Crosswords2 mins ago
Is Britain's Government Destroying Its Own Military To Appease Its Enemies?
Elements of the British establishment in Whitehall think their own soldiers are "bad," and terrorists are "freedom fighters," according to General Lord Richards, former Chief of the Defence Staff and the UK's most senior military officer.
Over several years these ministers, permanent secretaries, generals, admirals and air marshals have been swept aside in pursuit of a corrosive drive to discredit our troops. It is the first time in history that any government has turned on its own armed forces in such a way.
The overwhelming majority are motivated by a combination of greed and anti-British vindictiveness by the Iraqi and Afghan accusers and by their British lawyers, using taxpayers' money.
This can only further undermine our national will to engage in future conflict in defence of our people or to support our allies, including the US, thus weakening the Western world. That of course, is the main objective of the politically driven lawyers and others involved in hounding our troops.
We can be sure that their motive for favouring enemy "freedom fighters" over our own forces is a desire to appease radical Muslims both at home and abroad, which infects so much of Europe's political elite and mainstream media.
It is vital for our country and the world that the Prime Minister ends this cowardly and dangerous cult of appeasement stands up for our Western Judeo-Christian values above all others and defends our soldiers with as much courage as they show in defending us. To achieve this, it is vital that the conspirators General Richards has named are identified and purged from power and influence.
Richard Kemp
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I, too, cannot find the BBC interview, which is both frustrating and strange (unless the whole thing has been made up by Kemp, of course). Latest interview I could find was on Hard Talk about Syria.
That aside, the main issue according to Kemp (same article as the OP, but further down) was this:
"Lord Richards was talking about the ongoing legal campaign against British troops who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan ...
1,492 cases of alleged abuse in Iraq are under investigation, and over 600 in Afghanistan. Most of these cases involve allegations against multiple servicemen, so the number of troops under scrutiny can be counted in the thousands. We are not talking here about minor misdemeanours but the most serious forms of abuse including rape, torture and, in Iraq alone, 235 accusations of unlawful killing.
Some soldiers have been under constant investigation for more than 10 years. Some have been acquitted during preliminary investigations or at court martial, only to be dragged back to face repeated legal inquiries and judicial hearings. In some cases, there have been as many as five investigations into a single incident."
Shouldn't the first response to the serious charge (in effect Whitehall's complicity in malicious prosecution) made by a former Chief of the Defence Staff be to ask: Did the interview take place? Has Kemp reported it accurately? Are Lord Richards' "facts" correct?
The contention of the OP has been sneeringly dismissed by several without any attempt to examine the facts.
That aside, the main issue according to Kemp (same article as the OP, but further down) was this:
"Lord Richards was talking about the ongoing legal campaign against British troops who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan ...
1,492 cases of alleged abuse in Iraq are under investigation, and over 600 in Afghanistan. Most of these cases involve allegations against multiple servicemen, so the number of troops under scrutiny can be counted in the thousands. We are not talking here about minor misdemeanours but the most serious forms of abuse including rape, torture and, in Iraq alone, 235 accusations of unlawful killing.
Some soldiers have been under constant investigation for more than 10 years. Some have been acquitted during preliminary investigations or at court martial, only to be dragged back to face repeated legal inquiries and judicial hearings. In some cases, there have been as many as five investigations into a single incident."
Shouldn't the first response to the serious charge (in effect Whitehall's complicity in malicious prosecution) made by a former Chief of the Defence Staff be to ask: Did the interview take place? Has Kemp reported it accurately? Are Lord Richards' "facts" correct?
The contention of the OP has been sneeringly dismissed by several without any attempt to examine the facts.
-- answer removed --
Sir David Richards comments were taken from this programme shown on the Victoria Derbyshire Show.
http://
The whole programme is worth a watch, but his comments are after 9 minutes. In context, his comments make sense. Although I am still not sure his perception, that Whitehall thinks soldiers are inherently bad, is accurate.
http://
The whole programme is worth a watch, but his comments are after 9 minutes. In context, his comments make sense. Although I am still not sure his perception, that Whitehall thinks soldiers are inherently bad, is accurate.
Gromit, I don’t know how you found that – I couldn’t – but well done.
//The authorities have been so nervous of the potential consequences of investigations [against soldiers] being carried out and allegations being proven that they have veered too much on behalf of those who are making the allegations and not supporting the soldier.//
These men know what they’re talking about and they’re absolutely right – but this attitude isn’t restricted to the military. There is a penchant across the board within our society to appease rather than to stand up for what is fundamentally right for us, and that is not only weak and cowardly, it is self-destructive.
//The authorities have been so nervous of the potential consequences of investigations [against soldiers] being carried out and allegations being proven that they have veered too much on behalf of those who are making the allegations and not supporting the soldier.//
These men know what they’re talking about and they’re absolutely right – but this attitude isn’t restricted to the military. There is a penchant across the board within our society to appease rather than to stand up for what is fundamentally right for us, and that is not only weak and cowardly, it is self-destructive.
Yes, thanks, Gromit.
Quite off topic - viewing the program led me to a further interview by Ms Derbyshire. This one with Clive James who's sadly suffering from leukaemia. In my twenties used to get the Observer just to read his television criticism. (Weren't those were the days of the "small, but perfectly formed Donald Trelford"? Oops - almost said Trump.)
Quite off topic - viewing the program led me to a further interview by Ms Derbyshire. This one with Clive James who's sadly suffering from leukaemia. In my twenties used to get the Observer just to read his television criticism. (Weren't those were the days of the "small, but perfectly formed Donald Trelford"? Oops - almost said Trump.)
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.