Mmarsh, comparing this incident to the French suicide missions and the British capture by Iranian soldiers isn't quite the same thing for the following reasons.

1) The Turks weren't on some ill conceived suicide mission brought about by laziness and incompetence at the higher level. I don't blame the French soldiers for mutiny, not after the kind of crap they had to put up with. The details are sketchy, but the Turkish troops seem to have been going on about their routine when this happened.

2) When the British Marines (or was it Navy?) personnel were captured, they were met dead in the water against a vastly superior foe in which they had no permission to fire on. The Turkish military should always be vigilant about threats posed by the Kurds.

If there's one thing I do agree about is that there seems to be a lack of detail. For example, I wonder if the Turkish troops were actually carrying ammunition at all.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

If you wear the uniform, it better be for you.

Well said Teach

You little scumbag... you and I are going out the back for a little "chat"
hehehe

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

You little scumbag... you and I are going out the back for a little "chat"
hehehe

excuse me sir, but isn't paddling forbidden in schools these days? wouldn't you rather take my sweet innocent underage self out for a few

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Mmarsh, comparing this incident to the French suicide missions and the British capture by Iranian soldiers isn't quite the same thing for the following reasons.

1) The Turks weren't on some ill conceived suicide mission brought about by laziness and incompetence at the higher level. I don't blame the French soldiers for mutiny, not after the kind of crap they had to put up with. The details are sketchy, but the Turkish troops seem to have been going on about their routine when this happened.

2) When the British Marines (or was it Navy?) personnel were captured, they were met dead in the water against a vastly superior foe in which they had no permission to fire on. The Turkish military should always be vigilant about threats posed by the Kurds.

If there's one thing I do agree about is that there seems to be a lack of detail. For example, I wonder if the Turkish troops were actually carrying ammunition at all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

1. We do know that they were a small group, that they were in a secluded area (high in the mountains) and that they far from help. That's they only part we do know. If there were 20-30 PKK (who most certainly armed for bear) then I think their actions are understandable.

2. They were royal marines. And they wernt dead in the water they were on a military Zodiac on a servey mission, the Iranians were in gunboats were they were stopped at gunpoint. I don't see any difference between this and what happened to the Turks.

Yeah, the question is, what terrain were they on, how many exactly were they, how many bad guys were there, did they have ammunition and did they have a working radio in contact with their main unit?

Originally Posted by mmarsh

---------------------------------------------------------------------

1. We do know that they were a small group, that they were in a secluded area (high in the mountains) and that they far from help. That's they only part we do know. If there were 20-30 PKK (who most certainly armed for bear) then I think their actions are understandable.

2. They were royal marines. And they wernt dead in the water they were on a military Zodiac on a servey mission, the Iranians were in gunboats were they were stopped at gunpoint. I don't see any difference between this and what happened to the Turks.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

---------------------------------------------------------------------

2. They were royal marines.

MM - are you sure that they were Royal Marines - off the top of my head I am trying to recall? If they were, then I would be very interested to know precisely what their real political instructions were. They certainly took a great deal of abuse here for their actions, but you know what damn liars we are!

The party had a couple of Royal Marine in it, the rest were made up from sailors from the the ship, and that is how that silly tart was captured

Thanks Le, that's like i remember it.

I was invited to an Army presentation evening last week, and the Brigadier i/c , having plenty of Iraq and Afghanistan combatants around him, was asked if he would meet his recruitment targets this year,as they had been raised. He said that among the Brits he had found that a great many young men still had the urge, the drive, to get some action and serve their country . So yes, he would meet his targets well. I must say the morale was high, and he also answered that they would win the battle for hearts and minds in Afg. as long as they got the necessary support. He also thanked out town for turning out on the streets some time ago to welcome The Rifles back; he said they were really down when they arrived because of the political attitudes, but when the cheering met them they grew a few inches and have remained up ever since. We were all up inarms re. The Ghurkas.

From what I hear, when you're in combat, you're not there for your country. You're there for the sailors, Marines, soldiers - whoever - on your left and right. You don't fight and die for your country, you fight and die for them. PO2 Monsoor wasn't thinking of his country when he jumped on a grenade, he was thinking of his buddies. Same with Cpl. Dunham, and a whole host of other Medal of Honor winners. It's not about your country when you're getting shot at. Let the generals think about that.