Talk:South African Special Forces Brigade/Archive 1

Naming conventions (military units)
Forgive the spam, but I'm making a scattershot announcement to try to attract people with international interests to help forge some naming conventions. A draft is now available at Naming conventions (military units), and we need feedback on the talk page. Thanks. &mdash; B.Bryant 00:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who wrote this page? Stating that little is known about selection is nonsense. Even reading only Peter Stiff's "The Silent War" will tell you a lot.

Does this unit wear the maroon beret?
If this unit wears the maroon beret, please consider adding it to the maroon beret page as well. Ng.j 16:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Layout issues
Someone needs to fix the layout of this page. I'd do it myself, but I don't know what's going on with the box - it's got normal HTML markup instead of the wiki markup. ThatDeadDude 15:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed, it was caused by the POV tag. The table's a bit of a mess though and it will probably be worth replacing it with something better sometime, but at least things are more or less back to normal now. Impi 19:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Needs better referencing
South Africa got its ass handed to it when they invaded a small independent kingdom a few years ago. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_intervention_in_Lesotho for a reference. They were never fully able to stop guerilla attacks nor effectively control the country. Lesotho is not a very powerful nation and is strategically disadvantaged by being landlocked by South Africa. If they couldn't control it then I can't see how their special forces units are any good at all.

There is also not enough talk about the atrocities that the recces committed in their various operational theatres. They were even worse than the Americans in Vietnam when it came to burning/raping/pillaging, but this article doesn't quite capture the evil history of the South African Special Forces Brigade. Just one book is not enough to use all those superlatives in describing a third world countries "special forces" unit.

The article should be rewritten or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.115.17 (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. This article is embarrassing, it's a shameless hagiography with dubious references and a number of weasel words. It would clearly need a major rewriting just to make it tentatively NPOV. GhePeU 18:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree 100%. I questioned it months ago. Since some of the sillier statements can indeed be referenced I didn't get very far. DMorpheus 00:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

--You seem to have a personal axe to grind, war is always replete with accusations of atrocities. Wake up, the relative effectiveness of a special operations group is not a moral statement. If you want to debate the morality of a military unit I suggest you start another entry. You could title it "I think war should be all warm and fuzzy and is not by nature a horrific event, as anyone who lives in the real world knows".

Also, your analysis of military action is simplistic and shows a minimal grasp of the complex military realities inherent in any conflict and thereby your rating of their special forces as "not being any good at all" is not a credible one. The most elite and respected units in the world have suffered defeats and this does not mean they are not any good. Finally, if the most damning comparison you can make is with the americans in vietnam then you need to educate youself more broadly in world events, the viet cong and north vietnamese army killed more civilians and I could name thousands more with a true record for slaughter and brutality, Khmer rouge, interhamwe, RUF in sierra leone, the serbian forces during the yugoslav civil war, the turks in armenia the list goes on. You seem very biased and as such should not be questioning the neutrality of anyone else. sept 22, 2007 aez101

It seems you did not read Chomsky thoroughly enough and are thereofre under the influence of the propaganda framework. The reality, unfortunately, shows that the US are the ones who are responsible for the massive slaughers in Viet Nam, Kambodia, Laos. They allowed and sponsered mass slaughters in Latin America. Let alone the sponsoring of Israeli slaughters (do Jenin, Sabra and Chatila ring a bell?). Regarding the South African special forces, it seems they are just as violent, cruel, and stupid as all other special forces all over the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightingsword (talk • contribs) 07:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm
Interesting response, wrong, but interesting. The Khmer Rouge was a north vietnamese backed communist movement which was very anti USA so you saying the US was responsible for Cambodia is puzzling to say the least and makes me wonder where you get your facts. Also, you do not know me and your snap judgement that I am under the influence of the propaganda framework reflects your judgementalism and intolerance for opposing views. I am not saying you are full of s***, but I am saying your entry lacks any objectivity and has tenuous attachment to reality. The north vietnamese were much more prolific in their slaughter of their countrymen than the US was. Please see this link http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM for more data. Its a pretty dense chunk of info but the N vietnamese were killing their own people before the US got there and after. Laos Im not sure of right now so Ill leave that. However....I have to ask, who the hell brought up Israel?? I was talking about south african special forces and made a passing reference to The US. All of a sudden you're throwing incident names at me from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Ok, since thats what you obviously want to talk about. First off, the massacres at Sabra and Shatila were the result of the Israeli forces failing to prevent the entry into these camps of Armed Christian Phalangist militia who were apparently bent on avenging the assasination of their leader Bashir Gemayel. (ref. "A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" by: Ian J. Bickerton and Carla L. Klausner p. 216). A UN inquiry into the alleged Jenin Massacre concluded that no massacre had occured (same book, p. 369) in that "massacre" almost 59 palestinians including women and children and 23 israeli soldiers were killed. The slaughter of noncombatants is always deplorable, however....and I said this before....WAR IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE, nothing always goes exactly to plan, innocent are unfortunately ALWAYS hurt and killed....this is why war must always be a last resort. But 23 Israeli troops dead and 59 palestinians dead is not and unusual ratio and shows that there were armed people fighting on both sides. It is widely known that terrorist and non-military combatants try to blend in with civilians, this is bound to lead to innocent deaths....but in their defense, its self-preservation. I dont agree with this tactic, but the unconventional combatants wouldnt last long if they wore uniforms and engaged in pitched battles. Ariel Sharon resigned as defense minister in the aftermath of these incidents and israel admitted indirect responsibility. If you really knew your facts you would have pointed to the inexcusable murder of as many as 254 men women and children by the Irgun and stern gang jewish paramilitary organizations in the village of Deir Yassein as a better example...however not long after this, the Israeli government forcibly disarmed these groups which in at least one case broke into full scale battles in Tel Aviv. In every war I can think of there were atrocities on both sides to varying degrees, and throwing names at me of the israeli atrocities does not excuse the atrocities perpetrated by the palestinians. However, ive never heard of the PLO disciplining any of their personell for crimes against Israelis....double standard? Yes, they both have done some pretty messed up things, the Palestinian massacre of medical personell in the convoy to mount scopus in the Israeli "war of independence" comes to mind (77 doctors and nurses were executed). But what makes me want to laugh is your sweeping generalization that special forces the world over are "cruel and stupid"...wow, you really labeled yourself with that one. Anti-American, Anti-Israel, and now Anti-military, anything else you want to add?....you reek of bias and unfounded rhetoric. If you want to be taken seriously, cite some references and don't make such sweeping denouncements....your prejudice is showing, please put it away and engage in mature discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.130.162 (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC) 68.100.130.162 22:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)aez10168.100.130.162 22:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)