Andy Mcnab
Forum
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 ... 297
It's probably due to the fact that I read TOTGA before BTZ that I formed the opinion that Ryan gave the more accurate account of their ill-fated op the Gulf. Now, I still hold TOTGA as the more accurate account (in terms of bare facts, dates, distances etc), but that's more or less due to the content of other books accounting for the Regiment's role in the '91 Gulf war. But I agree it's probably not totally off target to claim that Ryan appears to be somewhat arrogant and set in his ways. One example is the fact that Ryan more or less assumed that McNab used the TACBE distress-call to the US fighter-pilot as an excuse for stopping (hence, being the cause of the patrol splitting up), since Ryan claims he couldn't hear the jet-roar above them at all.
In any case - there are a LOT of discrepancies between TOTGA and BTZ, and I recommend reading The Real Bravo Two Zero by Michael Asher and Eye of the Storm by Peter Ratcliffe to get some alternative background info. I'm up for a more detailed discussion if anyone's interested.
One last thing regarding the non-fictional novels: I must admit I still haven't read any of McNab's fictional Nick Stone-novels (if you'd resist the urge to behead me, that'd be fine ;)
I have however (surprise, surprise) read several of Ryan's. Those of you who have read novels written by both: what are the main differences?
>>By ortlieb (Thursday, 3 Jul 2003 12:49)
Oh Pamela you are very good!
You made your statement and at the same time obviated any possible chance of response that would not prove your point.
For all the others I ever insulted in any way or took my post as bitchy or offending I’d like to say that it was not my intention and I shall wear punishment hat for an indefinite duration.
PS what would really hurt me is to hear I’m boring. So if anyone wants to.. here’s your chance.
>>By Lynn (Thursday, 3 Jul 2003 13:50)
Pam
Nice, non-confrontational post. However, if it’s confrontation you want, I’m your woman. I don’t need to prove anything to anyone, I’m fairly new here, don’t belong to any behind-the-scenes conspiracy and chose to give a little background history first rather than jumping in with both feet. This is not a cosy site, it doesn’t deal with cosy subjects and I would imagine that there are a few, probably badly-damaged, people out there, whose posts appear to me to be extremely restrained when faced with ‘girlie’ outbursts. Deal with what this list is, and not what you think it should be. I’m here to discuss AM’s writing, not what’s right or wrong with posters.
Other than that, Hi. Be interesting having you on board.
Ortlieb
You’re a breath of fresh air.
Lynn
Boring……….?
As for ‘girlie’ – I’m definitely up for a bit of ‘confrontation’ on that! Anytime.
>>By Mhorag (Thursday, 3 Jul 2003 15:34)
Hi again, Ortlieb...
Oooh, now we can add Norway! (Geez, it'd be neat to have that "Dean Francis" map feature for this board!)
If you were to read through all the pages of postings, Ortlieb, you'd find a lot of diversified conversations, not exclusively limited to AM/NS. Although this is an Andy McNab messageboard, anything even remotely related to AM (e.g., SAS/military) is considered a viable subject, so tangents are not at all uncommon or unwelcome here. And we've had some pretty far-ranging tangents! So for you to discuss anything about CR, Asher, Ratcliffe, Spence, and others, or even your own "military adventures" in the Norwegian Army, is well within topic, no problems. And as to not having read any of AM's fiction, absolutely no beheadings! If beheaded, how would you ever be able to read and find out why we enjoy AM/NS so much! (vbg! vbw!) ;o)
>>By am-i-binned (Thursday, 3 Jul 2003 15:43)
A well meant Thank You Mhorag, did I ever tell you I 'have' something with Scotland? Maybe behind the scenes someday - you'll find that's what we talk about behind the curtains - our lives, real girlie stuff.
Ortlieb, definitely plan to read The Real B20, but not because I think I will find truth in there. We have discussed this before (and I'm only saying that because I might use other man's words) and we think M. Asher also has his own agenda for writing his book - other than finding the truth.. But I haven't read the book like I said, maybe you could fill me in - and others who haven't read it - we sure like to discuss what
discrepancies you found. Ratcliffe is last on my list.
Take care,
>>By Lynn (Thursday, 3 Jul 2003 16:59)
Just a question, does AM still write for some newspapers?
>>By Boris (Thursday, 3 Jul 2003 20:21)
As far as I know he does, Boris. He had several articles related to GW2, some are hyperlinked or quoted on earlier pages (try pgs 8 and 11 but there may be other pgs, too).
