Friday, October 25, 2013

British Government's War On The Military - Heroes Prosecuted, Enemies Rewarded

It should be obvious to anyone who pays attention that any issue or institution will be used by the cynical and unscrupulous holders of power to gain electoral advantage over their political enemies. This covers everything from sport to the NHS and the BBC; it includes the police 'service', the Church of England,  schools,  social services,  charities, the art world, etc.

Nothing escapes the attention of politicians if there is the possibility of gaining political advantage or, in the case of the communist/socialist/progressive community, advancing their own ideological agenda.

One institution that should be free from political games is the country's military.  The men and women of the armed forces are willing to sacrifice their lives on behalf of the country and its people and therefore they and their families deserve the best support it is possible to give.

A previous post discussed how the hatred of the military by the 'progressive' community has its basis in their perverted left wing ideology but it would appear that politicians of all colours are now guilty of disrespecting the military and using it for political ends or to secure political advantage.

Shocking as it may be,  news that the British government is prosecuting three soldiers for dispatching a Taliban terrorist to hell will come as no surprise to anyone who watches the antics of the elite as it sacrifices its own soldiers to appease its enemies.

Politicians sent the military to fight a war against the Taliban on their home turf;  these are a ruthless enemy that civilization passed by in the course of history; an enemy that worships death like civilized people worship life, an enemy that spares no quarter nor expects none in return, an enemy that will never, ever give up.

Incredulously,  the government expects to defeat this formidable enemy using a stiff upper lip and the Marquis of Queensbury rules; they must think it's like a game of cricket or a few friendly sets at the Wimbledon Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club.

They claim that by topping an enemy combatant when he's vulnerable or is unable to fight back is lowering ourselves to their level and illegal;  no it isn't, killing the enemy is an unfortunate requirement necessary to win a war.

It is being claimed that the soldiers broke the rules of war as laid down by the Geneva Convention but it must be acknowledged that in any conflict or contest that is governed by rules,  both sides must adhere to those same rules.  It would be a lop sided boxing match if only one fighter obeyed the rules and the result wouldn't be in much doubt.

The three school kids that make up the current leadership of the British people don't have the first idea about conditions in a war zone or what its like to be shot at.  They won't have a clue about the fear or the adrenalin rush that results from the heat of battle, they won't know the feelings of utter despair as one sees a comrade lose his or her life and their remains repatriated to abuse from the enemy within.

Cameron, Clegg and Red Ed Miliband only care about politicking and securing the approval of the international 'progressive' community abroad and the Muslim community at home.

If the prosecution of the three soldiers from the Afghan war isn't an indication of the animosity against the military and the politicking of the political class, then the proposed prosecution of the soldiers of the Parachute Regiment for the so called Bloody Sunday Massacre should prove the point beyond all doubt.

This unfortunate incident happened forty years ago in the heat of battle;  a two hundred million pound (200,000,000),  20 year long investigation didn't prove any intent to murder but the government continues to hassle the soldiers concerned and is now threatening to prosecute.  This is a disgraceful act on behalf of the government and the British people should demand that they desist.

The Irish Republican Army (IRA) were, like the Taliban, a ruthless enemy who had a total disregard for innocent human life.  They murdered anyone, man or woman, young or old, and in the case of the Omagh outrage, the yet unborn.  These are the terrorists that brought the Improvised Explosive Devise (IED) onto the streets of Great Britain with such terrifying effects.

While the government is threatening prosecution against the men they sent to fight the IRA, the IRA terrorists and its leaders have been given amnesty;  some have even reached the upper echelons of the government itself and are funded by the people against whom they waged a bloody war.

If any action demonstrates the utter stupidity and naivety of the school kids that run the British government, then it's the proposal by the European Court of Human Rights to extend their attitudes to cover the battlefield.

This is worth repeating, they want to extend human rights legislation, together with health and safety rules,  to cover the battlefield.  Who are these people and what in Heavens name are they thinking? The biggest question of all is, why is the British government even considering this nonsense?

The biggest indication of the governments attitude to the military (and to its own public servants) is the cuts to military funding.  Putting modern technology to one side, all branches of the British military have been depleted to such an extent that they are smaller than the German military after they were disarmed by the Treaty of Versailles.

