SAS Unit repeatedly killed Afghan Detainees

[esmufc07]

Grim

SAS reports reveal troubling pattern of suspicious deaths in Afghanistan https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-62083196

 

[Champ]

British army in possible illegal activities whilst on duty shocker....

This will be pushed under the rug as always due to the nationalist pride that Brits must show to their armed forces.

 

[11101]

It's not a shocker that when you train men to be arguably the world's most efficient killers, a few of them might become a bit unhinged in the process. They're going into the highest risk places to get the most dangerous people. They're not going to hesitate if there's the slightest doubt about somebody and they will inevitably get a few wrong.

Its not right but I don't think it's possible to put people like that in an environment like that and not have accidents. Blame the people who sent them there.

 

[Red Rash]

I will read the whole article later when I have time but this is very concerning. The thing that I find difficult is that we have been (rightly) disgusted by how the Russians have treated and murdered detainees in Ukraine but the British army was doing the same in Afghanistan.

I know the scale of the crimes is vastly different but it is very difficult to swallow that this has happened

 

[TwoSheds]

It's not a shocker that when you train men to be arguably the world's most efficient killers, a few of them might become a bit unhinged in the process. They're going into the highest risk places to get the most dangerous people. They're not going to hesitate if there's the slightest doubt about somebody and they will inevitably get a few wrong.

Its not right but I don't think it's possible to put people like that in an environment like that and not have accidents. Blame the people who sent them there.

If someone breaks the law while on duty then they're not a reliable soldier and their crimes should not be covered up by the head of the armed forces. If they nicked a tin of sweets or if they murdered some unarmed kid, some superior officer in the army ought to report it and it go to the appropriate level of disciplinary. Hearts and minds is what the British army used to be quite good at many decades ago, it shouldn't be forgotten that that is really the only way to sustain a victory in a far flung country.

 

[K Stand Knut]

It's not a shocker that when you train men to be arguably the world's most efficient killers, a few of them might become a bit unhinged in the process. They're going into the highest risk places to get the most dangerous people. They're not going to hesitate if there's the slightest doubt about somebody and they will inevitably get a few wrong.

Its not right but I don't think it's possible to put people like that in an environment like that and not have accidents. Blame the people who sent them there.[/QUOTE

Strange use of words

 

[GazTheLegend]

@Red Rash

We were NOT doing "the same as the Russians" in Afghanistan. And let's not forget the Russians were there too -(presumably committing many unaccounted for crimes!) and have been there many times in the past.

 

[esmufc07]

It's not a shocker that when you train men to be arguably the world's most efficient killers, a few of them might become a bit unhinged in the process. They're going into the highest risk places to get the most dangerous people. They're not going to hesitate if there's the slightest doubt about somebody and they will inevitably get a few wrong.

Its not right but I don't think it's possible to put people like that in an environment like that and not have accidents. Blame the people who sent them there.

 

[Pexbo]

It's not a shocker that when you train men to be arguably the world's most efficient killers, a few of them might become a bit unhinged in the process. They're going into the highest risk places to get the most dangerous people. They're not going to hesitate if there's the slightest doubt about somebody and they will inevitably get a few wrong.

Its not right but I don't think it's possible to put people like that in an environment like that and not have accidents. Blame the people who sent them there.

You consistently have the worst take on every subject. It’s remarkable.

 

[The Corinthian]

It's not a shocker that when you train men to be arguably the world's most efficient killers, a few of them might become a bit unhinged in the process. They're going into the highest risk places to get the most dangerous people. They're not going to hesitate if there's the slightest doubt about somebody and they will inevitably get a few wrong.

Its not right but I don't think it's possible to put people like that in an environment like that and not have accidents. Blame the people who sent them there.

Utter nonsense.

 

[rimaldo]

Strange use of words

now now. before every killing one of the sasers would shout “he’s coming right for us” jimbo and ned style, before any hail of bullets was released against a bound prisoner. accidents like that are simply unavoidable imo.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

That’s a grim read and an impressive piece of investigative journalism. From the supposed government mouthpieces of the BBC and the Sunday Times. Maybe the MSM are good for something after all?

 

[CassiusClaymore]

It's not a shocker that when you train men to be arguably the world's most efficient killers, a few of them might become a bit unhinged in the process. They're going into the highest risk places to get the most dangerous people. They're not going to hesitate if there's the slightest doubt about somebody and they will inevitably get a few wrong.

