Panorama report on SAS
Discussion
I have tremendous respect for Special Forces, passing the entrance tests must be exhausting.
Worrying if the report is true and I cannot see it not being so, too many ex SAS soldiers stating they witnessed murders.
Seems to all the way to the top, army and politicians too.
How sad if it is true,
Worrying if the report is true and I cannot see it not being so, too many ex SAS soldiers stating they witnessed murders.
Seems to all the way to the top, army and politicians too.
How sad if it is true,
Was an open secret for years. And wasn’t just special forces. This stuff always happens in war. It’s the reason you don’t want the army doing the police’s job.
And it wasn’t just the special forces. I never had a maroon/green lid. And I knew of stuff happening even in my regiment.
The senior leadership team of uksf let men die to cover it up. And nothing will be done about it. They will keep their grand titles and huge pensions. They literally have blood on their hands.
And it wasn’t just the special forces. I never had a maroon/green lid. And I knew of stuff happening even in my regiment.
The senior leadership team of uksf let men die to cover it up. And nothing will be done about it. They will keep their grand titles and huge pensions. They literally have blood on their hands.
The BBC / Panorama have been really tenacious with this for years: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj3j5gxgz0do
We'll see if the alleged murderers face any justice.
We'll see if the alleged murderers face any justice.
NRS said:
Surprised we haven’t had the posts saying they’re hero's every one of them. That’s often the way these things go when our soldiers kill certain groups of people in cold blood.
Goes hand in hand with people declaring they're all savage rabid murderers despite the only evidence often being 2nd and 3rd hand reports (or worse) about a group that operates in the shadows. Both are low IQ opinions/statements.
A policy of taking casualties and prisoners in that kind of operation is not really possible.
The UKSF are almost alone in attempting to do at least semi-incisive strikes. Most other countries would have just taken out the compound with a missile strike - would you all sleep better in your bed if we did that instead?
The UKSF are almost alone in attempting to do at least semi-incisive strikes. Most other countries would have just taken out the compound with a missile strike - would you all sleep better in your bed if we did that instead?
fflump said:
UKSF even in their own country have question marks over a failure to take prisoners such as incidents in Coalisland, Coagh and Loughgall.
Wouldn't that be a sensible policy?Take an IRA guy prisoner and he's a hero, he goes to prison and is with his mates. The risk of arrest/prison wouldn't scare him.
The only thing that would scare him is death. Maybe he'll think twice if he thinks a group of very competent guys are going to take him out.
jonsp said:
fflump said:
UKSF even in their own country have question marks over a failure to take prisoners such as incidents in Coalisland, Coagh and Loughgall.
Wouldn't that be a sensible policy?Take an IRA guy prisoner and he's a hero, he goes to prison and is with his mates. The risk of arrest/prison wouldn't scare him.
The only thing that would scare him is death. Maybe he'll think twice if he thinks a group of very competent guys are going to take him out.
Firstly, extrajudicial killings are illegal, second, human rights, third the risk of innocents being involved, fourth execution over potentially minor crimes.
jonsp said:
ouldn't that be a sensible policy?
Take an IRA guy prisoner and he's a hero, he goes to prison and is with his mates. The risk of arrest/prison wouldn't scare him.
The only thing that would scare him is death. Maybe he'll think twice if he thinks a group of very competent guys are going to take him out.
That's akin to having death squads like some tinpot South American State.Take an IRA guy prisoner and he's a hero, he goes to prison and is with his mates. The risk of arrest/prison wouldn't scare him.
The only thing that would scare him is death. Maybe he'll think twice if he thinks a group of very competent guys are going to take him out.
jonsp said:
fflump said:
UKSF even in their own country have question marks over a failure to take prisoners such as incidents in Coalisland, Coagh and Loughgall.
Wouldn't that be a sensible policy?Take an IRA guy prisoner and he's a hero, he goes to prison and is with his mates. The risk of arrest/prison wouldn't scare him.
The only thing that would scare him is death. Maybe he'll think twice if he thinks a group of very competent guys are going to take him out.
272BHP said:
A policy of taking casualties and prisoners in that kind of operation is not really possible.
The UKSF are almost alone in attempting to do at least semi-incisive strikes. Most other countries would have just taken out the compound with a missile strike - would you all sleep better in your bed if we did that instead?
Bringing a note of reality to the proceedings. The UKSF are almost alone in attempting to do at least semi-incisive strikes. Most other countries would have just taken out the compound with a missile strike - would you all sleep better in your bed if we did that instead?
We shouldn't have been in Afghanistan "nation building" as it was always doomed to failure. If you fight a war though, and send in special forces teams to hunt down insurgents, then that is what they will do and sometimes that will cross the line. Perhaps more of the blame should lie with the politicians who sent them there?, rather than on soldiers paying attention to what their senior commanders are hinting at even if they are not outright saying it.
biggbn said:
jonsp said:
fflump said:
UKSF even in their own country have question marks over a failure to take prisoners such as incidents in Coalisland, Coagh and Loughgall.
Wouldn't that be a sensible policy?Take an IRA guy prisoner and he's a hero, he goes to prison and is with his mates. The risk of arrest/prison wouldn't scare him.
The only thing that would scare him is death. Maybe he'll think twice if he thinks a group of very competent guys are going to take him out.