It is now accepted that it is unlikely that the British military could mount an operation to liberate the Falkland Islands should they be invaded in the near future.

On the part of British Prime Minister, David Cameron, and his Europhile government of Quislings, his evisceration of the military is in preparation for its absorption into the European Defence Force. (the EDF).

Cameron is a born and bred bureaucrat and he knows how to look after his fellow bureaucrats no matter how ridiculous and embarrassing it is.  If the Royal Navy has spent billions on an aircraft carrier that has no aircraft and has reduced its fleet to only 19 ships, it is not scrimping on officers.

The Royal Navy, once the scourge of the enemy, protector of the seven seas, the fleet that permitted unhindered global commerce and the guarantors of freedom around the world, still employs 40 Admirals and 260 Captains for its 19 ships.  The world can sleep safely in their beds knowing that the Admiralty is fully manned with Chiefs even though Indians are in short supply.

As always it is worth pointing out that our cousins across the Atlantic are being similarly embarrassed;  they are watching helplessly as their once mighty military machine is not only being eviscerated but it is being used as a huge social engineering project by their 'progressive' Commander in Chief.

Permitting open homosexuality in the ranks and feminizing the image of the military is progressing apace.  The once feared Marine Corps is about to be made a laughing stock with the release of its softer, gender neutral hat. The new hat makes a Marine look more like a member of the French gendarmerie or a railway porter at Grand Central Station.

As one commentator so rightly pointed out, they haven't got enough money for bullets but the Defence Department can find millions for a new girlie hat.

The Taliban and the enemies of civilisation around the world will be emboldened and they will lose any residual fear they may have had by watching the antics of the British and American political class......if they can stop themselves laughing that is.

Update: The prosecution reminds of the movie Breaker Morant.

Update II: I have been informed by a fellow Dissenter and renown wit that the defenders of Rourke's Drift are to be posthumously stripped of their Victoria Crosses for using rifles when the Zulu's only had spears. This is a clear case of unfairness on the battlefield and racism.

Update III:  Not to be outdone, a Scottish wit has informed me that the Scottish army of William Wallace are to be dishonourably discharged posthumously, for lifting up their kilts and showing their a*ses to the English enemy at the battle of Bannockburn. This was considered as awfully rude and using weapons of mass distraction.

Unless an Irishman has a military anecdote, there will be no further updates to this post.


  1. After reading your article Daniel, I thought about how the infant-brained trio would handle asymmetric warfare. Can you imagine Cameron, commanding a company of Marines from 42 Commando? Or Clegg, working a hedgerow loaded down with 100lb of equipment in 40 degrees of heat? Or Miliband, rushing the Taliban with a GPMG and fifty rounds of link coiled round his arm?

    Nor can I.

    'Cameron, Clegg and Red Ed Miliband only care about politicking and securing the approval of the international 'progressive' community abroad and the Muslim community at home.'

    One sentence which describes what they are, what they do and why they do it. Good stuff mate.


    1. Thanks Steve. I can't imagine these three chinless wonders doing anything other than sipping Champagne and kissing the backsides of their future employers at the EU or the UN.

  2. if the British public hadn't been lobotomised, and then bribed with their own money (welfare)
    the liblabcon party would be lucky to scrape 10% in the next election.

    1. I love the way you express yourself, it makes my day.

      The way I say it sounds a bit pompous by comparison. Voting patterns indicate the British electorate's inability to understand what the political class is doing to them, if they did then 10% would be on the high side.

  3. Daniel. The Bootneck SNCO whose interpretation from Shakespeare's Hamlet of "Shuffle off this mortal coil, you c***," will now find his words immortalised, as they echo around every WO & Sgt's Mess within the Corps, as well as each respective RM Commando Unit.

    Sadly those same words, along with the rest of the SNCO's commentary referring to the Geneva convention will be his undoing. Rank stupidity for all concerned using head-cam's, which will be the petard that takes them all out.

    (Had the digital age kicked off in the mid 70's, there would have been a requirement to place a tender within the commercial sector; to deal with the 'industrial-level' of Courts Martial resulting from Head-Cam footage).

    Head-cams and digital recording has no place on any modern battlefield or in any hostile environment, it is a double edged weapon, which all too often has created legal carnage against the user, and provided a bleating opportunity to left wing flip flop wearing liberals.

    In a hostile situation we all act differently, there are many of us who have taken a split second decision based on hard earned experience. In my own humble opinion the SNCO took one that was not necessary, especially with the amount of digital recording systems on the ground as well as in the air.

    Lions, sick and tired of being led by donkeys...

    "What dreames may come, When we haue shufflel'd off this mortall coile, Must giue vs pawse."

    Yours Aye, Ex Bootneck.

    1. Thank you ex Bootneck Sir, for sharing your opinion and giving us the benefit of your experience.

      Shakespeare is one histories greatest Englishmen who must go down as the most quoted man ever. In this case, as you so rightly say, the quote with its addition will be the undoing of these men.

      It is my belief that learning when modern technology is a blessing or a curse is essential to the continuance of life unhindered.

      The use of head-cams in this instance is akin to the employees who have made some remark on Facebook or Twitter which has reached the ear of their boss and they end up fired.

      In this case, with the eye's of "left wing flip flop wearing liberals" looking for Brownie points, the repercussions will be much more serious and far reaching.

      Military people in the field should be aware that the modern politician will think nothing of using them to burnish their 'progressive' credentials and should consequently be wary of modern technology.



  4. I few years ago I heard a story about this very practice.
    A team of Royal Engineers had to go into a hostile part of Afghanistan to build a foward operating base,while they were doing so a force of Infantry would go forward to keep the enemy at bay,even so the Engineers would still be in rifle range.
    A senior officer informed the REs that in order to comply with health&safety rules they would all be required to wear hi-vis vests while the work was being carried out. send a force to protect your engineers while at the same time making those same engineers highly visible to the enemy...?
    Whether they did wear hi-vis in the end I dont know,but that a military command would even countenance such an idea is not a good sign.

  5. The question you raise Andy, is what kind of politicians do we have in charge that thinks this stuff up? To anyone with an iota of common sense, it's not only bizarre, it's totally insane.

    I believe this is the result of what I call political inbreeding. These people have never had contact with the real world, only each other and subsequently believe that the planet can be run using a series of directives from them that everyone must follow.

    You final point sums it up, the fact that 'a military command would even countenance such an idea is not a good sign'. It indicates to me that the military commanders come from the same flawed gene pool as the politicians.

  6. Daniel, I have just taken your name, and that of your Blog in vain; sort of...

    I have posted an article on the Mellow Jihadi Blog regarding the RM Sgt (Marine A), who today was found guilty of murder.

    I have mentioned 'Cambrian Dissenters' in a glowing manner as part of my post.

    Yours Aye.

    1. That's OK, I consider it an honour to appear on such a noble and informed Blog as yours.

      I am so appalled by the treatment of these Marines that I have been motivated to pen another article in their defence.

    2. Very Many Thanks, I look forward to your next post on the same topic.

      The RM SNCO (Marine A) will soon be reverted to the rank of Marine, after which he will be issued with an immediate termination date, as a civvie prison will be his ultimate destination.

      The post cold-war generation of the Corps will be split about his action on the plains of Afghanistan, as well as his sentence.

      They being the same 'old & bold' generation on the shores of the Falklands, who ordered us as young Marines to leave our bayonets dry of oil, as it is against the Geneva Convention to use an oily bayonet on the enemy; lest blood poisoning ensues? Gentlemen Commandos of the highest standard, who were equally as brutal in close combat, as was proven, but rules were rules...

      The brutal changes that Iraq and Afghanistan brought about, promptly returned the battle standard back to the WWII era, through further conflicts, and up through to Korea. The generation of Royal Marines Commando's that operated in theatre from way back then will today side with 'Marine A'.

      I personally see no difference to what Marine A did, to that of an Apache Helicopter gunner that observes his first strike against insurgents, to then notice body movement amongst his delivered carnage allowing him to empty a long heavy second burst; as a precautionary lethal copper coated lead injection. The same is then broadcast daily on the www for every ones enjoyment.

      Sadly rank stupidity by 'Marine A' was his undoing as all was recorded; hung by his own petard (rules are rules, and there to be observed by all; especially those sat back in the UK ensconced in their warriors arm chair) !

      Hey-Ho... Yours Aye.