>>By am-i-binned (Thursday, 3 Jul 2003 22:06)
hello dont have must to say today except i started BOF and it is good so far!
Why me? Me
Now that's a confusing sentance
>>By christina (Thursday, 3 Jul 2003 22:20)
I've discovered Mc Nab via his first autobiographic books. I confess I was much more interested in his very first one. No matter if what he said was right or embellished as some Uk experts tend to prove it now. He was on the field, and as any hero-soldier, there is always a part of Truth and a part of mystery. My grandfather was one of the WW2 original SAS and I know what these events represent to one another in combat.
All McNab's Nick Stone Books are WONDERFUL!!!!!!!!!
I was afraid of getting bored by a lack of newelty in the stories but it gets rewewed constantly and I really appreciate these novels. I'm looking forward to being reading his next book. I just hope Stone will finally have a "real and new" life in the USA (like his author) and that his activities will change but will keep connected to a Firm.
Thanks for all that Mr McNab.
sir_tonin@yahoo.fr
>>By Phil (Thursday, 3 Jul 2003 22:27)
Hello, to all the regulars, and to the numerous newbies. Just a quick one. B20 - A question of Betrayal is on, UK history Channel in ten days(sorry AIB)
See you soon..
>>By Tanned Scouse (Friday, 4 Jul 2003 00:58)
Ooooh, Scouse, why do you delight so in torturing me?!?
Don't happen to have a dvd recorder, do you? vbw! This the Panorama program, right? The one where they interview Mal and Mike? Damn! :o(
And "tanned"? You been vacationing or has someone recently given you a hiding? ;o)
(Of course, I may just have to give you a good hiding for torturing me this way... that is unless you come up with a copy of this program for me! VBG! VBW!)
>>By am-i-binned (Friday, 4 Jul 2003 01:53)
Yep,AIB, the very same programme. If you really want a copy, the very nice people at panorama will sell you, your very own copy for £25.00. All the info is on their website, which you can find through the BBC. I even thought about doing it myself, but realised i was skint.
Byee
>>By Scouse (Friday, 4 Jul 2003 02:15)
Welcome, Phil....
Am I guessing correctly, you're posting from France? (from your yahoo address) If so, we could officially add France to our international community. (We do have a poster from France but currently residing in Germany.) May I ask how you found this messageboard?
I'm intrigued by your comment about hoping Nick Stone will finally have a "real and new" life in the USA. I'm in the US, and now that you've got me thinking about it, I'm not necessarily sure where I'd like to see Nick and Kelly end up, but then again, I guess it all depends on Michael Garner and Plan Bravo.... (vbw!)
(ref: Paul R's "Interview with Nick Stone," pts 1 & 2, pgs 46 & 50)
Ouch, Scouse!
It's even worse; where I looked on BBC said £35! (You could make a decent deposit on a nice dvd recorder for that much! hint, hint!) And only in PAL format! Double damn! :o(
>>By am-i-binned (Friday, 4 Jul 2003 02:55)
Hey there again, Scouse...
Am I remembering correctly? Was it you who commented on being interested in the Falklands War? While looking on the UK History Channel (www.thehistorychannel.co.uk), I just found the first two of a three-part series (site lists only current and next week's programs):
WAR IN THE FALKLANDS
Part 1 of 3 (10 Jul Thu 21.00-22.00; 11 Jul Fri 13.00-14.00; 24 Jul Thu 21.00-22.00)
Part 2 of 3 (17 Jul Thu 21.00-22.00; 18 Jul Fri 13.00-14.00)
With reading Mike Curtis' CQB, now I'm really envious, Scouse! I'd really like to see this series also! Grrrrr! Can't I go halvesies with you on that recorder? Maybe we could find something on our fav shopping site? Pleeeeez!
>>By am-i-binned (Friday, 4 Jul 2003 04:29)
Lynn:
I can relate to the notion that Asher might have a different agenda than what he lets on. I haven't seen it yet myself, but there's a TV documentary-version of Asher's book out there somewhere where he supposedly seems very keen on proving the point of "see !?? Ryan and McNab are bloody liars!!." And given the fact that it's often the Iraqi civilian bedouins' respect for their unwritten law of never to lie (in fear of having the mighty Allah striking down upon them in a fit of Holy rage) that Ashers findings rely on, it definetely provides the opportunity for us round-eyed western infidels to remain somewhat sceptic. I also think his deep respect for the Iraqis and his mission to rectify the bad impression Ryan and McNab gave of Vince Phillips, makes it difficult for him to stay objective. Personally, I don't believe anyone of my before-mentioned writers in my earlier postings to be "The Holy Gatekeeper of Truth", but it's interesting to get different inputs from different angles.
