UK military's secret plan to train Syrian rebels to topple Bashar

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
UK military's secret plan to train Syrian rebels to topple Bashar al-Assad

General Sir David Richards' bid for 100,000-strong force had support from US heavyweights but was shelved as too risky



The British military drew up a secret plan two years ago to train a 100,000-strong Syrian rebel force aimed at toppling president Bashar al-Assad.

The plan was the brainchild of General Sir David Richards, then chief of staff. The military regularly draws up contingency plans for all kinds of scenarios, but this one was considered more seriously than most and widely circulated – including to Downing Street and senior US military staff. It was shelved as being too risky.

The Ministry of Defence declined to confirm or comment. But according to the BBC, Richards proposed an international coalition to vet and train an army of moderate Syrian rebels at bases in Turkey and Jordan for about a year.

It would then march on Damascus, with air cover from western forces and Gulf allies. The plan was drawn up at a time of strong support in the UK and US governments for intervention in the Syrian civil war by arming and training the rebels. Among prominent supporters in the US were then secretary of state Hillary Clinton, then defence secretary Leon Panetta and David Petraeus, who served as the head of the CIA as well as the head of US central command and the coalition forces in Afghanistan.

But Barack Obama, who had devoted much of his presidency to getting US troops out of Iraq, opposed the prospect of becoming caught up in another Middle East conflict – particularly arming rebels from hardline militant groups hostile to the US.

Any chance of British involvement was finally scuppered when MPs voted against action in August last year.

Lord Richards' proposal was aimed at ending a civil war estimated to have cost more than 100,000 lives.

Two years on, Obama – worried about increased instability in the region – has had a rethink as hardline militant group the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is taking over swaths of Iraq and parts of Syria. He has asked Congress to approve $500m (£291m) in funding to train Syrian rebels.

Monzer Akbik, from opposition group the Syrian National Coalition, told the BBC: "A huge opportunity was missed and that opportunity could have saved tens of thousands of lives actually and could have saved also a huge humanitarian catastrophe.

"The international community did not intervene to prevent those crimes and at the same time it did not actively support the moderate elements on the ground."

UK military's secret plan to train Syrian rebels to topple Bashar al-Assad | World news | theguardian.com
I am not surprised.

For all one knows, the plan, in some sort of a dilution is what is in action in Syria.

I have always wondered that when there was two global superpowers, the world was at peace, even if a shaky peace.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, an interesting article caught my mind - The Wolfowitz Doctrine.

The document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status.

Given the events following the Collapse of the USSR and the world going up in localised 'flames', I am convinced that the Wolfowitz Doctrine is said to have been junked and a new one put in place, is actually in action - the original one.

Events all over the world proves so because with the collapse of the USSR (not that anyone shed tears), the world has turned topsy turvy with strife all over. It could not have been without external assistance. Given the geostrategic and geopolitical compulsions of the West to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status, all this turmoil in the world falls in place.

There could be reasons for some section of these countries where there is this turmoil to desire a 'regime change':, but it could not be so widespread since men are generally too disconcerted and are only interested in their daily existence. Very few care about the political chemistry that rules.

However, this section of population of the countries which are in turmoil which desires regime change, can only do so with external assistance, since the established government that have been toppled or in the process, have strong military to back up their govts. Therefore, no group can kick up a storm in the teacup.

And these so called assisted 'regimes changes' serves the policy that aims to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status.

Food for thought.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Defence officials prepare to fight the poor, activists and minorities (and commies)

The self-defeating logic of militarised social science targets anti-capitalist 'extremists' in the new 'age of uncertainty'


Yesterday I wrote about the Pentagon's dubious role in funding social science research that could be applied to active military operations in the context of the increasing propensity for global systemic crises to challenge US interests. Several key research projects highlighted the extent to which US security agencies, assisted by civilian academic institutions, view entire populations – particularly those involved in political activism – as potential terror suspects who, therefore, deserve to be carefully monitored and studied.

It is not just the US where the effort to subordinate social science to the demands of state military ideology continues apace. In Britain, a key area where this is occurring is in the Research Councils UK (RCUK) Global Uncertainties programme, recently rebranded as the 'Partnership for Conflict, Crime and Security Research.'