Its not right but I don't think it's possible to put people like that in an environment like that and not have accidents. Blame the people who sent them there.

You didn't read the article did you?

Individuals who served with the SAS squadron on that deployment told the BBC they witnessed the SAS operatives kill unarmed people during night raids.
They also said they saw the operatives using so-called "drop weapons" - AK-47s planted at a scene to justify the killing of an unarmed person.
Several people who served with special forces said that SAS squadrons were competing with each other to get the most kills, and that the squadron scrutinised by the BBC was trying to achieve a higher body count than the one it had replaced.

 

[VanDeBank]

It's not a shocker that when you train men to be arguably the world's most efficient killers, a few of them might become a bit unhinged in the process. They're going into the highest risk places to get the most dangerous people. They're not going to hesitate if there's the slightest doubt about somebody and they will inevitably get a few wrong.

Its not right but I don't think it's possible to put people like that in an environment like that and not have accidents. Blame the people who sent them there.

Mate, with all due respect, you're talking out of your arse. Read the article.

 

[Sultan]

It's not a shocker that when you train men to be arguably the world's most efficient killers, a few of them might become a bit unhinged in the process. They're going into the highest risk places to get the most dangerous people. They're not going to hesitate if there's the slightest doubt about somebody and they will inevitably get a few wrong.

Its not right but I don't think it's possible to put people like that in an environment like that and not have accidents. Blame the people who sent them there.

Even if you have not read the article the BBC's massive headline clearly states detainees. I am positive they will not be allowed to roam in prison with weapons. Stop excusing defending the indefensible.

 

[GazTheLegend]

Even if you have not read the article the BBC's massive headline clearly states detainees. I am positive they will not be allowed to roam in prison with weapons. Stop excusing defending the indefensible.

I read the article.

They don't specifically mean detainees as in inmates/prisoners. There's a few things I take umbrage with in the article to that end, because there's a little bit of confusion here:

• the SAS are not prison guards.
• these were on operations at night behind enemy lines
• It's not obvious what their orders were in these cases

"Individuals who served with the SAS squadron on that deployment told the BBC they witnessed the SAS operatives kill unarmed people during night raids. "

Essentially, what I can infer here is that the S.A.S. were sent on various sorties and missions at night, some of the enemies they encountered surrendered. They were 'captured' and became detainees and then afterwards killed. There's two difficulties that are faced by anyone in the armed forces - the "Rules of Engagement" are clear, it's illegal to shoot someone who is no longer a threat. So they absolutely shouldn't have done what they did. But - and a big but here - they're sent on these missions for a reason, they're given a list of intelligence regarding potential threats, they're sent to eliminate them, not to take them back. The biggest issue here is:
" SAS squadrons were competing with each other to get the most kills, and that the squadron scrutinised by the BBC was trying to achieve a higher body count than the one it had replaced. " It's a dangerous mentality but it's sort of how the armed forces operate, particularly those types of people.

And the other question is "was the assumption by those soldiers that they were SENT to kill those men".

This I absolutely do believe. British Intelligence doesn't send out the S.A.S. with a list of names in order to play "Hearts and Minds" with them. You can hate the reasons for them being there, you can hate the mentality behind the special forces, but those guys are trained to kill, and if they're told to go and get people that's generally the assumption they make.

 

[11101]

You didn't read the article did you?

Yeah, I did. It's a couple of things that happened. One is shooting people in the heat of the battle who were thought to be a threat but turned out not to be, the other is catching known bad guys without a weapon, knowing they will pick one back up the second they leave.

The first is horrible but unavoidable in war. The second has long plagued special forces units because they are the ones most likely to encounter them the second time. The SAS has been in trouble for it before.

 

[Brwned]

I read the article.

They don't specifically mean detainees as in inmates/prisoners. There's a few things I take umbrage with in the article to that end, because there's a little bit of confusion here:

• the SAS are not prison guards.
• these were on operations at night behind enemy lines
• It's not obvious what their orders were in these cases

"Individuals who served with the SAS squadron on that deployment told the BBC they witnessed the SAS operatives kill unarmed people during night raids. "

Essentially, what I can infer here is that the S.A.S. were sent on various sorties and missions at night, some of the enemies they encountered surrendered. They were 'captured' and became detainees and then afterwards killed. There's two difficulties that are faced by anyone in the armed forces - the "Rules of Engagement" are clear, it's illegal to shoot someone who is no longer a threat. So they absolutely shouldn't have done what they did. But - and a big but here - they're sent on these missions for a reason, they're given a list of intelligence regarding potential threats, they're sent to eliminate them, not to take them back. The biggest issue here is:
" SAS squadrons were competing with each other to get the most kills, and that the squadron scrutinised by the BBC was trying to achieve a higher body count than the one it had replaced. " It's a dangerous mentality but it's sort of how the armed forces operate, particularly those types of people.

And the other question is "was the assumption by those soldiers that they were SENT to kill those men".

This I absolutely do believe. But British Intelligence doesn't send out the S.A.S. with a list of names in order to play "Hearts and Minds" with them. You can hate the reasons for them being there, you can hate the mentality behind the special forces, but those guys are trained to kill, and if they're told to go and get people that's generally the assumption they make.

If they've detained them, they're supposed to bring them back. It was a kill or capture mission. They're supposed to kill them if they have to; if they're unable to capture them, and they pose a threat to life. They captured them. And then pretended they had grenades so they could kill them to get the highest score. Hence the made up explanations, and the ridicule poured on it by their own officers. They wouldn't make up the explanation if they're doing what they were sent there to do. It's unbelievable how quick some people are to defend the indefensible.

 

[GazTheLegend]

If they've detained them, they're supposed to bring them back. It was a kill or capture mission. They captured them. And then pretended they had grenades so they could kill them to get the highest score. It's unbelievable how quick some people are to defend the indefensible.

I'm not exactly trying to defend them here, without knowing each individual case it's pretty hard to pass judgement on what is a single source given to the BBC. It sounds pretty disgusting.
But there's IMPLICATIONS in their kill or capture orders. 'the targeting was pressured and rushed. "It didn't necessarily translate into let's kill them all, but certainly there was a pressure to up the game, which basically meant passing out judgements on these people quickly," he said. '

The point being that the members of the S.A.S. know what their primary purpose is, and if they're sent to do something the assumption is that it's not to capture, even if that's written in smaller writing as part of their mandate.

 

[Conor]

Guys, it's war, you just don't understand.

 

[Irrational.]

Several people who served with special forces said that SAS squadrons were competing with each other to get the most kills, and that the squadron scrutinised by the BBC was trying to achieve a higher body count than the one it had replaced.

Sounds like they were doing a lot worse than “getting a few wrong”. They are essentially war criminals and should be treated as such - nothing will happen though.

 

[sullydnl]

British troops? Unlawful killings? Surely not.

 

[VorZakone]

British troops? Unlawful killings? Surely not.

Hardly a specific British problem I reckon. Didn't some Australian unit also commit murders in Afghanistan?

 

[sullydnl]

Hardly a specific British problem I reckon. Didn't some Australian unit also commit murders in Afghanistan?

Oh I wasn't saying it was a problem specific to Britain, just that it isn't even remotely surprising.

 

[Mogget]

You consistently have the worst take on every subject. It’s remarkable.

If he was Russian he would be 110% be defending Russian war crimes in Ukraine. Exact same mentality.

 

[Kanu]

People who have read the article defending this shit

What a world we live in. Unarmed civilians being executed for a high score.

 

[11101]

If they've detained them, they're supposed to bring them back. It was a kill or capture mission. They're supposed to kill them if they have to; if they're unable to capture them, and they pose a threat to life. They captured them. And then pretended they had grenades so they could kill them to get the highest score. Hence the made up explanations, and the ridicule poured on it by their own officers. They wouldn't make up the explanation if they're doing what they were sent there to do. It's unbelievable how quick some people are to defend the indefensible.

They're supposed to kill or capture the targets but there are others there who aren't on the list. If they can't bring them back for whatever reason, the choice is let them loose to fight again the next night, or...

That's why these things have happened before and I'm sure it's the same this time.

 

[IWat]

Yeah, I did. It's a couple of things that happened. One is shooting people in the heat of the battle who were thought to be a threat but turned out not to be, the other is catching known bad guys without a weapon, knowing they will pick one back up the second they leave.

The first is horrible but unavoidable in war. The second has long plagued special forces units because they are the ones most likely to encounter them the second time. The SAS has been in trouble for it before.

Yep. Served in Afghan, the amount of corruption over there was unreal. Between prison breaks and prisoners just being released - I can see the mindset of capture being a pointless exercise. Not that I condone the killing of unarmed civilians, but serious questions (again) have to be asked of the intelligence services on some of these. Guys and girls in offices sending men into risky situations based off piecemeal information which in some cases I saw was just plain wrong or out by an order of magnitude e.g. they'd estimate 10 combatants and it'd be closer to 100 than 10.

 

[nimic]

British army in possible illegal activities whilst on duty shocker....

This will be pushed under the rug as always due to the nationalist pride that Brits must show to their armed forces.

How right you were.

 

[nimic]

They're supposed to kill or capture the targets but there are others there who aren't on the list. If they can't bring them back for whatever reason, the choice is let them loose to fight again the next night, or...

That's why these things have happened before and I'm sure it's the same this time.

So the choice is between committing war crimes and not committing war crimes.

 

[C3Pique]

Get Johnny Mercer on the case, it'll be swept under the rug in no time.

 

[mu4c_20le]

Yeah, I did. It's a couple of things that happened. One is shooting people in the heat of the battle who were thought to be a threat but turned out not to be, the other is catching known bad guys without a weapon, knowing they will pick one back up the second they leave.

The first is horrible but unavoidable in war. The second has long plagued special forces units because they are the ones most likely to encounter them the second time. The SAS has been in trouble for it before.

Think you been reading too much Jack Reacher.

 

[Jippy]

Don't they know there's a war on!

 

[11101]

So the choice is between committing war crimes and not committing war crimes.

Its a choice between committing war crimes or letting the guy go who will try and kill you tomorrow night. It's not as black and white as you think it is.

Yep. Served in Afghan, the amount of corruption over there was unreal. Between prison breaks and prisoners just being released - I can see the mindset of capture being a pointless exercise. Not that I condone the killing of unarmed civilians, but serious questions (again) have to be asked of the intelligence services on some of these. Guys and girls in offices sending men into risky situations based off piecemeal information which in some cases I saw was just plain wrong or out by an order of magnitude e.g. they'd estimate 10 combatants and it'd be closer to 100 than 10.

Exactly. The pressure the special forces are put under is insane and Afghanistan and Iraq increased the tempo well beyond what it should have been. It's driven higher PTSD rates and pushed soldiers to breakdown, and then they get judged by people sitting safely behind their desks at home.

 

[Moby]

Its a choice between committing war crimes or letting the guy go who will try and kill you tomorrow night. It's not as black and white as you think it is.

Are you basically suggesting the only option for them is to kill every single adult in the vicinity?

 

[The Firestarter]

Its a choice between committing war crimes or letting the guy go who will try and kill you tomorrow night. It's not as black and white as you think it is.

So they can predict the future? I knew they were special, but man...

You are having a mare here by the way.

 

[11101]

Are you basically suggesting the only option for them is to kill every single adult in the vicinity?

No, I'm outlining the very grey area that's been a problem in Afghanistan since day 1 of enemy fighters hiding their weapons as soon as they see a soldier, only to pick it back up again once they leave.

 

[Frosty]

The Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act was passed into legislation in April 2021.

The act includes a:

• statutory presumption against prosecution of current or former personnel for alleged offences committed in the course of duty more than five years ago
• requirement that any prosecution brought more than five years after the event must have the attorney general’s consent to proceed
• ‘longstop’ to prevent claimants bringing human rights or civil litigation claims for personal injury or death more than six years after the event

The act only applies to allegations and claims relating to military operations outside the UK.

The government has previously consulted on these and other related issues through the Ministry of Defence (MoD) consultations on:

• legal protections for armed forces personnel and veterans serving in operations outside the United Kingdom
• better combat compensation

 

[Frosty]

Get Johnny Mercer on the case, it'll be swept under the rug in no time.

Already done!

 

[shamans]

@Red Rash

We were NOT doing "the same as the Russians" in Afghanistan. And let's not forget the Russians were there too -(presumably committing many unaccounted for crimes!) and have been there many times in the past.

How exactly do you know this?