As for the discrepancies in BTZ vs TOTGA, I found these immediately after reading the books myself (I read both books for the first time about 5 years ago). So I didn't need to have Asher point that out for me. Still, in his book Asher combs the desert looking for clues while reading both TOTGA and BTZ for reference. So despite any doubts about the Iraqis' truthfulness, Asher's fieldwork does appear to be accurate and reliable. I can "reveal" some of these discrepancies in one of my next postings, but Asher mentions most of them in The Real Bravo Two Zero.
May I ask if there's a particular reason for Ratcliffe being last on your list?
Mhorag: Thank you. I do floss you know... ;)
>>By ortlieb (Friday, 4 Jul 2003 08:29)
I'm joining you in your pool of mysery AIB, no history channel
for me either. And 35 GBP ?? Are they nuts!?
Hi tanned Scouse.
Hi Phil from France (?) Did you read all books including Liberation Day. I'm asking because LD only gets published in Holland this autumn. I couldn't wait and read in English. Did you read it in English? Did you know there's difference in publications in countries. THat not even US and UK versions are the same?
Ortlieb: about Ratcliffe, here's a little part from an article in the Observer (March 16 '03)
In autumn 2000 a book called Eye of the Storm by Peter Ratcliffe, a former SAS regimental sergeant-major, the most senior NCO in the Regiment, was published. Ratcliffe, who left the army in 1997 after 25 years in the Regiment, talked about egotism, incompetence, caution by soldiers that often verged on cowardice and serious organisational flaws. But he reserved his most stinging criticisms for the SAS men who had written books, some of whom had suggested that he was a pompous buffoon. He said McNab had omitted facts that would have diminished his status as a hero. Ryan had invented stories. Other SAS authors had lied.
Ratcliffe said these books gave the impression that the SAS were buccaneers who ignored senior NCOs, like himself, and officers, had their own personal armouries, like Rambo, and wreaked vengeance on evil people. This was nonsense, said Ratcliffe. The Regiment was a disciplined fighting force, but had its share of braggarts and wasters, most of whom had written books. The public did not like this and the book sold no better than 'steadily', despite the fact that Ratcliffe was the most senior SAS man, apart from de la Billiere, to have gone into print.
His publisher, Toby Buchan, said: 'Peter is a thoroughly decent and honest man. He wanted to set the record straight. That is why he wrote the book. But we did not expect it to be huge.'
Mark Lucas, the agent favoured by SAS veterans, was unimpressed. 'The public is not responsive to books fuelled by anger, bitterness and jealousy,' he said.
Another member of McNab's Bravo Two Zero patrol was also keen to make a literary mark. In 1998, a New Zealander, 'Mark Coburn', wrote a book called Soldier Five , which described how he had been shot, captured and tortured in 1991.
The British Government claimed Coburn had breached the confidentiality agreement that he had signed in 1996. Many court hearings later it is still fighting to prevent publication.
When they had to sign this confidentiality agreement, Mike signed because he wanted to stay in the SAS, Ratcliffe was also still employed and he had to sign too but he refused to sign and he got away with it.
He's in A question of betrayal too. I'm having a bit of trouble with what I hear about Ratcliffe. (I didn't see the program but there's a transcript which I read). Maybe you can shed a new light on this. Have you see the program or are you able to watch it next week? Maybe tell us more positive things?
take care,
>>By Lynn (Friday, 4 Jul 2003 09:12)
Hello again Lynn:
I've read the Observer-article earlier, and I've read the transcript from A question of betrayal. I'd love to watch the programme on TV, but I don't think the UK history channel is included in the local cable/satellite-network.
About Ratcliffe: I can understand your scepticism about him, but I personally feel that his intention with Eye of the Storm was to shed a sobering light on various SAS-happenings portrayed by numerous ex-members of the Regiment, which are now well-known by the general public. What Ratcliffe has a problem with are the many distortions of facts that has followed with the SAS-books released after McNab's BTZ in '94 (almost seems like Andy started the trend of ex-SAS members writing biographies and sharing ops-events).
And - the biggest puzzle to Ratcliffe, and to me as well - is that he can't figure out why they would feel the need to embelish and modify events that in real-life were every bit as action-filled and extraordinary as any action-sequence from a James Bond movie.
He states that the Regiment, being such a professional military SF-unit as it is, deserves better than to reduced to cheap war-fiction (his words, not necessarily mine).
Did you for instance know that the CO and the RSM (Ratcliffe at the time) practically begged McNab to use a vehicle on their BTZ-op? Probably not if you haven't read EOTS. McNab, nor Ryan, mentioned this with a single word in TOTGA or BTZ. Ratcliffe states this as being very peculiar, since the decision not to take a vehicle proved to be fatal. Having to carry their equipment required for the mission on foot, was such a burdenous task that it for example took the patrol 9 hrs to complete a distance of 2 km....
>>By ortlieb (Friday, 4 Jul 2003 10:48)
To Lynn again:
Sorry. Having read the Observer-article, you would've come across the vehicle-incident.
>>By ortlieb (Friday, 4 Jul 2003 11:50)
So Ratcliffe decided to stick with the facts and " the book sold no better than 'steadily' "
Where Andy is Transworlds best selling author in his genre at the moment.
Maybe this means lots of people aren’t really interested in the truth, they just want to read a well written and sensational book.
(this is also what we fear of a Nick Stone movie – mutilation of the book because of commercial point of view)
We on this board are discussing discrepancies but there are so few of us compared to sales numbers.
And I still would like to know what the first transcripts looked like – how much of this embellishing was done on publishers indication?
Something else came to my (small) mind: do you think SAS men are so used to their action they don’t think of it like “action-filled and extraordinary as any action-sequence from a James Bond movie” anymore? So they think they have to embellish their stories because the facts won’t be sensational enough for their readers?
Maybe our recently returned ex reg lying cheating killing machine (Page 17) would be so kind to share something here.
Of course we are only speaking of the non-fictional books here. Fact remains that I love his non-fictional books. And the ‘girlie stuff’ ;-)
Take care all,
>>By Lynn (Friday, 4 Jul 2003 13:17)
Ooooh, Lynn! Could you please use your influence with Scouse? Maybe you could persuade him to be our dvd source! Although we've read the transcript, I would truly like to see the program itself, just to look into Ratcliffe's eyes....
Here's a link to the transcript, in case anyone needs it:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/audiovideo/programmes/
panorama/1802091.stm
(remove hard return where hyperlink wraps)
Hi again, Ortlieb...
I definitely agree that it's interesting to get different inputs from different angles, hence my collection of books continues to grow despite my groaning wallet! If you consolidate all the different stories/versions together, what you get is a mosaic of the truth. Focusing too closely on the mosaic's gaps, flaws, and inconsistencies can obscure the picture, but if you step back and consider the overall impression, you will take in the underlying truth. Like you, I was immediately aware of the obvious discrepancies between AM's and CR's versions, and Mike's story (if ever published) is reportedly different from either of theirs. I think if Mal and Dinger were able to tell their stories, we'd end up with five variations. But discrepancies aside, I will always give the most credence to these five men who were actually there in the thick of it, rather than to others such as Ratcliffe or Asher.
In terms of writing style, I am strongly biased toward AM (whoa! big surprise, right? vbw!). I prefer his attitude, humour and self-deprecation compared to CR. His book was not critical or negative, he did not lay blame, and he did not criticize or malign Vince. I do believe that AM omitted, understated, and/or modified facts, but I believe he did so to protect/safeguard certain things better left undisclosed, rather than to paint a favourable heroic image of himself. To admit to flapping, fear, self-doubts, misgivings, pain, regrets -- these are not what I'd expect a hero to reveal about himself. But instead it is this very human side, the "every man" factor, to which I so strongly relate and it is what I find most compelling in AM's writing.
Oddly, by comparison, I have finished most of Radcliffe's book now, and I'm afraid my impression of the man seems quite different from yours. At this point, I almost think he wants me to know he can also walk on water. To me, under the subtle guise of being impartial, he seems to be predominantly negative and critical of his fellow officers and those under his direction. I also find it particularly interesting to reading Ratcliffe's take on certain (non-B20) events during GW1 compared to Ken Connors' perspective.