The programme is led by the Economics and Social Research Council (ESRC), and supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). But it is not an independent exercise.

Rather it is explicitly designed to "help governments, businesses and societies to better predict, detect, prevent and mitigate threats to society" in the context of" environmental change and diminishing natural recourses, food security, demographic change, poverty, inequality and poor governance, new and old conflicts, natural disasters and pandemics, expansion of digital technologies, economic downturn and other important global developments."

The RCUK partnership is thus deeply politicised. It "works closely" with a wide range of UK government departments, including the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Department of Communities and Local Government, Foreign Office, Ministry of Defence (MoD), Home Office, and the US Homeland Security Department.

Its strategic advisory board is chaired by Sir Richard Mottram, a longtime Whitehall civil servant for defence whose last post was as Permanent Secretary for Intelligence, Security and Resilience in the Cabinet Office – Prime Minister Tony Blair's top national security adviser – who also recently praised the coalition government's Strategic Defence and Security Review as containing "much of value."

He is also currently chair of the board of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), an MoD executive agency which performs science and technology work for defence purposes. Among Dstl's activities are high-level operational analysis to support the Ministry of Defence along with providing support to counter-terrorism and frontline operations – to name just a few.

The government's defence review which happened to meet with Sir Mottram's approval, titled 'Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty', highlights the future risks of heightening "competition for resources, growing populations and climate change." Priorities include "securing trade and energy supply routes"; working "overseas, using diplomatic, military, intelligence and economic activity to mitigate disruption to the transit of energy supplies"; as well as tackling risks "associated with other resources, such as key mineral components important for particular industries (e.g. rare earth metals which are crucial for some low carbon technologies), water and food."

Domestically, the review calls for "enhanced central government and Armed Forces planning, coordination and capabilities" under the extraordinary totalitarian powers of the Civil Contingencies Act, to respond to domestic emergencies in the form of natural hazards, environmental disasters or other forms of strategic shocks.

Other members of the RCUK Global Uncertainty programme's strategic advisory board represent a veritable 'who's who' of the British defence policy establishment. They include Prof Michael Clarke, head of the Royal United Services Institute but also a 2009 appointee to the Prime Minister's National Security Forum, a 2010 appointee to the Chief of Defence Staff's Strategic Advisory Group, and a defence advisor to the UK Trade and Industry; former head of defence and security at the Government Office for Science and now deputy chief scientific advisor at the Department of Transport; Rob MacFarlane, assistant director for resilience in the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, National Security Secretariat, Cabinet Office; Prof Martyn Thomas, a member of the MoD's Defence Scientific Advisory Council (DSAC), and a non-executive director of the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA); Dr Seamus Tucker, a former career Foreign Office official who worked in Afghanistan and Pakistan supporting counter-terrorism efforts, and currently deputy director for science and technology in the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism (OSCT) of the Home Office where his remit includes engaging with the UK security industry.

These individuals are responsible for the Global Uncertainty programme's "strategic direction" and "core themes", co-ordination of its activities with the work of "research funders and potential users" – primarily "government" and "businesses" – and effective "exploitation of the research," including "how best to ensure inputs from 'connected' RCUK and stakeholder investments."

Some of the research generated through this programme is undoubtedly useful, and occasionally innocuous - but ultimately its fundamental direction is constrained by the naval-gazing limitations of the establishment ideology pertaining to UK security agencies and officials.

It is no surprise then that UK social scientists are feeling the pressure. Over the years, dozens of my senior academic colleagues at various international relations departments of top universities up and down the country have told me they are increasingly concerned and demoralised by the escalating encroachment of defence-related funding on the research environment. International relations departments are being transformed, they say, into conveyor belts for establishment-friendly 'security studies', with research designed for practical policy and operational utility being favoured the most for funding. Meanwhile, the scope for the sort of independent critical and sceptical inquiry that should be the hallmark of sound scholarship is being undermined.

These concerns are borne out by the facts. In 2007 the Guardian reported on an in-depth report exposing how 26 British universities had received contracts for research from the defence industry to the tune of nearly a billion pounds. "Corporate interests tend to favour secrecy, a monopoly of intellectual property rights, and the silencing of dissidence," concluded the joint study by Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) and Fellowship for Reconciliation (FoR). This sort of funding has continued, and includes extensive UK government military funding – and the numbers are probably much higher as several institutions refuse to provide information.

