LINK Iata ce frumos pot fi afisate informatii complexe,intr-un mod usor de folosit dar si edificator in acelasi timp.Pe langa faptul ca au mai multe de spus decat mapn,englezii chiar o fac si o fac in asa masura incat sa gasesti ce te intereseaza.In paralel,site-u mapn e o enigma totala.N-am inteles mai nimic,am ramas cu mai multe intrebari decat aveam,ca sa nu mai spun ca pe alocuri (destul de importante) informatia lipseste cu desavarsire.Acuma inteleg ca cei ce se ocupa cu asta n-or fi cei mai inteligenti,dar daca tot suntem cunoscuti ca un popor de suti,puteau macar sa se inspire de la colegii aliati.Si inca ceva.Pe cand se va intampla ca regimentele noastre ce au nevoie de oameni sa organizeze selectia direct acolo la ei,fare a se mai face o selectie generala si apoi soldatii sa fie impartiti prin unitati la tragere la sorti sau dupa interese,pile si rude?
Parasutistii vor aprecia in mod deosebit chestia asta: Nu-mi pot reprima gandul ca in Romania, cel putin acum 3-4 ani, cand am terminat-o cu parasutismul, insul ala ar fi avut mari sanse sa se transforme intr-o piftie pe betonul pistei...
Pe 21 decembrie scriam pe chatbox ca justitia britanica a inceput sa puna intrebari referitoare la felul in care unii militari, in varsta de 60-70 de ani acum, au actionat in timpul conflictului din Irlanda de Nord LINK , scriam si ca Andy McNab, legenda vie a SAS, el insusi lucrand doi ani sub acoperire in Irlanda de Nord, a declarat ca e doar o problema de timp pana ce va fi tarat in ceea ce el considera a fi o "vanatoare de vrajitoare" LINK .
Intre timp creste presiunea pusa de societatea civila pe politie sa faca lumina, cata lumina se va mai putea face dupa atatia ani, in niste cazuri in care exista o multime de indicii care atesta faptul ca membri SAS si ai serviciului de informatii militare au ghidonat formatiuni teroriste loialiste, sprijinindu-le cu pregatire, informatii si armament LINKLINK , unele dintre aceste formatiuni conduse sau formate din maniaci ca astia LINKLINK , iar la vremea respectiva anchetele s-au facut cam in stilul anchetelor despre Decembrie 89 si despre mineriade. LINK .
N-as vrea ca cineva, citind postarea de mai sus, sa inteleaga ca as considera acceptabil terorismul diverselor factiuni IRA...
Cati dintre libtarzii aia care formeaza asa-zisa societate civila care critica modul de operare al soldatilor britanici in Irlanda de Nord au fost, de fapt, in armata?
Sper ca Marea Britanie post Brexit sa revina la valorile care o definesc cu adevarat, valori care au disparut inca de pe vremea lui Tony Blair.
Dosarul conflictului din Irlanda de Nord e unul voluminos si complex, poate nu atat de voluminos si de complex ca cel al conflictului israeliano-palestinian, si a privi lucrurile in alb si negru, a zice: astia-s buni, aia-s rai, nu foloseste intelegerii fenomenului.
Nu contesta nimeni ca rostul fundamental al armatei e sa ucida si sa parjoleasca, dar militarii nu pot avea libertate totala in alegerea felului in care isi indeplinesc aceste sarcini, si orice actiune a unui militar, racan cu doua zile de armata sau general, angajeaza raspunderea statului al carui drapel il poarta acel militar pe umar. In ciuda progreselor semnificative ale procesului de pace, raman in continuare niste probleme nerezolvate, si ele au ca principala cauza faptul ca e inca multa ceata care invaluie valul de violente care a avt loc incepand de la sfarsitul anilor 60 si pana in 1998. Nimic durabil nu se poate construi pe miniciuna, si Romania postdecembrista e exemplul cel mai potrivit pentru aceasta afirmatie.
Altfel, asa cum am zis, lucrurile sunt mai nuantate, si daca e sa vorbim despre cateva dintre cele mai urate momente in care a fost implicata armata britanica putem pomeni despre uciderea pe 26 ianuarie 1972 a 14 civili neinarmati in timpul unui protest pasnic intr-un oras din vestul Irlandei de Nord, putem vorbi despre implicarea lui Robert Nairac, ofiter SAS, in uciderea pe 10 ianuarie 1975 a comandantului unei brigazi a Provisional IRA, actiune care a avut loc in timp ce era in vigoare un armistitiu intre guvernul britanic si IRA, opinia generala fiind ca prin aceasta actiune s-a intentionat compromiterea tratativelor de pace care aveau loc, putem vorbi despre repetatele incursiuni ale unor echipe de militari britanci in uniforma si inarmati pe teritoriul Republicii Irlanda, un stat suveran. Cred ca intelegi ce inseamna, juridic vorbind, asta. Exista voci care spun chiar ca o parte a serviciului militar de informatii britanic din Irlanda de Nord avea propriile lui prioritati si nu mai executa ordinele primite de la Londra. E de notorietate faptul ca un fost, sau poate un "fost" ofiter de informatii britanic a intermediat cumpararea de armament si munitie din Africa de Sud pentru o grupare terorista loialista. LINK
Ca sa inchei intr-un ton mai amuzant, chiar citeam zilele trecute cum o patrula formata din doi politisti irlandezi inarmati cu pistoale au dat nas in nas cu un pluton de militari britanici echipati de razboi, la vreo 40 de kilometri de granita. Politistii i-au interpelat pe militari, i-au informat ca sunt intr-un loc in care nu au dreptul sa fie, i-au rugat politicos sa paraseasca teritoriul Republicii Irlanda, i-au escortat pana la frontiera, s-au salutat, sfarsitul povestii.
Daca traiesc si sunt sanatos, mi-am propus ca peste cateva luni, dupa ce mai citesc si inteleg un pic mai profund lucrurile, sa public pe prima pagina un serial despre conflictul din Irlanda de Nord , e un subiect interesant si, zic eu, plin de invataminte.
...putem pomeni despre uciderea pe 26 ianuarie 1972 a 14 civili neinarmati in timpul unui protest pasnic intr-un oras din vestul Irlandei de Nord
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e3VxZwjQ7g
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is publishing the report of the Saville inquiry - the tribunal set up by the previous government to investigate the tragic events of 30 January 1972, a day more commonly known as Bloody Sunday. Mr Speaker, I am deeply patriotic. I never want to believe anything bad about our country. I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our army, who I believe to be the finest in the world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve. But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt, there is nothing equivocal, there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong.
Lord Saville concludes that the soldiers of the support company who went into the Bogside did so as a result of an order which should not have been given by their commander. He finds that, on balance, the first shot in the vicinity of the march was fired by the British Army. He finds that none of the casualties shot by the soldiers of support company was armed with a firearm. He finds that there was some firing by Republican paramilitaries but none of this firing provided any justification for the shooting of civilian casualties. And he finds that, in no case, was any warning given by soldiers before opening fire. He also finds that the support company reacted by losing their self-control, forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training and with a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline. He finds that despite the contrary evidence given by the soldiers, none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers. And he finds that many of the soldiers - and I quote knowingly - put forward false accounts to seek to justify their firing. Lord Saville says that some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to the assistance of others who were dying. The report refers to one person who was shot while crawling away from the soldiers. Another was shot in all probability when he was lying mortally wounded on the ground. The report refers to the father who was hit and injured by army gunfire after going to attend to his son. Mr Speaker, these are shocking conclusions to read and shocking words to have to say. But Mr Speaker, you do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible. We do not honour all those who have served with such distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth. Some members of our armed forces acted wrongly. The government is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the armed forces and for that, on behalf of the government, indeed, on behalf of our country, I am deeply sorry.
Discursul lui David Cameron in extenso aici LINK .
Tony Doherty, cel care vorbeste la sfarsitul filmarii de mai sus, avea noua ani cand tatal sau a fost ucis in acea zi. Mama sa, in varsta de 29 de ani la acel moment, l-a crescut singura pe Tony si pe ceilalti cinci copii. La 18 ani, Tony Doherty s-a inrolat in IRA si a fost arestat in timp ce incerca sa comita un atac cu bomba impotriva unei cladiri guvernamentale. A executat patru ani de inchisoare dintr-o condamnare de noua ani si a fost eliberat in urma acordului de pace din 1998 intre guvernul britanic, cel irlandez si diversele factiuni paramilitare care se confruntau in Irlanda de Nord.
In prezent e membru activ in Sinn Fein, aripa politica a IRA, si militeaza in favoarea procesului de pace.
Pe de alta parte, sunt voci care spun ca actuala ofensiva a justitiei britanice impotriva militarilor care au incalcat legea in timpul tulburarilor din Irlanda de Nord e ipocrita, si dau ca exemplu ancheta care bate pasul pe loc de o multime de ani in cazul disparitiei (si prezumatei ucideri si ingropari in secret a cadavrului de catre IRA) lui Jean McConville, mama singura a sapte copii, cel mai mic avand sase ani la momentul disparitiei. LINK
Pe de alta parte, informatii dintr-o ancheta in curs facute publice cu cateva zile in urma dau de inteles ca timp de mai mult de zece ani seful contraspionajului Provisional IRA, responsabil pentru moartea a cel putin 18 persoane banuite a fi informatori, a fost de fapt agent britanic al compartimentului din Irlanda de Nord al serviciului militar britanic de informatii LINK , se stie deja ca Provisional IRA era infiltrata de agenti britanici pana la cele mai inalte niveluri de decizie, s-au scris si carti despre asta. LINK
Asta deschide noi piste pentru justitie, dar persoane care erau decidenti de rangul doi in politie si in serviciile de informatii la momentul acela si au fost invitate la audieri in ultima perioada au avertizat cumva voalat ca daca vor merge la inchisoare, vor merge insotiti de responsabili de top si de politicieni.
Foarte interesant.Este de retinut promptitudinea guvernului britanica implicit a fortelor britanice cand/daca interesele lor sunt amenintate. Aici este o strategie-scoala in orice relatie cu UK, fie de la nivel UE ori nivel national.
Da, si e cu atat mai uimitor cu cat britancii au plecat la razboiul asta cam in carje, dupa ani de recesiune economica si repetate reduceri ale bugetului destinat apararii, aproape jumatate din navele corpului expeditionar fiind nave civile rechizitionate si adaptate in graba nevoilor militare, generali din US Navy considerand ca britanicii nu au nici cea mai mica sansa sa recucereasca insulele.
Era de asteptat ca asemenea episoade sa apara. Nu poti sa ai simultan si discriminare pozitiva si meritocratie, decat daca nu ai auzit de wishful thinking.
Presiunile venind nu doar din afara organismului militar ci si din afara oricarei intelegeri a faptului ca a servi intr-o armata nu este un drept, nu tine de poliloghia "sanselor egale", ci se cucereste prin efort, sacrificiu si respectarea standardelor, duc inevitabil spre asemenea derapaje.
Himerele cultivate de fanaticii egalitatii cu orice pret sunt la antipodul ethos-ului militar a carui esenta este meritocratia (cel putin in concept si tinzand atat cat este posibil omeneste spre aplicare in concret).
Se spune ca odata ce un militar trece de gradul de colonel devine politician. Cred ca rareori este acest fapt mai evident decat in situatia de fata. Ceea ce este si mai ingrijorator este ca miasma otravita a corectitudinii politice a inceput sa se raspandeasca in jos pe scara ierarhica; cu siguranta ca ofiterii care conduceau cursul pentru sergenti instructori nu erau generali.
Am dat deunazi peste un studiu care se caznea sa scoata in evidenta avantajele unitatilor de operatii speciale mixte.