As to your mention of the Ratcliffe's issues regarding the amount of kit and vehicles related to B20, my personal take is that hindsight is 20/20, and as Ratcliffe admits, B20's determination appeared unanimous regarding what they were taking in and how. Ratcliffe also says that the rule of the SAS is that "the man in command on the ground is always right, whatever his rank. In the end you do not question his decisions before he goes into the field because it is his patrol, and he has got to live with it -- and with the consequences." There were three B Squadron 8-man patrols, B19 opted for a Land Rover, but B20 and B30 opted to go in without. It was B30 which opted to abort their mission due to the untenable ground conditions. Ironically, Ratcliffe credits McNab for deploying, as he himself would have done regardless, and he then backhandedly criticizes B30's patrol commander saying, "I would not have come back and said that my patrol could not deploy because the terrain was unsuitable." Yet it was this same decision by B30's patrol commander about which AM said, "Personally, I feel that it was one of the bravest acts of the war. I wish I was made of the same sort of stuff." A marked difference in attitudes.
Ratcliffe's superior attitude is also apparent as you read the "B20: A Question of Betrayal" transcript. And it is for this reason that I would really like to look into his eyes as he's telling his side of the story.....
>>By am-i-binned (Friday, 4 Jul 2003 15:26)
AIM:
Thanks for your response. I agree with your mosiac-truth theory (good analogy by the way :). I'm also aware of the other points you've made. I'm waiting for the local bookstore to receive Ghost Force by Ken Connor and C.Q.B by Mike Curtis. Looking forward to compare GF and EOTS as you've already done. Actually, I think my favourite writer in the "non-fiction books written by ex-Regiment squaddies"-category, is Cameron Spence. His writing style is perhaps not that different from Ryan or McNab (although I haven't compared them that closely - arrest me if you will). Ratcliffe mentioned both Spence's book Sabre Sqadron and Peter Yorky Crosslands Victor Two. According to Ratcliffe, these books are also full of errors and "modifications" (which disappointed me a bit, since I thought I'd found a writer being more true to actual events after the BTZ / TOTGA discrepancy affair). After reading SS you get the impression that the RSM (Ratcliffe, aka "Roger") is a gung-ho / set-in-his-way / hard-ass / boastful NCO. In EOTS, Ratcliffe isn't all too happy with these presentations of him. Oddly enough (and quite amusing) I think he manages to create some of that impression perfectly on his own. He knew that almost everyone in the half A squadron he took over thought of him as a hard-ass, suicidal maniac... and he didn't give a shit! :)
Have you read SS by the way? If so, there's a couple of things I'd like to check with you if that's all right.
It seems that I've finally find the forum I was looking for! Hope it doesn't get shut down in the near future. Hope to become a regular.
By the way, if you're still with us Pacemaker:
Being ex-reg (hope that's not a wind-up from your side), maybe you can provide some inside pointers on Ratcliffe, and perhaps Spence's and Crossland's versions of the A squadron mission in the Gulf... ?
See you all on monday (I'm doing this at work... ).
Cheers!
>>By ortlieb (Friday, 4 Jul 2003 16:58)
I'm intrigued by the differences in all the stories, not just between AM and CR but Stan and MC's accounts too. It's well known that in criminal situations eye witness accounts are one of the easiest forms of evidence to disprove because of the variation in how people interpret and remember events and I think that the same is true of this situation. So I have no problem with the discrepancies or slightly varying versions of the situation, what is slightly more worrying are the accounts of some events never having occured. For example, Stan stating in a court that AM exagerrated the torture he received. Will we ever know? Whatever the outcome nothing can detract from what AM has achieved, don't know about the rest of you but I admire a man that joined the army with no formal education and goes on to become the best-selling thriller author for Transworld books, some inspiration. Maybe there's hope for the rest of us..
>>By Beth (Friday, 4 Jul 2003 17:14)
Hi all,
must admit to being a 'watcher' and not a 'participent' since page 9, mainly because i'm more interested in the factual aspects of the books under discussion, rather than the exploits of 'nick stone' and his compatriots!
that's not to knock mr mcnab for his excellent storytelling (or mr ryan for that matter).
however, with the input of some very interesting characters, this discussion group does broach on that factual element or at least it has recently, so i thought i would throw in my threepen'th!
referring to IA, B20, TOTGA, EOTS, SS etc, there are always going to be discrepancies between two (or more) versions of the same story, i don't think it makes one party a liar.
perhaps events are remembered differently.
both mr mcnab and mr ratcliffe received the second highest decorations for their different parts in gw1. both had previously been decorated for bravery at least once in other theatres, mr mcnab in ni and mr ratcliffe for the attack on pebble island during the falklands war.
they are both brave individuals, as is mr ryan.
they most certainly weren't the ONLY brave individuals and perhaps others also deserved to have been decorated, but thats the way of things.
pe
>>By Pe Gasus (Friday, 4 Jul 2003 19:05)
Oh my goodness! Hello again, Pe Gasus!
I had assumed that you'd left us since you only posted the one time, but it's very nice to know you've actually been lingering here all this while. Since your interest is directed toward non-fiction, you will have much in common it seems with Ortlieb. I have the feeling, however, that your range of reading may surpass either of ours. Care to enumerate your collection for us?
Hi again, Ortlieb. I do have Sabre Squadron and I've read several sections of it, but I really do need to take it all the way through straight from start to finish. Time is my stumbling block, and I was already juggling three books when CQB arrived (I found it so interesting that I put all the others on hold). I'll be happy to discuss SS with you, just give me a little more time, okay? I will say this, I definitely enjoy Spence's writing style, but then again I find Spence's attitude and humour much more like AM's, and less like CR's. As I read these soldiers' stories (I'm not including Ratcliffe in this), I do find that there is a definite commonality in their voices and humour, much as you would find among members of the same family. Must be a Regiment thing! vbg! vbw! ;o)
Hi, Beth. I agree with you completely on possible reasons for variations in stories. And like you, I wondered about Mal's comment regarding the extent of their torture, but re-reading Mal's comments, I now think it may be more a matter of statements taken out of context, especially considering what John Nichols and John Peters (Tornado Down) endured; the court testimonies from US prisoners David Bush, Russell Sanborn, and Troy Dunlap who were in the same Baghdad prison block with AM, Dinger, and Mal; and also the statements from other US prisoners Jeff Tice, Rhonda Cornum, and David Eberly.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/war/
>>By am-i-binned (Friday, 4 Jul 2003 20:14)
Thanx for the site i found an interesting ariticle that i didn't see last time but you did cause me to buy a book!
>>By christina (Friday, 4 Jul 2003 21:16)
You are a wizard on the net AIB ! :o)
>>By Lynn (Friday, 4 Jul 2003 23:18)
Re Ratcliffe et al,
Ask buddy she might tell where I can't but I doubt it. She was good to a lot of us guys who needed loving stress free therapy the kind the military don't provide for. She 's always at the end of a line when we need her and never passes judgment never says do don't and she keeps us sane and away from topping ourselves on bad days.
>>By pacemaker (Saturday, 5 Jul 2003 09:30)
That’s a very sweet thing to say Pacemaker. Why can’t you share more? I’m not asking dirt but a reason why the recent book flow is not understood by everyone in the Regiment and what the (real?) reason is for books reacting to former books. Is it really about telling the truth or is it money. Or something we didn’t come up with?
No names necessary. Just a general thought..??
>>By Lynn (Saturday, 5 Jul 2003 12:49)
Thanx to you all for your warm welcome on that forum.
Well to answer your questions Yes I'm French. I found this discussion board uphazardly looking for some Mc Nab stuff. I read all Mac Nab's books in English (Am an English teacher and don't really like reading in my Native language). Only 2 books have already been translated into French and I don't know if LD is available in French. To answer Am-I-Binned, I would favor some "new life in the USA" for Nick, I found that McNab uses the mixture "I-need-an-extra-mission-against-my-will-to-get-a-US-passport and-new life" too much. I mean the stories are well built and well done, but the reasons for new missions sound (sometimes) foreseeable.
Considering Asher's book and the controversy about B20 mission, I unfortunately ain't read it yet, but there is one thing which is sure: if you go to the SAS HQ, you'll find out that SAS members are not fond of McNab, expecially because of his books and story about B20.
Does someone know what is Asher's book title and where to find him??? Thanx a lot.
>>By Phil (Saturday, 5 Jul 2003 12:52)
Phil again! (lol)
About the MoD sueing ex-SAS members, I find it esay for them to say "you get no right to speak" and can't even tell your stories. Wheteher SAS or regular of the Army, soldiers' restrictions about classified or secret info should only be linked to their soldier status. I mean once off the army, I can't understand they are asked to shut up about that. SAS,like others, ain't stupid to divulgate what they shouldn't. I can't deny that some members used their SAS status to write books and make money, but after all, who will blame them??? That's the same for the MoD: why are they instituing proceedings against former members? These actions won't delete what they have already revealed. If they act that way to prevent other memebers of the regiment from talking, I guess they're doing a mistake too! Let's remember that by now, the army and SF (the Regiment needs 15% more soldiers to be complete) need many applicants (especially because of the international situation) and that these actions could be a mean of attracting people!!!
>>By Phil (Saturday, 5 Jul 2003 13:05)
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 ... 297
The discussion board is currently closed.
|
DISCOVER NEW BOOKS