Top General Locked Away Evidence of SAS Executions

Top General Locked Away Evidence of SAS Executions

Author
Discussion

GreatGranny

Original Poster:

9,359 posts

233 months

Thursday 16th November 2023
quotequote all
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67418001

He is now the second most senior officer in the British armed forces.

Wonder how this will play out.

XCP

17,180 posts

235 months

Thursday 16th November 2023
quotequote all
He reported it to his superior. Who did what?

sugerbear

4,539 posts

165 months

Thursday 16th November 2023
quotequote all
They both had a legal duty to report the matter to the military police and didnt.

They should both be sacked.

XCP

17,180 posts

235 months

Thursday 16th November 2023
quotequote all
sugerbear said:
They both had a legal duty to report the matter to the military police and didnt.

They should both be sacked.
Why both? Surely that is a job for the most senior, once he has been informed?
No doubt the intricacies will emerge.

BikeBikeBIke

10,183 posts

122 months

Thursday 16th November 2023
quotequote all
GreatGranny said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67418001

He is now the second most senior officer in the British armed forces.

Wonder how this will play out.
Absolute disgrace, people should be doing life sentences.

However I suspect these two officers might be saved by:

"Gen Page responded to Gen Jenkins' memo by commissioning a rare formal review of the tactics used by SAS units on night raids. A special forces officer was deployed to Afghanistan to interview personnel from the SAS squadron under scrutiny."

....no matter how poor that investigation was.


The idea that competent experienced UK soldiers committed over 50 murders leaves boils my piss.



Pupp

12,357 posts

279 months

Thursday 16th November 2023
quotequote all
XCP said:
sugerbear said:
They both had a legal duty to report the matter to the military police and didnt.

They should both be sacked.
Why both? Surely that is a job for the most senior, once he has been informed?
No doubt the intricacies will emerge.
In the same way the intricacies of Bloody Sunday emerged? Don’t hold your breath.

Ivan stewart

2,792 posts

43 months

Thursday 16th November 2023
quotequote all
GreatGranny said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67418001

He is now the second most senior officer in the British armed forces.

Wonder how this will play out.

With less people willing to do dirty jobs to keep us safe??

lauda

3,673 posts

214 months

Thursday 16th November 2023
quotequote all
XCP said:
sugerbear said:
They both had a legal duty to report the matter to the military police and didnt.

They should both be sacked.
Why both? Surely that is a job for the most senior, once he has been informed?
No doubt the intricacies will emerge.
You can’t delegate your legal responsibility to someone else just because they’re above you in an organisational hierarchy.

BikeBikeBIke

10,183 posts

122 months

Friday 17th November 2023
quotequote all
Ivan stewart said:
With less people willing to do dirty jobs to keep us safe??
These guys killed over 50 people. The guys before and and after them killed zero. All the other special forces managed fine.

i'm as opposed to witch hunts of our troops in wat zone as anyone but this is something very different.

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Friday 17th November 03:30

Greenmantle

1,475 posts

115 months

Friday 17th November 2023
quotequote all
War is place of no rules.
Soldiers are trained to fight and kill the enemy.
Stick into your Blu-ray player "Saving Private Ryan" and turn the volume up on the landings and then experience only a small part of what it is like.
Soldiers are trained well.
Let the army chuck out the physco's since they know that sort of attitude will get the good soldiers killed as well.
Analysing afterwards in our cosy chairs the actions and situations of soldiers is not for anyone.
Why did Oates leave the tent to die. Was he mad or realised the situation for the others.
On the battlefield decisions are made quickly by the senior people on the ground. If that means killing the captured enemy to save themselves then so be it.
This is why politicians should NEVER make the decision to go to war unless THEY take sole responsibility for everything that happens BEFORE giving the go-ahead.

Silvanus

6,063 posts

30 months

Friday 17th November 2023
quotequote all
Greenmantle said:
War is place of no rules.
Soldiers are trained to fight and kill the enemy.
Stick into your Blu-ray player "Saving Private Ryan" and turn the volume up on the landings and then experience only a small part of what it is like.
Soldiers are trained well.
Let the army chuck out the physco's since they know that sort of attitude will get the good soldiers killed as well.
Analysing afterwards in our cosy chairs the actions and situations of soldiers is not for anyone.
Why did Oates leave the tent to die. Was he mad or realised the situation for the others.
On the battlefield decisions are made quickly by the senior people on the ground. If that means killing the captured enemy to save themselves then so be it.
This is why politicians should NEVER make the decision to go to war unless THEY take sole responsibility for everything that happens BEFORE giving the go-ahead.
Thankfully in war there are rules.

BikeBikeBIke

10,183 posts

122 months

Friday 17th November 2023
quotequote all
Silvanus said:
Thankfully in war there are rules.
...and in this instance directly comparable troops routinely obeyed them. This is different to what we've seen before which (IMHO) was excusable.

mac96

4,436 posts

150 months

Friday 17th November 2023
quotequote all
Silvanus said:
Greenmantle said:
War is place of no rules.
Soldiers are trained to fight and kill the enemy.
Stick into your Blu-ray player "Saving Private Ryan" and turn the volume up on the landings and then experience only a small part of what it is like.
Soldiers are trained well.
Let the army chuck out the physco's since they know that sort of attitude will get the good soldiers killed as well.
Analysing afterwards in our cosy chairs the actions and situations of soldiers is not for anyone.
Why did Oates leave the tent to die. Was he mad or realised the situation for the others.
On the battlefield decisions are made quickly by the senior people on the ground. If that means killing the captured enemy to save themselves then so be it.
This is why politicians should NEVER make the decision to go to war unless THEY take sole responsibility for everything that happens BEFORE giving the go-ahead.
Thankfully in war there are rules.
It would be naive to pretend that they are always obeyed though, except when it suits the combatant. Winning (or avoiding defeat) usually comes ahead of rules, especially in existential conflicts.

I am not saying that rules are pointless or that 'our boys' should have a free hand to ignore them, but I absolutely agree that politicians who create wars are the ones primarily responsible for the consequences, and those consequences include the entirely predictable rule breaking.

otolith

59,140 posts

211 months

Friday 17th November 2023
quotequote all
We're not talking about dubious acts committed in battle here, though, we're talking about executing prisoners captured in raids on dwellings.

Disastrous

10,134 posts

224 months

Friday 17th November 2023
quotequote all
Greenmantle said:
War is place of no rules.
Soldiers are trained to fight and kill the enemy.
Stick into your Blu-ray player "Saving Private Ryan" and turn the volume up on the landings and then experience only a small part of what it is like.
Soldiers are trained well.
Let the army chuck out the physco's since they know that sort of attitude will get the good soldiers killed as well.
Analysing afterwards in our cosy chairs the actions and situations of soldiers is not for anyone.
Why did Oates leave the tent to die. Was he mad or realised the situation for the others.
On the battlefield decisions are made quickly by the senior people on the ground. If that means killing the captured enemy to save themselves then so be it.
This is why politicians should NEVER make the decision to go to war unless THEY take sole responsibility for everything that happens BEFORE giving the go-ahead.
Genuinely staggering that someone feels this way.


Greenmantle

1,475 posts

115 months

Friday 17th November 2023
quotequote all
Disastrous said:
Greenmantle said:
War is place of no rules.
Soldiers are trained to fight and kill the enemy.
Stick into your Blu-ray player "Saving Private Ryan" and turn the volume up on the landings and then experience only a small part of what it is like.
Soldiers are trained well.
Let the army chuck out the physco's since they know that sort of attitude will get the good soldiers killed as well.
Analysing afterwards in our cosy chairs the actions and situations of soldiers is not for anyone.
Why did Oates leave the tent to die. Was he mad or realised the situation for the others.
On the battlefield decisions are made quickly by the senior people on the ground. If that means killing the captured enemy to save themselves then so be it.
This is why politicians should NEVER make the decision to go to war unless THEY take sole responsibility for everything that happens BEFORE giving the go-ahead.
Genuinely staggering that someone feels this way.
Let me ask whether you have ever experienced war personally. willing to bet you haven'!
maybe go and spend sometime in a warzone to understand the hell that it is.

Jasandjules

70,506 posts

236 months

Friday 17th November 2023
quotequote all
BikeBikeBIke said:
These guys killed over 50 people. The guys before and and after them killed zero. All the other special forces managed fine.

i'm as opposed to witch hunts of our troops in wat zone as anyone but this is something very different.

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Friday 17th November 03:30
Watch the footage of the embassy and get back to me on that. The ONLY reason was the cameras.....

2xChevrons

3,539 posts

87 months

Friday 17th November 2023
quotequote all
Greenmantle said:
Let me ask whether you have ever experienced war personally. willing to bet you haven'!
maybe go and spend sometime in a warzone to understand the hell that it is.
So why did the SAS squadron have a much higher body count than other units conducting similar operations in the same area? In some cases infinitely higher, since the unit in the area before them for the same time period killed no one? Why was not a single injury to any SAS operative recorded in the same period where they 'had to' kill 54 people in self defence?

Why were so many of these killings in response to detainees who (supposedly) got loose and found rifles behind curtains and grenades in drain pipes? Conveniently out of sight of other witnesses? Despite no other units reporting these behaviours in detainees?

As I said last time this subject came up - either the SAS is lying and was (in all likelihood) committing war crimes or they really, really need to improve their hostage-taking and room-clearing skills. Because either there was something rotten going on in those units at that time or they were less competent than a Cadet troop on a weekend exercise.

BikeBikeBIke

10,183 posts

122 months

Friday 17th November 2023
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
BikeBikeBIke said:
These guys killed over 50 people. The guys before and and after them killed zero. All the other special forces managed fine.

i'm as opposed to witch hunts of our troops in wat zone as anyone but this is something very different.

Edited by BikeBikeBIke on Friday 17th November 03:30
Watch the footage of the embassy and get back to me on that. The ONLY reason was the cameras.....
I'd cheerfully count that as 'tolerable' and forgive it. (Although it shocked me at the time and I'm glad they didn't do it.)

Turning up in someone's village and killing everyone over 15 on a completely false pretext is a totally different situation. ...and the proof is nobody else was doing it.

BikeBikeBIke

10,183 posts

122 months

Friday 17th November 2023
quotequote all
2xChevrons said:
So why did the SAS squadron have a much higher body count than other units conducting similar operations in the same area? In some cases infinitely higher, since the unit in the area before them for the same time period killed no one? Why was not a single injury to any SAS operative recorded in the same period where they 'had to' kill 54 people in self defence?
That's the clincher and that's what sets this apart.