Amuzant, daca nu ar fi enervant, este modul in care teorii nedemonstrate, simple mostre de feminism ultra sunt luate ca baza de plecare in construirea demonstratiei ca si cum ar fi axiome. Spre exemplu diversitatea care, fara a mai catadicsi sa explice de ce, aduce plus valoarea unei unitati speciale. Nu e vorba aici de misoginism, ci de o reactie de bun simt impotriva delirului ideologic care rastoarna ordinea construirii unui rationament riguros: oamenii isi fixeaza o concluzie tinta si apoi forteaza argumentele pana cand obtin rezultatul dorit.
Dar am lungit-o destul cu povestea. Inainte de a posta aici articolul am sa precizez ca digresiunea de mai sus nu se sustine doar prin acest caz. Nu m-as lansa intr-o generalizare pornind de la un singur caz. In ultima perioada am intalnit tot mai frecvent situatii asemenatoare si nemultumiri asociate lor. Asa ca vorbim nu de un caz izolat, ci de alterarea unui sistem functional prin impunerea unor ratiuni straine de propria logica, bazat pe un esafodaj de clisee ideologice si paralogisme.
O fi Daily Mail tabloid, dar asta nu inseamna ca episodul e mai putin semnificativ.
Woman who failed frontline infantry fitness test was given a 'pass' by the Army until furious male soldiers who HAD completed course staged rebellion
Corporal Daisy Dougherty had failed the fitness test but was allowed to continue She was hoping to become one of the Army’s first female infantry instructors After those who failed were allowed to continue, some angry soldiers rebelled Eventually, fearing a public outcry, commanders reversed their initial decision
By Mark Nicol Defence Editor For The Mail On Sunday and Amy Oliver for The Mail on Sunday
Published: 22:17 GMT, 12 January 2019 | Updated: 19:12 GMT, 13 January 2019
A female soldier was allowed to continue on an Army selection course even though she failed a vital fitness test – triggering a rebellion among male troops who had passed.
Corporal Daisy Dougherty was hoping to become one of the Army’s first female infantry instructors following the landmark decision last year to let women join combat units and Special Forces.
The first stage in the selection process required her to prove her fitness by completing an eight-mile march in under two hours over arduous terrain while carrying a heavy pack and a rifle.
Despite being a qualified personal fitness trainer and a member of the Army’s athletics squad, the 29-year-old took too long to finish the challenge. Under course rules, she should have been immediately ejected and sent back to her unit.
But Cpl Dougherty – the only woman on the course – and 14 others who also failed were told they could carry on, sparking a furious backlash among the 75 soldiers who passed the test.
The soldiers rounded on commanders at the Infantry Battle School in Brecon, Mid-Wales, accusing them of lowering standards to suit women. When top brass refused to back down, troops contacted The Mail on Sunday to expose what they claimed was ‘positive discrimination’.
Fearing a public backlash if they allowed her result to stand, commanders backed down and asked Cpl Dougherty and the other soldiers who failed the march to leave.
Last night, a soldier on the course said: ‘The blokes were livid because it is written in black and white in the course handbook that if you fail the march, you’re pulled off the PSBC [Platoon Sergeants’ Battle Course] immediately. There is no review.
‘Commanders wanted to get Cpl Dougherty through the course, almost at any cost, even if she wasn’t fit enough and even if that meant leniency being shown to weaker male soldiers who also failed the march. We couldn’t believe they were still on the base and attending classes. It took a revolt among the troops and some people going to the Press to get this stopped.’
When Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson announced last year that women could join infantry regiments, officials insisted standards would not be relaxed and said female candidates would have to be as fit as male soldiers.
Former SAS commander Tim Collins said that the Army faced a stark choice: ‘We can either abandon our ability to complete gruelling military operations in order to fall into line with political correctness or accept that there are some things females cannot do biologically.
‘If standards are modified to accommodate women, this will be utterly misguided.’
Cpl Dougherty, from Bulford, Wiltshire, has now returned to her unit in the Royal Army Physical Training Corps. It was unclear last night whether she intends to tackle the PSBC course again.