The ideological impetus behind this sort of research can be gleaned from a UK Ministy of Defence (MoD) report on global strategic trends published in 2010, updated in 2013, which contributed to the UK government's Defence Green Paper. This is the first part of the process leading to the 2010 Strategic Defence Review, which met with the approval of Global Uncertainty chair Sir Mottram.

The key theme of the report by the MoD's Development, Concept and Doctrines Centre (DCDC) is that the world "is likely to face the reality of a changing climate, rapid population growth, resource scarcity, resurgence in ideology, and shifts in global power from West to East" out to 2040. Dependence on complex global systems, chiefly "global supply chains for resources" is likely to "increase the risk of systemic failures."

Although globalisation is "likely to be an engine for accelerating economic growth" the report said, it could also be "a source of risk, as local markets become increasingly exposed to destabilising fluctuations in the wider global economy. Economically, globalisation is likely to generate winners and losers, especially in the labour market."

Globalisation will likely benefit "the globalised core, which comprises the most interdependent and economically successful regions of the world." However, the report alludes to the danger of civil unrest in the core: "Instability within the globalised core is likely to adversely affect the national interests of major powers." Furthermore it is the job of the globalised core's security agencies to protect its dominant access to resources and technologies of production:

"Resources, trade, capital and intellectual property are likely to flow through this core, and rely on complex networks of physical and virtual infrastructure" including "air and sea lanes and their associated ports, rail and road infrastructure, communications links, gas, oil, electricity pipelines and cables, food distribution centres, banking and finance hubs, universities and science parks, manufacturing and energy production facilities." Therefore: "Ensuring the security of this globally distributed infrastructure is likely to be of multilateral interest."

Given that a tightly-knit network of just 147 of the world's most powerful companies own and control the bulk of the world's productive assets, this is virtually a defence manifesto for the 1% (or, perhaps more accurately, the 0.1%).

Despite the world producing sufficient energy, food and freshwater resources, the MoD report continues, "distribution and access to resources will be uneven" – concentrated in the richer core at the expense of the poorer periphery – "and local and regional shortages will occur, increasing the likelihood of societal instability and of disagreement between states, and providing the triggers that may ignite conflict."

Most disturbing is the report's implicit securitisation of foreign Muslim-majority populations in the periphery, and diaspora communities in the "core." Rising populations "especially in the Middle East, Central Asia and sub-Saharan Africa" may "fuel instability" by generating "youth bulges" that could "provide a reservoir of disaffected young people. In particular, young males with limited economic prospects may be susceptible to radicalisation."

The report emphasises the vulnerability of cities, stating that "large urban areas" especially those with poor governance could become "centres of criminality and disaffection," and as such, "focal points for extremist ideologies." This could culminate in "urban, rather than rural, insurgency", and at worst the failure of local governments. Here, the MoD refers directly to the rationale for the sort of social science research currently being funded in earnest by its American counterpart:

"A greater understanding of the dynamics of urban societies will be required if instability within these regions is to be identified and managed. New ideologies will emerge, driven by religion, ethnic differences, nationalism, inequality or a combination of these factors. Ideological conflicts are likely to occur and extremist groups may use violence to achieve political objectives."

Note here that the sweeping reference to "extremist groups" indicates that violence is not integral to the assumption of their extremist character; what, then, makes them "extremist"? The MoD report is conveniently vague on this point, but it seems the context suggests any group working for major political and economic change that challenges the dominance of the "globalised core" - very similar themes to research funded by the DoD:

"There may be a resurgence of anti-capitalist ideologies, such as Marxism. Diaspora communities are likely to increase in size and influence and many will bring economic benefits to their host states. However, those that fail to integrate are likely to remain reservoirs for resentment. Some of these groups are likely to become involved in ideologically driven conflicts, and may act as proxies for other states. Similarly, host states may be drawn into regions and conflicts that reflect the interests of their diaspora communities."

So ideologies which oppose global capitalism are "extreme" or "radical", and assumed to be inherently vulnerable to political violence. Meanwhile, "diaspora communities" in the west - a polite euphemism for black and ethnic minority groups - will be particularly vulnerable to becoming "reservoirs for resentment" as capitalist globalisation continues to deepen inequalities between "winners" and "losers", and thus to operating as fifth column "proxies" for foreign interests.

Though the language here is carefully articulated, its racist, imperialist pretensions are difficult to overlook: in coming decades, Muslims, immigrants, foreigners and activists are all potential terrorists, and must therefore be watched. The analysis is subliminally premised on the axiomatic drive to protect the multilateral supremacy of the globalised core at the expense of the periphery, rather than recognising the causal role of that very structure in accelerating security risks.

The underlying assumption is that the present system is the most advanced ever possible for humanity, and thus must be protected in its current structure at all cost.

The upshot is that Anglo-American security agencies, with the best of intentions, believe that civilian populations across both the core and periphery will become vortexes for 'extremism' as the normal operation of global capitalism concentrates the benefits of growth in a powerful minority dominating the planet's productive resources, and thus ramps up resentment against the system – with the core locus of such dangerous resentment orienting around activists, civil society groups, and minority communities.

As the instability of global capitalism accelerates, the 'war on terror' is increasingly transforming into a war on dissent – a war on everyone who either opposes global capitalism in its current form, or is marginalised by it. In a world where 85 people are collectively worth $1 trillion - equal to the entire wealth of the bottom half of the world's population – it's fair to say that makes most of us.
Defence officials prepare to fight the poor, activists and minorities (and commies) | Nafeez Ahmed | Environment | theguardian.com
Gives the insight to the happenings.
 

Jagdish58

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
796
Likes
644
And one day Syrian Rebels will whuup the hell out of UK & USA like the Taliban did & there will NATO operation in name of WAR ON TERROR

What a mockery you people of made of Middle east & Central Asia :Facepalm:
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
I have said this earlier that the UK is a pest of a country, always being a prick, and trying to control far away countries by poking its nose everywhere, and supporting terrorists. It is still trying to come to terms with the fact that it is, today, a tiny country of zero consequence without being a lackey of the US.
 

apple

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
612
Likes
174
I am not surprised.

For all one knows, the plan, in some sort of a dilution is what is in action in Syria.

I have always wondered that when there was two global superpowers, the world was at peace, even if a shaky peace.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, an interesting article caught my mind - The Wolfowitz Doctrine.

The document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status.

Given the events following the Collapse of the USSR and the world going up in localised 'flames', I am convinced that the Wolfowitz Doctrine is said to have been junked and a new one put in place, is actually in action - the original one.

Events all over the world proves so because with the collapse of the USSR (not that anyone shed tears), the world has turned topsy turvy with strife all over. It could not have been without external assistance. Given the geostrategic and geopolitical compulsions of the West to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status, all this turmoil in the world falls in place.

There could be reasons for some section of these countries where there is this turmoil to desire a 'regime change':, but it could not be so widespread since men are generally too disconcerted and are only interested in their daily existence. Very few care about the political chemistry that rules.

However, this section of population of the countries which are in turmoil which desires regime change, can only do so with external assistance, since the established government that have been toppled or in the process, have strong military to back up their govts. Therefore, no group can kick up a storm in the teacup.

And these so called assisted 'regimes changes' serves the policy that aims to suppress potential threats from other nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status.

Food for thought.
Think you're being quite revisionist with your claim that the world was at a shaky peace during the Cold War. I know, from a (non European) western perspective, that incidences of "warlike" conditions have decreased world wide since the end of the Cold War.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine, and any potential successor, is interesting. However, your post ignores the fact that (if it isn't already) China is next potential world superpower and Iraq/ Afghanistan/ Somalia/ whoever were never going to globally important countries. The only part of the world that's gone, to use your term, topsy turvy recently has been the Islamic world, which wasn't too stable to begin with.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Think you're being quite revisionist with your claim that the world was at a shaky peace during the Cold War. I know, from a (non European) western perspective, that incidences of "warlike" conditions have decreased world wide since the end of the Cold War.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine, and any potential successor, is interesting. However, your post ignores the fact that (if it isn't already) China is next potential world superpower and Iraq/ Afghanistan/ Somalia/ whoever were never going to globally important countries. The only part of the world that's gone, to use your term, topsy turvy recently has been the Islamic world, which wasn't too stable to begin with.
Shaky peace equates with armed peace.

If incidence of 'warlike conditions' have decreased, then what are we seeing of late around the world? It maybe true that there has been a decrease in the number of direct involvement of the Superpower military or their proxies.

Also one has to see the span in years of the Cold War and the incidence vis a vis the span of Post Cold War and incidence. There is a greater number of direct confrontation between the powers or their proxies now.

What of China being a potential superpower? She is not in the recokoning since she is not intervening, except around her neighbourhood and the SCS.

The Islamic world was stable to the extent that it could be and its problems were with Israel and no more. Ever since, the so called 'regime change' done in Iraq, the area from Pakistan to the West has gone up in flames. And guess who is responsible?

Western propaganda and disinformation had gripped the world as 'true', but the world has changed since Nations are less inclined to be arm-twisted with aid etc, and so western opinion is no longer taken as the Gospel.

The mea culpa of Britain indicates the skulduggery done by the West and when found out, they claim righteousness of their action with high moral sounding thoughts and words when it is pure codswallop and deceitful.

What business has the West to intervene in Nations, even if there is strife brewing?

Is the West the UN or is it the policeman of the world?

One would not mind mediators, but one surely minds when one equips one side to rebel against another in a country.

The idiocy of superimposing Western thoughts and values on another nation, without knowing a sausage of the local culture and tradition, only adds to turmoil and strife, more so when dollars pour in to enforce western values.

Look what has happened to the Middle East ever since the superimposing of western values in Iraq. There is an Islamic Army wreaking vengeance. mayhem and chaos that has once again brought in western intervention from the air, adding to more distress and fear of the people and destabilising their lives out there.

And to image that a secular country like Turkey is moving steadfastly to rigid Islam!

The West only knows how to cut its nose to spite its face!

And you don't even have the courage to right what you think is wrong, and as soon as you are given a hiding by a rag tag band, you bolt, leaving a total mess and covering your retreat, nay rout, with high moral principle laced with total deceit, as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You don't even have the nerve, mettle or courage to give a good fight and stand up to what you believe in!

Cheers and tally ho and pip pip and all that!
 
Last edited:

apple

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
612
Likes
174
Shaky peace equates with armed peace.

If incidence of 'warlike conditions' have decreased, then what are we seeing of late around the world? It maybe true that there has been a decrease in the number of direct involvement of the Superpower military or their proxies.

Also one has to see the span in years of the Cold War and the incidence vis a vis the span of Post Cold War and incidence. There is a greater number of direct confrontation between the powers or their proxies now.
No there is not and ISIS, or whatever they are calling themselves now, don't compare well with the Viet Cong/ Shining Path/ Zanu PF/ etc... During the Cold War there was at least one, and quite often several, ongoing confrontations, on every continent (bar Europe, North America and Australia), for virtually the whole period.

I had other points to raise and responses to the points you raised. But, while I have enjoyed your posts in the past, I was disappointed by the end of your message to the extent that I can't be bothered continuing this correspondance


And you don't even have the courage to right what you think is wrong, and as soon as you are given a hiding by a rag tag band, you bolt, leaving a total mess and covering your retreat, nay rout, with high moral principle laced with total deceit, as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You don't even have the nerve, mettle or courage to give a good fight and stand up to what you believe in!

Cheers and tally ho and pip pip and all that!
I wouldn't have expect such as offensive opinion from Hello10, let only you...

Although you did use some words Hello10 would have struggled to spell ;-)
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
No there is not and ISIS, or whatever they are calling themselves now, don't compare well with the Viet Cong/ Shining Path/ Zanu PF/ etc... During the Cold War there was at least one, and quite often several, ongoing confrontations, on every continent (bar Europe, North America and Australia), for virtually the whole period.
You delude yourself. You are fear crazed by even the memories of the movements that walloped and clobbered that West that haunt your living life, but you find other such movements as a mere blister!

Don't be superficial. Each problem/ conflict during the Cold war was West inspired or a legacy bequeathed by the West.

I had other points to raise and responses to the points you raised. But, while I have enjoyed your posts in the past, I was disappointed by the end of your message to the extent that I can't be bothered continuing this correspondance
No issue if you cannot be bothered for after all, you have nothing to say or add or refute. I agree you cannot answer in a void of facts and reality.




I wouldn't have expect such as offensive opinion from Hello10, let only you...

Although you did use some words Hello10 would have struggled to spell ;-)
Not to worry.

The cyberspace does surprise.

I write what I write because I do have a certificate, or call it a degree, if you wish from Cambridge.
 

apple

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
612
Likes
174
You delude yourself. You are fear crazed by even the memories of the movements that walloped and clobbered that West that haunt your living life, but you find other such movements as a mere blister!

Don't be superficial. Each problem/ conflict during the Cold war was West inspired or a legacy bequeathed by the West.

No issue if you cannot be bothered for after all, you have nothing to say or add or refute. I agree you cannot answer in a void of facts and reality.

I write what I write because I do have a certificate, or call it a degree, if you wish from Cambridge.
I don't fear ISIS or any of the losers of the Cold War.

I should only speak from an Australian perspective, as I'm not that familiar with other nation's histories, but everything's been (largely) great since Gorbachev and his droogies got sensible. Last people that walloped and clobbered the Australian army were the Japanese in 1942. Although, the Viet Cong got inside the wire twice (FSB Coral???) and the Chinese were hard to stop at Kapyong.

In comparison, which shouldn't be made as they are different situations, militarily the War on Terror has been far "easier" than the Cold War. There were twice as many Australian civilians murdered by Islamic terrorists in Bali than there are names on the Australian Roll of Honour from Afghanistan and Iraq.

I thought you were a mature gentleman. You should be able to view recents events, and the reporting of them, with some perspective...

And every problem/ conflict during the Cold War was the West's fault, was it? Not quite sure why I ever considered you neutral.

P.S. I've taught preparation courses for the Cambridge TOEFL test, so I'm not going to be calling it a degree.

And you don't even have the courage to right what you think is wrong, and as soon as you are given a hiding by a rag tag band, you bolt, leaving a total mess and covering your retreat, nay rout, with high moral principle laced with total deceit, as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You don't even have the nerve, mettle or courage to give a good fight and stand up to what you believe in!

Cheers and tally ho and pip pip and all that!
Quoting you again... shameless :-/
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
I don't fear ISIS or any of the losers of the Cold War.

I should only speak from an Australian perspective, as I'm not that familiar with other nation's histories, but everything's been (largely) great since Gorbachev and his droogies got sensible. Last people that walloped and clobbered the Australian army were the Japanese in 1942. Although, the Viet Cong got inside the wire twice (FSB Coral???) and the Chinese were hard to stop at Kapyong.

In comparison, which shouldn't be made as they are different situations, militarily the War on Terror has been far "easier" than the Cold War. There were twice as many Australian civilians murdered by Islamic terrorists in Bali than there are names on the Australian Roll of Honour from Afghanistan and Iraq.

I thought you were a mature gentleman. You should be able to view recents events, and the reporting of them, with some perspective...

And every problem/ conflict during the Cold War was the West's fault, was it? Not quite sure why I ever considered you neutral.

P.S. I've taught preparation courses for the Cambridge TOEFL test, so I'm not going to be calling it a degree.

Quoting you again... shameless :-/
How can you fear anything when you are nowhere in the ambit of what is called the world, and instead so isolated that one wonders if you actually exist. Your value to world events is as good as the UK, both hanging on to the apron string of the US to be in the penumbra of their might.

Of course Australian Army 'walloped' the Japanese and we must not forget the magnificent work done against the original Australians (the Aborigines) at Slaughterhouse Creek Massacre, 1838, could we? Great stuff, what?

Gallipoli Campaign was a landmark, but was it a wallop? If so, who was walloped?

Vietnam is better forgotten since again a ragtag rice eating natives sent all packing.

In the War on Terror, what has been the Australian military's contribution and combat record?

Shameless or otherwise, throwing in the towel to a ragtag 'towelhead' (as you all call them) rabble and hightailing it home is hardly a sign of stoic or courage, or is it by some standards?

No, every conflict in the world is not the West's fault. However, a large number of them are and in places where there is no reason to mind their (the locals') business, especially in the Islamic world. Their psyche, tradition, culture and customs are totally different from all and one cannot impose Western values and ideals on them. When anyone tries, the areas of confrontation enlarges the squabble they have amongst themselves.
 
Last edited:

Ajesh

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
325
Likes
159
UK still pursuing its Divide and Rule Policy. Such an Annoying little Nation. Still hasnt learned anything from History.
 

apple

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
612
Likes
174
How can you fear anything when you are nowhere in the ambit of what is called the world, and instead so isolated that one wonders if you actually exist. Your value to world events is as good as the UK, both hanging on to the apron string of the US to be in the penumbra of their might.

Of course Australian Army 'walloped' the Japanese and we must not forget the magnificent work done against the original Australians (the Aborigines) at Slaughterhouse Creek Massacre, 1838, could we? Great stuff, what?

Gallipoli Campaign was a landmark, but was it a wallop? If so, who was walloped?

Vietnam is better forgotten since again a ragtag rice eating natives sent all packing.

In the War on Terror, what has been the Australian military's contribution and combat record?

Shameless or otherwise, throwing in the towel to a ragtag 'towelhead' (as you all call them) rabble and hightailing it home is hardly a sign of stoic or courage, or is it by some standards?

No, every conflict in the world is not the West's fault. However, a large number of them are and in places where there is no reason to mind their (the locals') business, especially in the Islamic world. Their psyche, tradition, culture and customs are totally different from all and one cannot impose Western values and ideals on them. When anyone tries, the areas of confrontation enlarges the squabble they have amongst themselves.
Australian's aren't Canadians. We don't try to explain ourselves and desire other nations, and nationals, to understand us.

Nor are we Indians and we don't fly off the handle at the smallest (perceived or actually) insult to national pride.

UK still pursuing its Divide and Rule Policy. Such an Annoying little Nation. Still hasnt learned anything from History.
It was a plan drawn up by the military.

Well, apparently it was... I haven't bothered to read the story.

Coming up with plans is what staff officers do. Am sure, down the back of some filling cabinet somewhere in Whitehall, the British army has plans for how to put down an armed insurrection in Cornwall, as well as, invasion plans for Norway.

Intervention in Syria by the UK was, compared to the invasion of Norway, reasonably likely and the armed force wouldn't be doing their job if they hadn't been making preperations.
 
Last edited:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
@apple

Have I posted this

Originally Posted by Ray View Post
Various slurs against Australia and, in particularly, the Australian Army and its history.
?

Could you quote the Post number?

Australian's aren't Canadians. We don't try to explain ourselves and desire other nations, and nationals, to understand us.

Nor are we Indians and we don't fly off the handle at the smallest (perceived or actually) insult to national pride.
One has to understand nations to understand one's position/ standing in the world.

Equally, one must try to let other nations understand them so that there is harmony and peace.

We have some national pride and is that a disqualification?

May I draw your attention to this poem?

The Soldier

IF I should die, think only this of me;
That there's some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever England. There shall be
In that rich earth a richer dust concealed;
A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware, 5
Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam,
A body of England's breathing English air,
Washed by the rivers, blest by suns of home.

And think, this heart, all evil shed away,
A pulse in the eternal mind, no less 10
Gives somewhere back the thoughts by England given;
Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day;
And laughter, learnt of friends; and gentleness,
In hearts at peace, under an English heaven.

- Rupert Brooke
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
@apple

Have I posted this

Originally Posted by Ray View Post
Various slurs against Australia and, in particularly, the Australian Army and its history.
?

Could you quote the Post number?
@Ray Sir,

May I ask what transpired here?

Did @apple take your post, fill in his own content, and try to attribute it onto you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
@Ray Sir,

May I ask what transpired here?

Did @apple take your post, fill in his own content, and try to attribute it onto you?
I think he must have clubbed all the issues and then edited and overwrote with his paraphrase -Various slurs against Australia and, in particularly, the Australian Army and its history.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
I think he must have clubbed all the issues and then edited and overwrote with his paraphrase -Various slurs against Australia and, in particularly, the Australian Army and its history.
He has this habit of making things up and attributing on others. I wouldn't trust him for a second.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
He has this habit of making things up and attributing on others. I wouldn't trust him for a second.
I am an external optimist.

I let all this pass since it take all sorts to make this world.

Acceptance and tolerance and forgiveness, those are life-altering lessons.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top