English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

23 answers

This is called the "Code of Conduct". British do not train all of their military members like the U.S. does. If they are not combatants, they don't receive the training. In the U.S. Military ALL service members are held to that code.

The "Code of Conduct" has 6 main articles that if you are taken captive, military men and women are obligated by law to follow.

So, the officials you are referring to are probably angry about articles 3 and 5:

Article III

"If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy."


Article V

"When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause."

2007-04-06 12:22:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Lionhrt is partially correct, British forces are told to withhold details except name,rank and number etc unless there are extreme circumstances where it is believed they will be harmed contrary to the Geneva Convention. UKSF troops and elite infantry - Paras P Company and Marines are exected to stay quiet for 48 hours as an SOP, so that mission-critical intel will degrade. You forget that before any 'high-ranking' officers are promoted, they must have extensive combat experience, many of whom fought in the falklands, most in Gulf War I. having said that, if you watch the Marines on the tapes (not the woman), they all seem to know they won't be hurt (Iran can't afford to make such a schoolboy error in light of current political events) and so simply say nothing and smirk slightly. Knowing a few marines myself (one of my best mates is one, and I spent 4 years in cadet forces and plan to go further), I know the thought processes. Those lads'll be laughing their arses off with their mates back in Lympestone.

2007-04-06 12:58:05 · answer #2 · answered by Neo210 1 · 1 0

If it sounds like a coward, acts like a coward and talks like a coward, it is probable a coward. This gutless little band have dishonored themselves and actually everyone (British or no longer) who has ever worn a military uniform. those that seek for to excuse their shameful movements are not plenty greater effective. .

2016-11-07 10:11:59 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I haven't heard ANY high-ranking military officials refer to the British captives as cowards...

I agree with Lionhrt on the issue of the code of conduct, specifically: "...I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause..."

However, as a US Navy SERE School graduate (survivor) in 1986... it is amazing what the initial shock, rough treatment, and isolation and sensory deprivation can do to your mind.

WE were told the KEY part of the Code of Conduct is "...to the utmost of my ABILITY..."

We were lectured by SEVERAL of the former "guests" of the Hanoi Hilton... and you do what you have to to LIVE.

2007-04-06 13:32:26 · answer #4 · answered by mariner31 7 · 0 0

Did notice that, Warning, but knowing the difference between an ally and the "antithsesis of Shinola." I gave the brassy commentary a demotion to ferrous oxide. What part of living the terrorist victim's life did the hirank officials miss in their assessment worthy of Simon Cowell?

2007-04-06 12:15:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Gee... a live coward or a dead victim who isn't even being recognized for heroism... How many sailors were aboard? How come we never hear about those who DID resist? If they are going to label those sailors as cowards, they have a responsibility to trumpet anyone killed as heroes. I haven't heard about them. Have you?

2007-04-06 12:10:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

I haven't noticed what the high ranking officials think but they were not cowards.

2007-04-06 12:02:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5 2

Can you name some of these 'high ranking military officials?'

Or is this just something you made up?

2007-04-06 12:11:53 · answer #8 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 7 1

Better for them to be tortured and killed, I guess. Would like to see these high ranking military officials get from behind their desks.

2007-04-06 12:01:07 · answer #9 · answered by beez 7 · 6 1

That's total rubbish! What else... they are probably all homosexuals too...Cowards!!!! Why? Why are they cowards? Because they didn't want to be tortured/killed? I'm sure Pat Robertson will join these generals in there attack on anyone who doesn't do what they want. Total crap...

2007-04-06 12:10:20 · answer #10 · answered by Dirty Mutt 3 · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers