APC and tank tooled up and ready for bear. The latter would be safer and less likely to incur casualties but makes it much harder to get the job done. Our SF have taken things much further in terms of attempting to integrate with the local population - Borneo for example.
I would imagine when trying to help a distrustful population as an aid worker, earning their trust is going to be much much harder when being followed by a couple of private security chaps - who lets face it, if the only part of what you see in the media is correct, do like to "dress to impress". If the choice is to eschew the guards and get the job done or to have the guards and waste your time, then her decision becomes less easy to criticise.
Just watching the BBC programme on Iraq last night pointed out how dodgy trying to deal with (in both senses of the word - the bargain sense being more worthwhile for some but at knock on costs) hostage takers and 'terrorists' who are often part of or mixed in with a local community is.
In my opinion the (admittedly brave and selfless, but foolhardy) foreign aid workers should stay away. They are like a cross between the red flag and a blank signed cheque found in the street for these people. The governments/official bodies/army should be sorting out aid and trying to reduce the need for it.
If they (aid workers) can't help themselves then they shouldn't expect anyone else to if they get themselves needlessly into difficulty.
In my opinion the (admittedly brave and selfless, but foolhardy) foreign aid workers should stay away. They are like a cross between the red flag and a blank signed cheque found in the street for these people. The governments/official bodies/army should be sorting out aid and trying to reduce the need for it.
If they (aid workers) can't help themselves then they shouldn't expect anyone else to if they get themselves needlessly into difficulty.
Edited by Lost_BMW on Thursday 14th October 11:14
Lost_BMW said:
If they (aid workers) can't help themselves then they shouldn't expect anyone else to if they get themselves needlessly into difficulty.
Same applies to troops then yeah?Edited by Lost_BMW on Thursday 14th October 11:14
They are risking their lives to help others. Just be grateful that its not your house that been reduced to rubble and your kids not the one missing a limb and a mother.
rhinochopig said:
All of you saying it's her own fault for refusing to have an armed guard, I'd like to remind you of the following.
The British army has had a very similar philosophy for years. General service has felt that foot patrols and the eschewing of helmets in favour of caps / hats/ berets is more likely to win over the trust of the local population than turning up in an APC and tank tooled up and ready for bear. The latter would be safer and less likely to incur casualties but makes it much harder to get the job done. Our SF have taken things much further in terms of attempting to integrate with the local population - Borneo for example.
I would imagine when trying to help a distrustful population as an aid worker, earning their trust is going to be much much harder when being followed by a couple of private security chaps - who lets face it, if the only part of what you see in the media is correct, do like to "dress to impress". If the choice is to eschew the guards and get the job done or to have the guards and waste your time, then her decision becomes less easy to criticise.
Let me tell you about Afghanistan...The British army has had a very similar philosophy for years. General service has felt that foot patrols and the eschewing of helmets in favour of caps / hats/ berets is more likely to win over the trust of the local population than turning up in an APC and tank tooled up and ready for bear. The latter would be safer and less likely to incur casualties but makes it much harder to get the job done. Our SF have taken things much further in terms of attempting to integrate with the local population - Borneo for example.
I would imagine when trying to help a distrustful population as an aid worker, earning their trust is going to be much much harder when being followed by a couple of private security chaps - who lets face it, if the only part of what you see in the media is correct, do like to "dress to impress". If the choice is to eschew the guards and get the job done or to have the guards and waste your time, then her decision becomes less easy to criticise.
Her security are not the "Blackwater types" as you describe. I know the company and I am working for a similar company doing the same thing. You'll find that most non-convoy security teams that operate outside of Kabul adopt a lower profile than others trying to look good and the majority of the team will be Afghans (Led by a couple of expats)
It's all very well trying to adopt a low profile out here but it's different to Iraq. It's still an on going battlefield and there isn't as much other traffic about. Everyone knows who you are, they know any strange vehicle so trying to go discreet doesn't work. Going covert might for a while, until you ran into a Tabliban checkpoint or go through a town with bandits but of course, then you would have no defence.
If you don't display a show of strength, even a disreet one without getting in people's face and pissing them off, the locals here see it as a weakness and you will be making yourself a possible target. It's their culture, you have to know how they think and adapt to that in order to try and keep one step ahead without highlighting yourselves.
The very fact that she was a women with authority in this enviroment is a problem to start with, the locals lock their women up in the compounds from the about the age of 16 to 60. (Apart from Kabul) The locals outside of Kabul are brainwashed sheep. The sheppards are the local elders, then you have the, supposedly elected, community councillers who are like our local council and local polititions. EVERYONE is corrupt, it's normal behaviour and expected. During community council meetings they swabble like 12 year old children, over all the aid and contruction that people are trying to give out. You have to see it to believe it. They demand everything yet throw obstacles in your way, everytime they open their mouths a lie comes out and again, this is normal and accepted. They are very ungrateful and they are also very dangerous and think nothing of killing each other over a petty arguement just because someone insulted them. It's very rarely that the correct people are getting the aid as the lists drawn up by the coucillers for distribution are mostly their buddies and relatives. The aid agencies, usualy led by USAID, are genuinely trying to dish out things to the right people and are trying to make sure things are done right. In this country though, it's impossible.
There is no national structure here. The national identity card (Taskera)is not widely used and there are very few genuine ones. Most are bad photo copies Genuine ones have photos of 35 year old men when they were 9 and yet it was only issued last year. People don't know their date of birth, some only know the year. Some people only have one name (and that changes depending on who you ask) so you have to go on their father's name/s.
There are very few street names. Many smoke opium. The cops get paid pittance and so have security jobs elsewhere when they are supposed to be on duty.
ISAF are trying to fight the Taliban with one hand held behind their back by their own goverments. They are losing in a lot of key areas.
The Taliban will take over again once we have pulled out but this time they will have new goverment offices and new roads, thanks to the west. Schools that have been built are empty, the computors gone.
The whole place has been badly mis-managed from the start, which is why there has been little progress since 2001. It's not just the fault of the West though, it's this place, even if they had got it right, it still wouldn't have worked here. Something has happened to these people, they have had the intelligence bred out of them and only exist now, in order to pray to Islam.
Their farming methods are medieval, their construction work laughable yet dangerous. There are ancient ruins here with more elaborate brickwork that then can build now. There are no skilled people, there is nothing , nothing but opium, that's all this place is good for.
This country is not worth the effort and the people not deserving of it. You wouldn't believe how ungrateful they are. They do not respect the aid agencies, they just want free stuff and demand it. Their social structure, idleness, corruptness, their method of doing business and whole general way of thinking, means that they will stay in the the stone ages. Why do you think this country has never evolved? Sorry, gone backwards, as I understand that many moons ago, it wasn't as bad as it is now, however I find that hard to believe having travelled a lot of it.
So, the female aid worker trying to get the job done, is not realistic. We had one and she was sent home for causing too much trouble. You cannot leave a Western woman out here to do business alone. She will be killed or taken. Same with the males. My client is himself a war vet from the Rodesia wars and he also used to do security, yet I still will not allow him to wander around on his own. You start doing that and word will get around locally and it will only be a matter of time.
She still could of done the same job with her security, many others have and are doing it. If she was like most female clients out here, they deliberately try to get rid of their security because they think they have something to prove to everyone else being in this unfemale enviroment. It's stupidity and cost people their lives.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff