[Closed] Times allegations of SAS executing Afghan civilians

Shocking, but not surprising.

Ah, the accusations are 'credible'

Right!

So were all these I seem to recall:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1513382/2000-rape-claims-against-British-soldiers-in-Kenya-were-fabricated.html

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

http://www.****/debate/article-2541923/SAS-wifes-bombshell-Regiment-bribed-silent-Diana-murder-claims.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 ?

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 ?

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 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 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.

are you worried Junky ? if so why?

Its 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 ... 😆

BBC too

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40501304

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.

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.

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.

Was that the actual allergation made?

mikewsmith

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.

That's not what I was asking though. I don't think you can deny that they have a reputation as something of a rogue unit in general. Wasn't there a famous incident following the Iranian embassy siege where SAS members attempted to drag surviving terrorists out of sight to execute them? Haven't numerous ex members described their desire to travel into the Republic of Ireland and "take out" all known members of the IRA while they slept during the unit's deployment in NI?

That's not what I was asking though. I don't think you can deny that they have a reputation as something of a rogue unit in general

You do really need to stop reading 99p books from the airport, i'd like to see evidence of your allegations that was actually founded and not from the Daily Mail? A few lads from my regiment (7 Para RHA) went on to serve with the SAS and Pathfinders, they were usually the most measured and experienced lads. They don't tend to take psychopaths as that's the last person you want stood next to you, there will always be grey areas in any conflict, but i've never met any of the ninjas, assassins or baby killers you seem to like dreaming of?

Please supply the source with regards to the iranian embassy siege and NI ops you've mentioned above?

scud

You do really need to stop reading 99p books from the airport, i'd like to see evidence of your allegations that was actually founded and not from the Daily Mail?

Please supply the source with regards to the iranian embassy siege and NI ops you've mentioned above?

Skip to the 48 minute mark of this BBC* documentary.

*[i]Obviously[/i] the BBC are "fake news" and have their own totally corrupt agenda other than news and facts.

And yet despite some glamorous media and a good story, no investigation or charges were ever formally levelled at anyone involved?

They went into that building secured 26 hostages and held them for 6 days before the SAS went in, lots of time to have rigged all sorts of devices. 5 of the 6 terrorists were killed but only one hostage during the siege, many interviews with the soldiers later talked of them believing that they'd actually failed because of this. Until you can understand how difficult a job it was they faced or you've tried to do similar, then i don't think you can really comment.

There seems to be a culture of knocking our armed forces, and sensationalising everything the SAS do, reducing it down to newspaper headlines, usually by those who would only ever would comment with the anonymity of a keyboard whilst any very public operation like this places a soldier under extreme scrutiny, stress and future naming in the press.

scud

Until you can understand how difficult a job it was they faced or you've tried to do similar, then i don't think you can really comment.

So you accused me of reading 99p novels and (gulp) [b]The Daily Mail[/b], or in other words you accuse me of being a liar, and demand to see sources for these egregious untruths (which are common knowledge), but when I supply you with one which essentially reinforces my point you just ignore that and assert that I am not allowed to have an opinion anyway?

🙄

Isn't there a kind of tacit understanding that this is something the SAS just does?

. I don't think you can deny that they have a reputation as something of a rogue unit in general.

Wasn't there a famous incident following the Iranian embassy siege where SAS members attempted to drag surviving terrorists out of sight to execute them? Haven't numerous ex members described their desire to travel into the Republic of Ireland and "take out" all known members of the IRA while they slept during the unit's deployment in NI?

So who knows what colour the boat shed is?

So you accused me of reading 99p novels and (gulp) The Daily Mail, or in other words you accuse me of being a liar, and demand to see sources for these egregious untruths then when I supply you with one which essentially reinforces my point you just ignore and assert that I am not allowed to have an opinion anyway?

Not at all, i asked then bearing in mind a documentary was made, where was the prosecutions and the follow up to it? A lot of those soldiers lives were made public knowledge because of coverage like that and they did a very difficult job, lots of noise made and then actually nothing came of it despite a long and full investigation.

I'm not calling you a liar, but if you're going to accuse people of running around just executing people and acting like a "rogue unit" then i'll reply. As stated there will always be grey areas, and not everyone is perfect, but much of this stuff is sensationalised by people always looking for a story.

Their tactics and orders as they went into that building would of been to go in hard, identify those they felt were terrorists and to shoot to maim (and probably kill) them in a way that meant they were no longer a threat to the hostages or them, they have to do this against against a backdrop of thick smoke and the curtains being on fire from the charges set, whilst wearing respirators. It is a miracle they did what they did without further loss of life, you don't have to do too much Googling to find hostage situations that have ended much worse. The enquiry that followed stated reasonable force was used, and in an ideal world each terrorist would of been lightly tickled until submission, but they have split seconds to identify terrorist over hostage and make sure that the terrorist can't cause further harm to anyone else and that is heavy handed.

I've never done this sort of work, but have done clearing house to house and FIBUA and it's the most stressful, difficult part of soldiering

So who knows what colour the boat shed is?

i don't know, Sean Bean wouldn't tell me

Scud, took over from a bunch of your lads outside Sangin in 2005 i think. Have to say they were a top bunch of lads. Thats coming from a bootneck as well. Ill delete this in ten minutes so no proof of this comment exists 🙂

Cheers mate, coming from a family who were all sailors in Portsmouth, i tried to become a bootneck first, but my inability to tell green/brown/red from each other meant i was destined for a life as an airborne gunner in sunny Essex as they were the only ones that'd have me! (wouldn't admit that in public though...)

scud

Not at all, i asked then bearing in mind a documentary was made, where was the prosecutions and the follow up to it?

So going back to my original post, in light of your own and other replies....

jimjam - Member

Isn't there a kind of tacit understanding that this is something the SAS just does? [b]Obviously ex members and media[/b] aren't responsible for shaping the missions and behaviour of current members b[b]ut in almost any portrayal of the unit[/b] it's made clear they will carry out extra judicial assassinations should the need arise.

....notice that I've already mentioned or alluded to the potential for embellishment or exaggeration by ex members, and the key word which I've highlighted in bold was portrayal.

Now from your own replies scud, and those of others you've made it clear that if you read books, national newspapers or watch the BBC, (basically anyone who consumes media in Britain) you'll be presented by the [b]portrayal[/b] of the SAS as something of a rogue unit.

The reason I mention this, the reason I made the observation in the first place is is because this perception or portrayal plays into the validity of the Times headline, or rather how people perceive the validity (or lack) of it.

We've already had a full spectrum of reaction without much information. Everything from "they probably did it" to "it's fake news" to "they do this type of stuff but you can't possibly understand so shut up". That's what I find interesting.

As stated i stand by any perception of them being a rogue unit would probably be based in cheap novels and Hollywood films not in reality.

The issue being that this one unit within the British Army was thrust into the lime-light by the Iranian Embassy siege, followed by throngs of trashy novels with the winged dagger on the front to appeal to the 14 year old in us (like Commando comics when i was a lad). Most people couldn't tell you about the SBS, 18 Signals, SRR etc because they haven't been the subject of loads of ghost-written novels or the press scrutiny that the siege placed the SAS under.

They don't operate like a rogue unit, the press sensationalises and salivates every time they hear the three letters put toghether, as stated i've known a few lads that went forward for selection over the years and none of them did so to sell a book or place his name on the front of a newspaper.

110% what Scud said.

[quote=mactheknife ]Scud, took over from a bunch of your lads outside Sangin in 2005 i think. Have to say they were a top bunch of lads. Thats coming from a bootneck as well. [u]Ill delete this in ten minutes[/u] so no proof of this comment exists

POSTED 1 HOUR AGO #

you had one job...

The ARRSE thread on this is interesting, more open to it possibly being true than you lot!

The ARRSE thread on this is interesting, more open to it possibly being true than you lot!

the magic words are there "subject to an ongoing civil claim"

The ARRSE thread on this is interesting, more open to it possibly being true than you lot!

No-one bashes another unit more than another unit. ARRSE is quite spectacular where that's concerned. Lots of private respect but very little admitted to in a public forum.

They've already dismissed the others, this'd be the 10%

Either way 1 in 10 found to be true sounds pretty bad

90% found to be not even worth investigating. Agreed if 10% where found true that would be very serious but IMHO they'll find 100% are made up bollix by the "enemy" here trying to invent trouble and/or make a few £££

If 100 percent were found to be not true, the British Army would have never been involved in any incidents at all. Which is obviously, not true.

The thing is, whilst I suspect that there is nothing to the story, your opinion Jamby would see to it that no incident was ever investigated - and it would be inevitable before an incident was discovered and proven by investigative journalists instead, with resultant damage done to the reputation of the British Army. Some degree of transparency is good for the Armys reputation, and judging by many of the responses on the ARRSE thread - it would seem that others agree.

SAS members are no more immune to embellishment than any other soldier. They aren't James Bonds, or supermen or murderers or psychopaths. They are just normal people who happen to be exceptional soldiers. They are tested for, and put into situations of extreme stress which clearly requires above average mental strength.

^^This^^

I've known many Hereford folks over the years, and in addition, I know someone who is currently SBS. This description fits them all. Especially the SBS chap. He's one of the ones inserted in to nasty places to do terminal things to people. He is an exceptional [s]sailor[/s] soldier. He's also a thoroughly lovely person that I've known all my life. His work hasn't changed him one bit.

It's certainly possible. As alluded to, you don't need to look to far back in history to see evidence of when the ' good guys' were in the wrong and carried out war crimes in the field.

Of course it needs investigated. If true them the those found guilty should be punished.

But if it's not then the people who wrote this should be also held to account. By writing lies it will only put civilians and forces on greater danger

Is it so hard to believe this sort of thing happens? Perhaps folk think it's only young [i]brown[/i] skinned men that are radicalised.

Is it so hard to believe this sort of thing happens? Perhaps folk think it's only young [s]brown skinned[/s] men and women that are radicalised.

tpbiker - Member
It's certainly possible. As alluded to, you don't need to look to far back in history to see evidence of when the ' good guys' were in the wrong and carried out war crimes in the field.

Of course it needs investigated. If true them the those found guilty should be punished.

But if it's not then the people who wrote this should be also held to account. By writing lies it will only put civilians and forces on greater danger

Unfortunately if found to be false nothing will happen to those making the false allegations. Even when found to be a lying, deceitful solicitor making false claims to defraud the tax payer they don't face any jail term such as Martyn Day and Phil Shiner.
The soldiers over worked in theatre, not supported once returned and then prosecuted on false claims so that others may profit are just expected to carry on.