Pretty shocking if true, less surprising would be MOD & Fallon seeking to shut down the investigation
[img] 
[/img]
Shocking, but not surprising.
Ah, the accusations are 'credible'
Right!
So were all these I seem to recall:
https://www.ft.com/content/1b50ca0a-2908-11e7-bc4b-5528796fe35c
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/fresh-claims-of-atrocities-in-falklands-war-1541937.html
I suppose the worry is that warzones are so removed from public scrutiny that we have no idea what goes on.
Sometimes allegations are credible,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Baha_Mousa
A final 1,400-page report said a "large number" of soldiers assaulted Mousa and that many others, including officers, must have known about the abuse. The report called his death an "appalling episode of serious gratuitous violence".[2] The inquiry condemned the Ministry of Defence for "corporate failure" and the regiment for a "lack of moral courage to report abuse"
Of course it [i]could[/i] be true
Occam's razor applies too of course - reading that article we have them 'planting' makarov pistols, randomly shooting civilians and a police investigation being run from a secret underground bunker in Cornwall...
Can anyone tell me why a police investigation might benefit from being run from an underground bunker? That alone is enough to have the spidey senses tingling about the veracity of such a story.
Note also that we have mention of an ongoing civil claim to add into the picture...ding ding ding... see above links for details regarding the magical Mr Phil Shiner and the 'war crimes' compensayshun machine
I suppose the worry is that warzones are so removed from public scrutiny that we have no idea what goes on.
Why is it a worry ? and why does it require public scrutiny ?
Why is it a worry ? and why does it require public scrutiny ?
Because the UK armed services and government are bound by rules of engagement and several agreements and conventions as to how warfare is conducted. It's the difference between war and terror in many ways. We have a responsibility to regulate and scrutinise the actions of those who are in the armed services. Jumping on a plane to somewhere that they don't speak english or have rolling news does not excuse the killing of civilians.
Can anyone tell me why a police investigation might benefit from being run from an underground bunker?
Because someone high up in the police will say I need a secure discreet sight for a highly sensitive investigation and someone in MOD or similar will say we have a building on base x you can use and it turns out to be an old bunker. This does happen on occasions, I think the more odd bit is it being based in Cornwall.
Here we go again. 🙄
Why is it a worry ? and why does it require public scrutiny ?
Because people don't deserve to be on the receiving end of incidents like the "My Lai" massacre? Or are you a racist sociopath that thinks that it is acceptable to intentionally kill civilians?
Murdoch getting revenge for something?
Plus, I thought the SAS weren't in Afghanistan around that time - thought it was all SBS. Not really a top level investigation if they've not even been out there to interview the witnesses!
Don't stories like this crop up in the Murdoch press every time he doesn't get his own way with the UK government? His bid to buy a controlling stake in Sky was referred to the competition watchdog only this week. Will be a happy day when the skeletal scumbag finally croaks.
Did consider the Murdoch angle, seems odd unless he already thinks the competition commission will say no, otherwise he'd be making things harder for himself, unless it's a veiled threat to the gov.
Or the Times think its legit and they have a solid basis for the story.
Afghanistan was the purview of SBS alongside CIA SAD teams.
SAS were concentrating on Iraq with Delta.
Why is it a worry ?
Rule of law and ar eyou really saying you dont care if our brave boys kill innocent folk for no reason ?
and why does it require public scrutiny ?
they are our servants and there to serve our interest
Are you suggesting you want rogue army units free from democratic oversight what do you want illegal death gangs who are "none of our business and not a worry"?
One of the dumbest things ever asked on here- and ninfan is [s]trolling[/s] posting on this
Why is it a worry ?Rule of law and ar eyou really saying you dont care if our brave boys kill innocent folk for no reason ?
and why does it require public scrutiny ?
they are our servants and there to serve our interestAre you suggesting you want rogue army units free from democratic oversight what do you want illegal death gangs who are "none of our business and not a worry"?
One of the dumbest things ever asked on here- and ninfan is trolling posting on this
I am not suggesting anything why do you suggest that I am, Im asking why should we worry ? are you worried Junky ? if so why?
Public scrutiny - should an unqualified, inexperienced Public be allowed to scrutinise and what do they do once they have scrutinised, pass sentence ??
Its not dumb at all, it just doesnt suit your received opinion, try thinking !
Errrrr yeah, isn't that the point of Jurys and doesn't the military serve the mandate of government and thus voters?
Maybe you should try thinking mate.
I am worried that you cannot comprehend my answer and workout i have explained this to you [ a have many others]are you worried Junky ? if so why?
Oh the irony Ninfan you have a new contender for the best goader on hereIts not dumb at all, it just doesnt suit your received opinion, try thinking !
If you cannot work out why having the SAS illegal killing innocent civilians is a bad thing then I think you are either the dumbest person here or trolling
Neither option makes me wish to engage further with you
I am worried that you cannot comprehend my answer and workout i have explained this to you [ a have many others]
You obviously worry too much !
Get a bike 😉
last goad was much better that 3/10 , you are now trying too hard
Neither option makes me wish to engage further with you
last goad was much better that 3/10 , you are now trying too hard
Make your mind up 🙄
Dont worry ninfan the trophy is still yours
Clickbait and most definitely not worthy of this forum. We all know its a best guess work and that no one here knows the answer so why bother? Bit like the slagging off of Team Sky.
Pointless waste of the web.
I don't believe that story.
There may be elements of truth in there relating to other incidents.
Thr underground bunker bit might be because its the RMP running the investigation....not the police. So much for the rant about civilians judging the army....lol
I've yet to see any allegations that a Murdoch publication is capable of printing the truth.
Nobody's daft enough to believe an allegation like that.
Tbh they could do with causing a few "accidents" to some of the unsavoury characters in this country who hate us and make no secret about it while taking our money and inciting others to kill.
The Tory party?
^^^ The SNP?
^^^^ Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage?
Witch hunt here we come round five ... five thooouussanndsss that is ... 😆
Nobody's daft enough to believe an allegation like that.
Well Corbyn's demanded a probe, the dickhead.
Rmp seem to be doing the right thing and investigating.
mikewsmith - Member
Rmp seem to be doing the right thing and investigating.
Traitorous dickheads
Isn't there a kind of tacit understanding that this is something the SAS just does? Obviously ex members and media aren't responsible for shaping the missions and behaviour of current members but in almost any portrayal of the unit it's made clear they will carry out extra judicial assassinations should the need arise.
Also, the fact that a major newspaper can run a front page story about soldiers murdering civilians and a substantial number of people just dismiss it offhand as utterly baseless, and just the obvious petty revenge by a global media tycoon is quite terrifying.
Isn't there a kind of tacit understanding that this is something the SAS just does? Obviously ex members and media aren't responsible for shaping the missions and behaviour of current members but in almost any portrayal of the unit it's made clear they will carry out extra judicial assassinations should the need arise.
Well no, we as a country should abide by the rules of war. Shooting unarmed civilians can and never should be justified in any rules of engagement. If they were in a position to get to them then capture and process.
I don't think journos chasing headlines or politicians using said headlines to camouflage their highly dodgy past should be taken seriously for a second. I'd trust the decisions made by the guys at the pit face over the dickheads at home still in denial with reality.
Isn't there a kind of tacit understanding that this is something the SAS just does?
Only in the shit pot boiler spy novels that you can buy at airports. Meanwhile in the real world there are laws to stop it happening
90% of allegations made against British Military in Afghanistan have been found to have been false (Radio 4 piece yesterday). I have no doubt whatsoever this will prove to be the same.
I'd trust the decisions made by the guys at the pit face over the dickheads at home still in denial with reality.
So you don't like Corbyn then....
Shooting unarmed civilians can and never should be justified in any rules of engagement
The 'enemy' in this case was not another army. So if the guy who just shot your mate puts his AK47 behind a tree, suddenly he's an 'unarmed civilian', and should be treated to cuddles and jelly babies.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
90% of allegations made against British Military in Afghanistan have been found to have been false (Radio 4 piece yesterday). I have no doubt whatsoever this will prove to be the same.
They've already dismissed the others, this'd be the 10%
Either way 1 in 10 found to be true sounds pretty bad
So if the guy who just shot your mate puts his AK47 behind a tree, suddenly he's an 'unarmed civilian', and should be treated to cuddles and jelly babies.It's a bit more complicated than that.
Well as he doesn't have an AK47 in his hands then you could probably get the better of him...
Was that the actual allergation made?