Take Loughall as an example. Intelligence came in an attack was planned on this police station.
So the boys were sent in to ambush. Clearly they were afraid of death so they went in robustly against armed terrorists planning harm against innocent people . What we'd need to know is the orders given them by their boss. Presumably some kind of a nod/wink suggesting don't let these guys live but without actually saying kill them.
In this scenario killing them would be the most sensible strategy.
jonsp said:
biggbn said:
jonsp said:
fflump said:
UKSF even in their own country have question marks over a failure to take prisoners such as incidents in Coalisland, Coagh and Loughgall.
Wouldn't that be a sensible policy?Take an IRA guy prisoner and he's a hero, he goes to prison and is with his mates. The risk of arrest/prison wouldn't scare him.
The only thing that would scare him is death. Maybe he'll think twice if he thinks a group of very competent guys are going to take him out.
Take Loughall as an example. Intelligence came in an attack was planned on this police station.
So the boys were sent in to ambush. Clearly they were afraid of death so they went in robustly against armed terrorists planning harm against innocent people . What we'd need to know is the orders given them by their boss. Presumably some kind of a nod/wink suggesting don't let these guys live but without actually saying kill them.
In this scenario killing them would be the most sensible strategy.
biggbn said:
jonsp said:
biggbn said:
jonsp said:
fflump said:
UKSF even in their own country have question marks over a failure to take prisoners such as incidents in Coalisland, Coagh and Loughgall.
Wouldn't that be a sensible policy?Take an IRA guy prisoner and he's a hero, he goes to prison and is with his mates. The risk of arrest/prison wouldn't scare him.
The only thing that would scare him is death. Maybe he'll think twice if he thinks a group of very competent guys are going to take him out.
Take Loughall as an example. Intelligence came in an attack was planned on this police station.
So the boys were sent in to ambush. Clearly they were afraid of death so they went in robustly against armed terrorists planning harm against innocent people . What we'd need to know is the orders given them by their boss. Presumably some kind of a nod/wink suggesting don't let these guys live but without actually saying kill them.
In this scenario killing them would be the most sensible strategy.
In the bigger picture we might assume this clear risk of death might dissuade other people from engaging in similar "missions"
It crosses my mind that the forces whilst attracting honest people who want to represent their country, also offers a opportunity for Psychopaths to carry out their desires to shoot and probably kill people with an air of legality... you are always going to get some soldiers who have joined up for the wrong reasons. I'd guess, as in the Panorama program last night, the other soldiers know who these people are, how do you deal with them?
Also, as with the Taliban, they are a terrorist organisation/guerilla outfit, they don't wear uniform, they don't play the rules, they don't take prisoners unless it's to behead them on Taliban TV. The guy who's sleeping in his bed, is the next day setting up a IED ready to take out your fellow soldiers. What do you do, wait for the next day, or get rid of him at the point you find him.
If your living in a village with a load of Taliban you are putting yourself in danger of being raided and being shot. Like it was said above, other countries just blow the village up completely.
Also, as with the Taliban, they are a terrorist organisation/guerilla outfit, they don't wear uniform, they don't play the rules, they don't take prisoners unless it's to behead them on Taliban TV. The guy who's sleeping in his bed, is the next day setting up a IED ready to take out your fellow soldiers. What do you do, wait for the next day, or get rid of him at the point you find him.
If your living in a village with a load of Taliban you are putting yourself in danger of being raided and being shot. Like it was said above, other countries just blow the village up completely.
Edited by super7 on Tuesday 13th May 09:15
It is an interesting point. What are the 'morals' of war? Can/should there be 'rules of engagement' or should it be a Hobbsian experience, nasty, brutish and as short as possible? Almost every armed conflict i can think of has resulted in the slaughter of thousands of non combatants, so why are we crying over those actually engaged in combat? Why do we make so much noise when other forces do it to us, or our allies, but its OK when we do it? It's either an acceptable 'cost' of war, or it's not, it is one of those rare binary arguments. I must admit I have walked the walk of a pragmatic pacifist, one who believes in the legal, appropriate use of force but not the illegal, inappropriate use of violence. But I struggle with the thought of a war governed by rules. I'd rather avoid conflict entirely but always practiced the 'rule' that if it was inevitable, be first, be fast and f
kin mean it...and yes, that included biting, gouging, whatever...and I'm talking fights, not sport fights because then there are rules. War is not a sport. It should be a last resort and it should be won as quickly as possible with minimum casualties...sometimes what appears like barbaric collateral damage can result in this...
Now all of the above sounds logical...but how can war be logical? Jeez, it's a hard one, isn't it? No rule wars suggest what the Palestinians did was ok, what the Russians are doing is ok, what the Israelis are doing is ok....
But it's not, is it...sometimes logic is illogical...and there is my thought for the day.
kin mean it...and yes, that included biting, gouging, whatever...and I'm talking fights, not sport fights because then there are rules. War is not a sport. It should be a last resort and it should be won as quickly as possible with minimum casualties...sometimes what appears like barbaric collateral damage can result in this...Now all of the above sounds logical...but how can war be logical? Jeez, it's a hard one, isn't it? No rule wars suggest what the Palestinians did was ok, what the Russians are doing is ok, what the Israelis are doing is ok....
But it's not, is it...sometimes logic is illogical...and there is my thought for the day.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff