http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World- ... 0378?f=rss

Not really a shocker if they are of course (I believe they trained Al Q in 'the good old days'), but nobody will be happy if it's as a result of the shady Lockerbie deal...

"The SAS is being ordered to do something it knows is morally wrong."

Robin Horsfall can f u c k off, they are trained assassins, it's not the like good old days where all they had to do was kill Catholics, Argentinians and the odd Muslim.

I can't see it bothering many SAS troopers anyway, they're just higher paid bullet stoppers, not that I would ever say that to an SAS trooper, being how they're all psychopathic killers.

With all due respect, you're talking total twaddle. The SAS are not 'assassins' nor are they 'psychopathic killers'. If they were the former we'd have far too many of them to use and if they were the latter they simply wouldn't be able to do their job properly. They are soldiers, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Soldiers kill people, that's what they are trained to do, and if you find that distasteful or intolerable that's your perogative but that doesn't mean they meet the definition of either of the groups you have placed them in.
I've actually met a couple of people who were clinically diagnosed as being psychopathic. I've also met soldiers. If you had met both, you'd soon be aware of the difference and which you'd want to stay the hell away from, believe me.
The SAS troopers who are training the Libyans (if any) aren't going to refuse to carry out their orders. That's not something soldiers do under that kind of circumstance. nobody is being killed, nor are they being required to kill anybody. But we have no way of knowing if they like doing it, i.e. if they agree with the political reasons. Soldiers simply aren't allowed by law to make those sort of judgements unless under extreme duress.

Your anger is misplaced. If the SAS are training Libyan special forces, the person you should be angry with is the politician or civil servant who ordered them to do so, not the soldier who is simply carrying out orders he is legally required to do.

Jon

Chill out, I'm not angry about the situation, and obviously everything you know about the SAS you read in an Andy McNab book.

I was wondering why Sas hadn't been posting much this week... Now we know!

And you know different? Seriously, shut up.

How can you say someone is psychopathic? I guess you're talking from experience here? You say he knows what he does by reading Andy McNab books and well, tbh, I reckon you do as well.

Having met a couple of people who applied for the SAS and were rejected, I am pretty certain that they filter out the psychotic and dangerous. I worked one summer with a guy who was applying for the SAS, he was a real sadist in the office. He was gutted when he got turned down for his attitude.

I've known one ex-SAS member, and he's great. Specialised in demolition. Nice guy. Helped me control a disagreement in the pub once.

Although it is a bit off-topic, and my info a long-time out of date, when I were a young lad I worked for an organisation that, amongst other things did testing for the Army. I worked with SAS soldioers at Hereford. They are definitely NOT selected if they are psychopaths in the generally accepted sense of that word. They are selected if they have diminished "empathy" meaning if they don't really identify with others' feelings too well (consider Aspberger's syndrome, Autism). They were\are all bloody tough, resilient and hard-working. Of course there are many who are great at working WITH people, just make sure you're on THEIR side!

I didn't really mean they were psychopaths, it was an insult, I do however believe they are assassins and are certainly not the heroes some people who probably read the daily mail think they are.

I've never read an Andy Mcnab book, I prefer Chris Ryan, everything his ghost writer says is true.

One of my favourite quotes is from a (fictional) dishonored soldier defending the indefensible.

	Quote: Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

John Mac (first on the balcony) said many ex SAS had trouble integrating back into society, to the extent "they ate a shotgun".

Let me also state I'm not some wishy washy liberal, I am fully behind the armed forces personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't believe in the reasons that they're there, I just think that makes them even braver.

What prompted my comments here was Robin Horsfall's ridiculous statement, if he'd still been in the SAS he wouldn't have had the luxury of saying what he said, he'd be in Libya. Furthermore he broke his code of silence.

UK police trained Libyan officers

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8264164.stm

I'm sorry, but just what are we getting from all this?