To date, only one woman has passed the seven-week course, which includes arduous field exercises, military tactics and weapons skills.
Official MoD sources admitted last night there had been ‘uproar’ on the course following the march and that it had taken more than a day for a decision to be taken on the fate of the 15 soldiers, including Cpl Dougherty. They added that she had been taken off the course following a ‘review’ of her result.
Last night, Colonel Peter Stitt, Commandant of the School of Infantry, said: ‘Infantry courses are some of the most demanding in the Army and not everyone is ready to undertake them at their first attempt.
‘Those not making the initial standard will receive feedback on their performance and have the opportunity to attempt the course again later on in their career.
The face of equality, or an encounter with bruising reality?: TV viewers are shocked as they see a woman being badly beaten by a male contestant on Channel 4’s SAS: Who Dares Wins
The decision to allow women into all parts of the military was widely hailed as a victory for female equality.
But TV viewers are likely to be shocked tonight when they see a woman being badly beaten by a male contestant on Channel 4’s SAS: Who Dares Wins.
The incident will raise further questions about how appropriate it is to recruit women alongside men as frontline soldiers. Midwife Louise Gabbitas, 29, is one of the first women to appear on the C4 show, which puts contestants through SAS-style training. She deliberately chooses to fight 27-year-old student Nathaniel rather than take on another woman in the ring.
While the pair, wearing protective headgear, square up to each other, the chief instructor on the show, former Special Forces sniper Ant Middleton, tells them: ‘The best form of defence is attack. Is that understood?’
Nathaniel does not hold back, smashing Miss Gabbitas in the face several times before landing hard blows to her head until she falls down.
The episode leaves her dishevelled, bruised and teary, prompting Middleton to tell the recruits: ‘The enemy doesn’t care what gender, race or religion you are.’
Later, he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘The fact is, in general, men are stronger than females. It doesn’t mean better, we are just better at certain jobs and women are better at jobs than certain males. If national security and real lives are put at risk, then that is dangerous.’
It is Nathaniel who appears to be the more emotional after the boxing contest. ‘I was trying to not go too aggressive,’ he tells Miss Gabbitas. ‘It was the hardest thing to do. It’s a head f***.’ Miss Gabbitas reassures him, saying: ‘I’m not crying because you hurt me. I’m fine.’
This is the first time women have been allowed to compete in the show’s four-year history, a change prompted by the Ministry of Defence decision to allow women to become frontline troops and even join the SAS.
The recruits were treated equally throughout their time at a tough two-week military training camp based in the Andes, Chile, during winter.
‘We slept together, ate together, went to the toilet together, carried the same weight and did exactly the same tasks as one another,’ Miss Gabbitas said. She admits she found the process ‘absolutely brutal’.
Middleton has been outspoken about women joining the SAS in the past. He previously told the MoS: ‘It’s not about the [SAS] course itself, but the brutal, violent and aggressive realities of war.
‘I believe that level – it’s beyond the frontline, it’s humans hunting humans – is not a place for women.’
Imi era dor sa te citesc . Dar tare mi-e ca imediat vor aparea niste baieti mari iubitori de logomahie si de egalitate intre orice si vor veni cu alte articole demonstrative sau nu,dar vor veni cu ele sa combata o asemenea erezie si o hulire a noii religii pe numele ei ,,corectitudine politica,, Si apropo de asta,am lesinat de ras la definitia data de Cambridge dictionary :Some people think that "fireman" is a sexist term, and prefer the politically correct term "firefighter". LINK Mi-a amintit de ,,motostivuitor,, care si ala e un termen sexist...
Offtopic - Un răspuns la domnu' de mai sus, cu politically correctness-ul care îi bate și îi înjură pe ei, deținătorii la Adevăru' - Un articol din noiembrie 2016 în The Guardian: Moira Weigel - Political Correctness - How The Right Invented A Phantom Enemy. De fapt,nu despre "dreapta" este vorba, ci despre ceeace se cheamă, în epoca post-adevărului, "Alt-Right", "Alternative Right". LINK
Forums
