Soldiers Treated Alongside Taliban!

[Libby]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1126730/Injured-British-soldiers-fury-treated-alongside-Taliban-Afghanistan-field-hospital.html

British troops injured while fighting the Taliban are angry that Army medics treat them alongside their enemy, it was claimed today.
Enemy combatants in Afghanistan are routinely treated at the Camp Bastion Field Hospital in line with the Geneva Convention.
But, according to the BBC, some service personnel at Camp Bastion have complained that the British wounded are sometimes forced to share the same ward as injured Taliban fighters.

This surely isn't acceptable!

[Beachcomber]

I think it's a great idea.

let's hope they actually get to talk to each other and realise that there are human beings on both sides and that all our wars are caused by ideologies - not the poor soldiers on the ground.

[tarrant]

I too think it's a good idea.

But regardless of their feelings, there are a number of issues here all of which justify treating all injured personel together.

Nice piece of Daily Mail muck raking though.

[reverend]

its common practice, happened in the Falklands and Gulf wars, not sure why it's an issue now??

[voice]

Whats news about this, every conflict in modern times has seen health care dispenced as to need not to whose side the casulaty is from

[SKYBLUE]

'This surely isn't acceptable!'

Hmmmn!

Hey, maybe they'll bludgeon each other to death with bedpans!!!

[puffin]

It's standard proceedure. The enemy soldiers are usually screened off and guarded.
I'm surprised that the soldiers have complained...I wonder if they really have... because they know it's the way it's always been in combat situations. The job of the medical staff is to treat all injured, including enemy combatants.

[sushimo]

I believe this is a non story, this is the way it has always been, and we can but hope that Tarrants ideal can become a reality.

[reverend]

I dont think Tarrants dream is realistic, the guys in those hospitals are in no state to have a debate!

[peakman]

Jan 22, 2009 22:13:17 GMT Libby said:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1126730/Injured-British-soldiers-fury-treated-alongside-Taliban-Afghanistan-field-hospital.html

British troops injured while fighting the Taliban are angry that Army medics treat them alongside their enemy, it was claimed today.
Enemy combatants in Afghanistan are routinely treated at the Camp Bastion Field Hospital in line with the Geneva Convention.
But, according to the BBC, some service personnel at Camp Bastion have complained that the British wounded are sometimes forced to share the same ward as injured Taliban fighters.

This surely isn't acceptable!

It as always been acceptable to soldiers, one soldier does not hate another soldier, they are all just soldiers and they know it. There is a plaque depicting this at the site of a Turkish WWl battle Field, on it is engraved the picture of a soldier carrying a fallen enemy across his shoulders, as ex squaddie I can relate to that. Also, in the battle for the hearts and minds, which is the essence of the conflict in Afghanistan, what impression would a wounded Taliban, having had his wounds treated by his enemy, have of his enemy. Eye for an eye etc? Maybe not.

[Sabre]

[swearing removed]

[VikingHumpingWitch]

I love that we have people with actual military experience posting here, cos I would have said Oh my god this is appalling if I hadn't read that actually it always happens.

Cheers, I like to learn now and again.

[SKYBLUE]

(Soldiers are) dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy.

Hmmmn nice? ...makes you feel really patriotic doesn't it?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissinger

[tarrant]

Soldiers are generally used as pawns of foreign policy rather than to defend their nations.

But they aren't stupid any more than the non-soldiers who are brainwashed into supporting murderous campaigns in far distant corners of the globe for the profit of a few.

Their problem is they must follow orders. Politics and military are a dangerous mix. They act on our behalf.

The real fault is ours for failing to properly supervise our leaders and allow them to get us all embroiled in other people's fights.

[SKYBLUE]

'The real fault is ours for failing to properly supervise our leaders and allow them to get us all embroiled in other people's fights.'

Fat chance of that I guess. Corruption through the ranks and all that!

I heard somewhere that the best way to keep these bastid politicians on a leash is to make it compulsary for their offspring at 16yo to go out on the front line first.
That way they might think twice about committing other peoples children into falsified wars!

[tarrant]

Jan 23, 2009 18:02:05 GMT SKYBLUE said:

make it compulsary for their offspring at 16yo to go out on the front line first.
That way they might think twice about committing other peoples children into falsified wars! (

That is certainly an option.

But our biggest enemy is our own apathy. The feeling that we really can't make any difference.

We can.

But we can only be effective as individuals. Making a stand that we do not accept any justifation for our troops to be involved in any military action that doesn't affect our shores.

The problem with organisations is they invariably tend to be taken over by those with additional agenda.

[Beachcomber]

Just a question out if the blue ........
But does anyone know who was the last King of England to lead his troops into battle ?

(or General, or Prime Minister, etc) ?

[puffin]

The last English king to lead his own army in battle was King George II, at the battle of Dettingen, in 1743.

[puffin]

I believe Wellington also led his troops into battle.

[SKYBLUE]

Wasn't it the Grand Old Duke of York?

Heard he was a daft sod!

Fecking useless strategy!