Andy Mcnab
Forum
Pages: 1 ... 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 ... 297
my refs SBS/SAS being sister/brother units had no bearing on level of parity [equality] it was a statement that in marine units where Royal Navy or Merchant Navy ships are viewed as fem, natural then for the land based units to call us sister unit. It's sort of inhouse friendly military speak nothing to do with "rivaly" factors SBS vs SAS as fighting units, something that is not really taken to publlic domain by members of either unit. The exception when brought up on boards such as Andy McNab where civilians interpret to personal slant of facts they know little of, usually surmised from media sources [Internet] which are often misjudged or grossly exagerated by journalists. It is clear to military personnel the info you collect between you all here are items collected by amateur military wannabes and media wannabes, very often with copout clauses " I am not and never have served in the military" that way they hope they cannot be held responsible if a name crops up that might involve a lawsuit!!!!
Happen the info I gave Lynn regarding hierarchy of UK military senior personnel i.e, Royal Navy Chiefs of staff, Air Force Chiefs of staff, Army Chiefs of staff [that order] has not yet filtered through flork, and that knowledge does sometimes stick in the guts of all Army units.
further ref Air Force have squadrons of aircraft. You don't get squadrons of tanks, the vehicles in question driven by cavalry units, some when on ceremonial duties ride horses wihile wearing white/red/blue plumes know as Household Cavalry units, then there are the mounted Fusiliers/gunners with guncarriages.
Does that help in the field of military education?
SBS/SAS are viewed as bully boys playground scumbags by cavalry click-click heel-booted units, yet several of those end up in the SAS every year and not always as Ruperts, but that is why you get the likes of Andy McNab and others who kick out at the ones seconded over their heads to serve in SAS units, because the sort of smarty pants who are seconded often come from privileged backgrounds. They are usually fluent in several languages, but do suffer the same indignities of selection, the difference being they are destined for special/special ops. The average SAS trooper wouldn't have a hope in hell of carrying off successfully i.e, gigs inclined to upper rank intelligence work: wrong accent, lack of languages, lack of social grace for circles in which they would stand out like beacons to the practised eye of counter intelligence.
It doesn't take a genious to work out the requirements for bodyguarding/security officer to that of moving in circles of intellect that would leave the average SAS man hopelessly out of his depth where bluffing wouldn't pass kosher.
How about we talk parity on that aspect of intel and who of the SAS/SBS authors you think would pass selection for the SSOPs?
>>By readit (Saturday, 31 Jan 2004 11:27)
Simple facts to note parity for selection to intel sources, at one time very selective but still defections to Soviet Bloc occurred.
Facts to note, recent ten year period of giving leave to "lesser ranks" within intel organisations and subsequent bad intel GW2/HUTTON Enquiry/Embarrassed BBC/Government, US President rapidly heaving blame at CIA door etcetera.
Average SAS man goes to pub swills beer whatever in spare time, likes fast cars [driving] motor bikes [riding] equally fast, places bets on horses at nearby turf accountants etcetera.
Average Cavalry officer seconded SAS drinks in private/miltary clubs, drives fast cars ride motor bikes, plays polo, attends specific horse races when possible, has heavy social diary of events to attend.
>>By readit (Saturday, 31 Jan 2004 11:45)
This will clarify why SBS Naval personnel are viewed as Senior to Army/SAS contingents.
http://www.specialoperations.com/
Foreign/United_Kingdom/
Royal_Marines/SBS.htm
>>By readit (Saturday, 31 Jan 2004 17:52)
< the info you collect between you all here are items collected by amateur military wannabes and media wannabes
But that's all we can collect!! And of course we're interested in more information - or at least confirming or denial of what was written - hard thing is to 'recognize' what's to believe and what not.
It does explain our jumping on insiders - not always appreciated and not always carried out in the right way :o)
< the info I gave Lynn
much appreciated, but I do separate on- and offboard. And I would not dare write it here, too afraid of making a mistake, you can do / are doing that much better.
Don't have more time today - www.specialoperations.com - interesting site, so was Josie's info
>>By Lynn (Saturday, 31 Jan 2004 20:11)
Hello, Readit...
Re: SOC site
Thanks for the direct link to the RM/SBS info. Oddly enough, the SOC site was posted here last April but the link goes straight to the SAS information (www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/United_Kingdom/
SAS), so I spent a very educational afternoon today exploring the rest of the SOC site.
Re: << It is clear to military personnel the info you collect... >>
Lynn speaks for me too on this: What other options do we civvies have? I mean, I suppose we could enlist but... uhm... well, that's really not very likely (altho I'm sure recruitment officers enjoy a good laugh from time to time). So about the best we can hope for is that some of those individuals with true knowledge and experience will share whatever they can with us, and, in so doing, will help deepen our appreciation for them and all those like them... :o)
Re: "Average SAS man" vs "Average Cavalry officer seconded SAS"
Uhm... to each his own, maybe?
Re: << AIB, Did you mean to say Infiltration? >>
Dunno. I thought I did. I mean, the site where I found that info said "infiltration" which I assumed as meaning -- to infiltrate somewhere via submarine. Similar selection info was on the SOC link for the SBS, but there it actually said "Submarine insertion" (don't think I like that as much tho -- it sounds too painful!).
>>By am-i-binned (Sunday, 1 Feb 2004 05:30)
I was speaking to a guy in our local pub last night who claims to be ex-army (I think he is) and we got on to the subject of the recently screened documentary on British TV about the miner's strikes. He told me he had been deployed, in police uniform, along with several other squadrons to "keep the peace", but also that the SAS were involved in intel work during the strikes & had a large presence. Does anyone know if this is true?
>>By TabariGoddess (Sunday, 1 Feb 2004 08:48)
TG, it's fair to say there are many occasions where Special Forces are deployed undercover, and unless a renegade MoD/Gov/serving man [ big-mouth who signed and agreed to the Officials Secrets Act] shoots off during/after the event You the Public wouldn't know, and in military/war terms there are things/issues best kept out of the public domain.
During WW2 Churchill passed recommendations for actions that led to deaths similar to BTZ. This practise is not uncommon during times of war/peace time, each subsequent government in waiting [opposition] utilising said info as political weapons, the news media the prime source of this kind of anti propaganda. If you think the present news couldn't get any worse, well, suggest you hold your breath in anticipation of far greater revelations to come. Freedom of Speech is what it's all about, but the charge of Freedom of Speech can be used for political gain much the same way as spin-doctoring, and the intelligence services, same way peoples political leanings can change and more so if charged by money and personal ego.
The problem with public knowledge afforded by newspapers/news media in general, sometimes they get it right but present it all wrong [egotistically] sometimes they only get half the picture and embellish the story to sell not only their news medium but to boost their own image, which in turn combined with egomania they end up standing in a slurry pit of their own making! That's not to say governments don't spin out of control, too. The Thatcher era was spin crazy and Jo Public didn't notice the Thatcher gov were selling off nationalised industry [belonging to the people] to the people as shareholder stakes [those daft enough to purchase something that already belonged to them as a whole, the consequences we lost assets that can never be regained, the transport sector a prime example of cockup. Lousy trains, bus services, the transport networks crumbling beneath private shareholder greed etcetera.
Sounds off topic but in reality it is more on topic than you'll ever know, and worse the establishment [the ones who really run the country] don't live and work in the corridors of
Westminster.
The likes of Andy McNab [BTZ] were not on account of MoD tactic as much
as the hierarchy pulling the MoD strings, pulling gov strings, pulling the country to the benefit of the hierarchy, and the present accusations of spin-doctoring levied against gov, the accusations of the BBC feeling pressured by the gov, is really quite laughable, meantime Jo Public is so caught up in the media hype even the news media itself are missing the underlying plot and can't see they are being manipulated too!!
Our police state began in the Thatcher era and escalated to the extent that we have more CCTV watchers than any other country on the globe, we are the most watched people on earth. Is that true? Maybe, maybe not, we can see CCTV cams, what we can't see are the sat com intel, the kind of spyware that can watch your every movement by Remote operators, that is if you are worth watching, and the US is obsessed with sat spyware: they're not the only ones!
McNab constantly talks about CCTV in his books, and maybe subconsiously he despises them same as most people, for if ever infringement of civil rights occurred it was the day CCTV cams hit the streets and sat cams overhead. Deployment of both hasn't prevented localised crime but it has hit at big-time crime. Thing is in some districts it's become a challenge to young criminals to outwit the CCTV cams, crime figures manipulated same as always, and on the up despite all the ballyhoo posted by Chief Constables. So maybe a few more SAS/SBS patrols on the mean streets of UK wouldn't go amiss!!!
As Buddy said: "F*cking criminals scared witless might not be so keen to poke their noses out on the streets, after a confrontation with an Andy McNab."
>>By readit (Sunday, 1 Feb 2004 12:16)
I'm putting this in as independent from above as it mighttruly be considrred off topic.
The downfall of Thatcher came from the Establishment [unseens], and similar is in process at the moment re Blair, only this time the BBC opened its gob too wide, backed the wrong horse and copped a load of backend dollop. Which ever way you look at the present situation BBC Vs Gov UK, the fact remains info became public domain from source who signed OSA, during WW1/WW2 he [unnamed here for legal reasons] would have been tried for treason!! No doubts about that, and with the civil rights movement has come the opportunity for those who signed themselves to serving Queen & "Country" to no longer abide by what OSA means!!!
>>By readit (Sunday, 1 Feb 2004 12:33)
Serious questions for you all in UK, US if you want to answer for your own opinion of US Presidential stance on WMD/GW2?
Does breach of Official Secrets Acts endanger a country politically/morally/financially worldwide?
Are there aspects of war/peace that we shouldn't be party to?
>>By readit (Sunday, 1 Feb 2004 12:41)
Readit: << Does breach of Official Secrets Acts endanger a country politically/morally/financially worldwide? Are there aspects of war/peace that we shouldn't be party to? >>
For what appears to be a simple question, Readit, you already know there is no simple answer. For myself alone, I would answer a qualified yes; there are aspects of war/peace to which “WE” should not be privy. Qualified because (1) maybe I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night if I knew too much of the big picture (I get aggravated enough as it is), and (2) while such information may not be dangerous in my hands, for certain it would dangerous in other hands (wrong information in wrong hands put to wrongful use). What criteria or method would determine who is safe and who is not? So for the greater good, it is best that certain “rights” be relinquished.
This probably seems a bit of a contradiction, considering how I try to learn everything about anything that interests me, but consider a specific criticism that has been levelled at F Troop on numerous occasions. We post all the little tidbits of information we find; we share that info in a public forum. We've been told, even by you, that we have far more than we realize. Yet in innocence we ask: what do we know? in what way is this dangerous? isn’t this just public information? We never truly get direct answers, but what if the accusation is true nonetheless? What if our naïveté is actually fodder for someone with malicious intent? I hope not, but what do I know for sure?
Add to that, no matter how much I research and learn, I will never be so knowledgeable as to grasp the full scope of anything. You, yourself, make that very clear to me. I know I will never truly see thru military eyes, I will never have been there/done that, so I will never have the intimate knowledge to truly understand that world, that life, and the demands it makes on body and soul. My personal feelings are extremely supportive, sympathetic, and appreciative, but not everyone shares my perspective. Maybe information that I would relish could be misused or dangerous in someone else’s hands. I willingly forego that knowledge to protect what I so respect, admire and cherish.
>>By am-i-binned (Sunday, 1 Feb 2004 14:53)
Good answer, and in your saying you're not sure if what you have in your hand is lethal can be said of many investigative journalists who pontificate and push-on-regardless not thinking beyond their being "FIRST" statute with info: rightly or wrongly, often with hindsight possibly as near as damn it correct but not in the greater interests of home/foreign affairs as is happening right now UK.
There's an old saying among Whitehall Mandarins: "Give a journalist three Smarties and "in print" he'll swear you gave him a Mars bar!
http://www.statewatch.org/observatory2.htm
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/
issues/privacy-surveillance.shtml
>>By readit (Sunday, 1 Feb 2004 15:13)
Re: For what appears to be a simple question
I have one more question about all this information that is true or not true and little do we know: How do we keep a healthy balance between common sense sceptisism and paranoia?
Re: McNab constantly talks about CCTV in his books, and maybe subconsiously he despises them
Would it be right to assume that his books still need MOD approval before publishing? If so, could he openly despise CCTV?
>>By Lynn (Sunday, 1 Feb 2004 18:08)
Readit >>>US if you want to answer for your own opinion of US Presidential stance on WMD/GW2?
Does breach of Official Secrets Acts endanger a country politically/morally/financially worldwide?
Are there aspects of war/peace that we shouldn't be party to?<<<
Interesting question.
About WMD- I feel there were (and probably still are) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Saddam's regime built/bought them and used them. I have a hard time believing they used them all up and we certainly gave them lots of time (and warning) to hide them away or send them to neighbors. Inspectors and others have found plenty of parts and pieces plus the hardware to manufacture a variety of items that fill the bill. Seems like a game of semantics for those who say it isn't enough or that what they've found doesn't amount to a "smoking gun".
As far as a breach of OSA, any damage would depend on the information and the timing of the breach. Most classified info is very time sensitive and classification is very often downgraded over relatively short periods of time.
For myself, I take most of the news with a VERY LARGE grain of salt. IMO most reporters and media news people are purposeful liars at worst and rumor-mongers at best and what they are mostly interested in is self-aggrandizement on a personal level and hawking products on a corporate level.
>>By Dare (Monday, 2 Feb 2004 05:57)
Fox News is Rupert Murdoch's arch-conservative republican pro-Bush network.
Whenever I watch that "show", I can't help but shake my head in disbelief and say to myself:
The United States of America.... peculiar nation that one.
(Acutually, what I say to myself is not so moderated, but I won't post the un-edited as to not insult you fellow U.S. F-troopers). ;)
- orty
>>By ortlieb (Monday, 2 Feb 2004 11:33)
Btw... typos are due to sleep deprivation..... (a-i-b : let's throw a slumber-party!!)
>>By ortlieb (Monday, 2 Feb 2004 11:36)
Hehe.... my old recce-unit is on SpecialOperations.com
http://www.specialoperations.com
/Foreign/Norway/Oppklesk.htm
Too bad the pictures are crappy and there's no info. Oh well... nice to be thought of anyway. ;)
>>By ortlieb (Monday, 2 Feb 2004 11:45)
And here's some info on Norway's "top-of-the-ladder" special forces: FSK
http://www.terrorism101.org/counter/Norway.html
>>By ortlieb (Monday, 2 Feb 2004 11:47)
Ohman, Ortlieb...
You're right; they are crappy pictures -- I didn't recognize you at all! Fanx for the terrorism101 site. (Uh-oh! more reading!) And, of course, after FSK, I had to check out the SAS. Interesting take on the SAS/SBS relationship... ;o)
>>By am-i-binned (Monday, 2 Feb 2004 13:21)
Had nothing better to do this morn so had a look at the 101 site. Not sure if you Americans/Euros know about the TV show Paul Merton in Room 101. It's a show where rubbish is brought to Room 101 by a celebrity guest and either binned or not, as may be the case of voted in or out by the audience and whatever decision can be overulled by Paul.
That said, the SBS are equally terrorist trained and although it said the SAS get the creme de la creme of jobs that's not always true, it's more a case of the jobs they do get leaked fairly quickly to the press. We were in NI throughtout the bad days, and were deployed other hot spots worldwide before the SAS got their bergens kittied up. SBS are not always at base UK, that's the difference, SBS have floating naval bases worldwide and naval air transport at elbow if necessary. Technically the SBS was always more mobile, and less reliant on the Air Force.
>>By readit (Monday, 2 Feb 2004 14:18)
Room 101, well since you mentioned it readit.
My three things to go in room 101 are: my job, dance versions of previously good songs and people who wear those hideous combats with the long tassles.
There is no over-ruling any of the above!!
>>By Bethan (Monday, 2 Feb 2004 15:29)
No more messing around, going dead serious here, and I do envisage flak for this post because I know others have been drummed off the board for saying similar, unfortunately truth hurts.
The ones [SBS] writing books are the ones with grievances against superiors same as SAS writers who aspired to plum jobs but didn't have the wherewithall beyond the ability to to physically hit and run and kill/detonate to order. Too many SAS/SBS writers write about 14th Intel/secret service and few ever served any one of them on permanent/part-time paid service. A few selected or recommended and deployed for a few months trial!!!!!! Few in truth make it through to the intelligence networks, those that do won't write about it because if the do they are hounded to the ends of the earth. A few who spoke up in recent years found that "uncomfortable daily sense of being watched" to be absolutely correct!! The laugh of it all, one or two asked to watch each other and some still watching!!
If Andy McNab and Chris Ryan think they're flying free, think again!
>>By readit (Tuesday, 3 Feb 2004 10:23)
We've talked much about (failing) equipment and the problems the Army/SAS have to get enough and good equipment. How's that for the SBS/Marines? Is their equipment sufficient?
>>By Lynn (Tuesday, 3 Feb 2004 10:24)
Readit
I take your point, but can that also be extended to the journalists turn army thriller writers whose subject matter isn't that dissimilar? Are they given the same courtesy or does the military/intel/whoever think the same as you do of us: that they're amateurs with no real clue, so no threat.
Actually I can understand ex-SAS/SBS writers being watched, most of their fiction is from real events anyway. Dear god I'm like a broken record........
>>By Bethan (Tuesday, 3 Feb 2004 11:01)
Cross-posted Readit
Flying free McNab-Ryan..
So what is your take on anonymous McNab and visible Ryan?
>>By Lynn (Tuesday, 3 Feb 2004 12:06)
has anyone read the eleventh commandment by Jeffery Archer, the story is very similar to McNabs work and full of brilliant twists I highly recommend it
What ever happend to Tom Pun I was looking forward to reading his interview
>>By scuderia (Tuesday, 3 Feb 2004 16:40)
The question Lynn, "So what is your take on anonymous McNab and visible Ryan."
Anonymity won't save him from death threats that's a sure fact not if a killer exists that wants to get him. He made himself a high-profile figure and numerous times he could have been taken out on trips to the BBC/interviews etcetera GW2 and long before.
As for take on McNab anonymous, well he's not a secret entity to anyone who served with him and quite a lot of those still alive are old sops in their local pub, info easily extracted!!
Ryan in the public eye, nothing to hide basically!
ref Scuderia's comment of Archer's writing very similar to McNab's says a heck of a lot about the character of McNab/Archer, the latter a confirmed compulsive liar, vain, egotistical, and a multi millionaire. Both quite sad individuals, both for some reason wanting to kick back at the one thing that gave them infamous notoriety.
Other than that I don't have a take on McNab or Ryan. They were both good troopers just a shame they cxouldn't keep their mouths shut like real men, and swallow the bullet not bite on it!!!
>>By readit (Wednesday, 4 Feb 2004 11:28)
"swallow the bullet not bite on it"
Makes a change from spitting......
>>By Bethan (Wednesday, 4 Feb 2004 17:22)
> "swallow the bullet not bite on it"
> Makes a change from spitting......
And other activities, but I won't get further into that one!! LOL !!!
>>By ortlieb (Wednesday, 4 Feb 2004 17:33)
To paraphrase Austin Powers: Well, which is it? Spitz or Swallows?"
>>By Majorette (Wednesday, 4 Feb 2004 17:42)
i hope you all realise that andy does not write any of these books, he had a ghost writer for his first books, and now his name is just put on these works of fiction. A number of different guys write the books, they only sell cos his name is pn them. And he is paid a huge amount for this.
All the SAS guys have ghost writers, Nish, Collins etc
>>By a rose by any other (Wednesday, 4 Feb 2004 20:29)
Pages: 1 ... 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 ... 297
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW BOOKS