Armour for Vikings after Royal Marine's death

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by plymwebed, Jan 14, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. New vehicles will be flown out to Afghanistan tomorrow along with armour for 50 already in theatre after the death of a Plymouth Royal Marine, an inquest heard today.

    Read more at thisisplymouth
     
  2. Re: Arnour for Vikings after Royal Marine's death

    Oh thats alright then :roll:
     
  3. Eventually, those cvnts at WHitehall will buy the right gear for the job.

    Note to whoever is the current useless liebour tosser running the MoD, we need MINE PROTECTED VEHICLES!!!!!
     
  4. I hate to be over pedantic considering the gravity of the subject, but how can "The inquest heard the 32 year old was killed instantly in the blast and died from his injuries.", be a true statement?

    West Country journalism?

    2BM
     
  5. I think it's okay. You could change the sentence to, "He died instantly from his injuries". One could argue that the injuries part is tautologous, but, he could have died, for example, from a massive heart attack, which would not have been directly related to the injuries.

    Of course, it's probaby not in the best of taste to be talking about it.
     
  6. I don't mind deserved criticism of the MOD or the government but don't let your political views cloud the facts. Even the challenger tank can be fatally damaged by IED's. It’s an ongoing battle as the enemy change tactics. I find comments on other threads such as, ‘that this government does not give a shit about the Armed Forces’ as infantile in the extreme.

    http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...earsPraiseForEquipmentFromFrontLineTroops.htm
     
  7. Here we go again. Fcuking Liebour Sycophant!! :roll: :roll:
     
  8. Fink the guys in sandy places have been detailed off to attend by the
    present sitters in majority at the big house of Westminster . The point raised in the initial post was that armour is now being supplied for the viking vehicles ---
    Think the forces should be brought under Health and Safety Regulations
    like assessment and responsibility of employer for the safety of employees
    ----the use of unarmoured vehicles in a know hazardous IED zone is
    almost criminal .

    So if Governments want to send our service guys out to fight then I think they should have the correct gear before they get deployed--not three years later !

    G.
     

  9. BOLLOX!!!!!


    Soft skinned vehicles were sent because some Libour cvnt claimed this was a rebuilding operation and he expected to complete the mission without firing a single shot.

    Well, he was a lying cvnt and so are his replacements. Yes we know you can zap a tank with an IED, but you can waste a landi with fvcking bricks.
     
  10. I could weep when I see what is available but not bought because some cvnt in government wants to buy an effing bank instead.What is the total handed to the banks so far, 20,30 40 billions? Ye could buy everyone their own tank for that sort of money.
     
  11. Is it a lack of intelligence or what? It is on record that senior officers in the military state that there is still a place for the Land Rover on the battlefield, until they change their views they will be continue to used, maybe for starters you would like to take up your disapproval with them instead of whining here which will not make a jot of difference.

    ex_rubberdagger, it's not a case of here we go again it's a case of taking onboard information that is available and coming to a sensible conclusion, it has sweet FA to do with politics.
     

  12. Bollox again!

    I can remember Bandy stamping his foot and demanding 12 45's or else… Told to wind his neck in or no Peerage and Viola! Neck wound in!

    Generals say Landi is OK, so it must be, the blokes doing the getting blown up think it's a fvcking death trap, I know who I believe.

    If we bought enough helos we wouldn't be having this argument.
     
  13. I dont know if it's just me but you don't half spout a load of old bollocks. Well clearly it isn't just me because as usual you have got the reaction you desired and got everyones back up. 8O
     
  14. I think you need to start thinking outside the 'Bash Labour at any cost box'. I could say you talk bollocks but I am far too polite to descend to that level.
     
  15. See your after a bite again!!

    Why shouldn't i bash liebour?? They take us to war on a lie and then equip our troops with crap kit which isn't right for the task. Who else should i blame because as far as i'm aware they hold the purse-strings over the funding of the our armed forces. Oh silly me they are too busy bunging the banking system billions of quid of our money to bail them out of the shitstorm that they have instigated!!

    Get real knobber!!
     
  16. ex_rubberdagger
    As stated earlier I won't descend to the personal puerile attacks but you carry on, as it is to some extent amusing. As you should know I am no Blair fan, I have stated so often enough. Afghanistan is not Iraq and our troops were not sent there on raft of lies. Maybe you and your fellow armchair generals should focus your brilliant military minds on the current problem in Afghanistan that is the loss of our lad’s lives to explosives targeted at those on foot. It seems that you have the answer to all the problems so I look forward to reading your informed solution.
     

  17. The reason we're getting so many casualties, is unlike the Cousins who go jumping in a big shiny wokka wokka and fly around and drop on the heads of Johnnie Jihad, we have to drive to the fight then get on shank's pony across the broken stuff.


    I W I L L S A Y T H I S S L O W L Y so even you can understand it.

    Our Liebor leaders are hiding behind the lie we have enough lift in theatre, we don't. Our NATO 'allies' like the fvcking useless Krauts who are included in the available helicopter count won't fly into a battle and need to be home and tucked up by tea time. So Liebor says 'NATO has enough helicopters in Helmand for the mission' and our guys keep on dying for the lie.
     
  18. Armchair generals. Oh dear you do delude yourself.

    Following on from what young Oil-slick has already mentioned we have failed in Afghanistan due to the lack of equipment available to us and because we haven't learnt the lessons from our own past conflicts and those countries that were in Afghanistan before us. How often did you see troops travel by vehicle in South Armagh due to IED attacks?? In my experience never. So why then send guys out in soft-skinned vehicles on the pretence that this was a rebuilding mission and no shots would be fired and then when it finally dawns on the throbbers in power continue to keep these vehicles doing the same role when guys are getting blown to pieces!! Great move

    Also. The Russians were so shit scared of attack on the ground that in the end they were forced to travel everywhere by Helicopter which fell right into the hands of the Muj who were conveniently armed with stingers by our septic friends. Why then did we go in there totally ill-equiped of aircraft and helicopters which have so apparently been needed from the word go.
     
  19. Im not a bit polite and live at the bottom of the pond so I can say naughty things,you do talk a load of bollocks and appear to know fcku all about everything.

    May I be so rude as to aske some personal questions?

    Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?
    Has anyone ever been cruel to you and called you a petty-minded tight arsed jobsworth?[ report this to your superior right away if they did]
    Have you actually got a superior ?
    Is it raining near you?

    Of course you don't have to answer,just wondering....
     
  20. I'll take the 5th on that one. 8)
     

Share This Page