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?

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. [/quote]

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.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD14OSmUniA [/video]

*Obviously 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) The Daily Mail, 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?

No.

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

Not in informed circles they don’t.

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?

Rumour spurred on by machismo. 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.
I’d put the mortgage on this being complete bollocks. In AFG, their workload was horrendous. They were on task day and night, even parachuting onto site on occasion. There is no way, no how that they would be wasting their energy, time and resources on shite like this.
The RMP have to investigate when an allegation is made, but it’s maddening that people with far better things to do will have their time wasted because some rag has made a load of stuff up. Murdoch should be sent an invoice for the investigation.

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? 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.

….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 portrayal 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.

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”

Quite…….

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 sailor 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 brown skinned men that are radicalised.

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

FTFY, seeing as how you’ve missed the numerous news reports about the number of ‘young white men’, oh, and women, who’ve gone to fight with Daesh, behead innocent people, etc.
And the discussion has absolutely sod-all to do with ‘radicalisation’, the situation is much more to do with battlefield stress.
You really don’t appear to understand what ‘radicalisation’ actually means.

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.