The killings of innocents.

American_Mary said:
War is hell and as much as we would like nice, neat goodies vs baddies quite often the lines are blurred, it is why war should always be the very last option, there is no glory in war, just death, destruction, heartbreak and despair.

Extreme situations cause terrible things and despite the rights and wrongs of going into any conflict once a war has started both sides will be responsible for behaviour that is deserving of condemnation but when we create armed forces that are killing machines and put them into action then you can't expect behaviour normal to other scenarios.
Click to expand...
Always great posts from AM.

Churchill said something along the lines of ‘ in order to maintain a civilised society, sometimes we have to pay big nasty men to do unspeakable things’. As much as I view Churchill as a warmonger I think he might have been right.
 
As i understand it, the whole of the allegations brought up by the BBC are all without credible source,
apparently there have been 2 investigations previously into these allegations toward the British SAS and both have been found without substance. Allegations brought by dodgy human rights Lawyers looking for a pay day.
Im led to believe 1 of these lawyers has now been struck of. The BBC should hang their heads , well they would be able to if if they didnt have them shoved so far up the woke lefts arses . Unsubstantiated , here say from very less than credible sources. But doesnt stop the barrack room lawyers and and johnny know **** alls spouting their abhorrence at these outrageous acts ( which , didnt happen!! )
 
M
whinneybanksaint said:
As i understand it, the whole of the allegations brought up by the BBC are all without credible source,
apparently there have been 2 investigations previously into these allegations toward the British SAS and both have been found without substance. Allegations brought by dodgy human rights Lawyers looking for a pay day.
Im led to believe 1 of these lawyers has now been struck of. The BBC should hang their heads , well they would be able to if if they didnt have them shoved so far up the woke lefts arses . Unsubstantiated , here say from very less than credible sources. But doesnt stop the barrack room lawyers and and johnny know **** alls spouting their abhorrence at these outrageous acts ( which , didnt happen!! )
Click to expand...

The panorama documentary which is making the claims has not been on yet. Might be worth waiting and watching until anyone decides whether its credible or not.
 
When in war zone a problem you have got is that Taliban/ISIS don't wear uniforms.

Its OK saying Geneva convention and protection of prisoners, but without uniforms how do you identify the enemy?

Another issue is what do you do when there are say 12 of you and 100 of the enemy and you are fighting behind their lines, can 12 solders run about with say 50 suspected prisoners?

In Saving Private Ryan it was around 10 Americans and 1 German and the German was in uniform. The other scene I remember in that film was the killing of a boy SS solder by Americans after he had just surrended. They killed him in the heat of the moment close up in a trench after seeing some of ther colleagues die on the cliffs and beaches possibly some killed by the boy. 30 seconds after killing the boy the US solder was physically sick and ashamed. Another US solder cynically said to him now you have the Hitler Youth knife you always craved.

In WW2 we sent SOE agents into mainland Europe to cause serious damage and kill the enemy what ever way they could. They could not take prisoners. If the SOE agents were caught they were often brutally tortured and then killed as per Violet Szabo. The German and French who killed them said they had no rights as they did wear uniforms.

Context is everything.

And as AM said avoid wars.
 
Fat_Dragon said:
It's already on BBC iPlayer to watch
Click to expand...

Ah, my apologies didn't realise, I cant get used to this new fangled technology only just got used to having 5 channels!
TBF I get the impression that some who are commenting on the program and criticising it, haven't watched it.
 
Last edited:
Scrote said:
This wasn't people claiming to be 'out for a stroll' moments after a gunfight, though.

This was people taken from their beds at night and restrained.

Then they were taken back into the houses and shot.
(
There isn't a 'heat of battle' excuse that can be used here, assuming the accusations are sound.
Click to expand...
The key word here is "people"

If these were people were not involved in fighting/killing of course it was wrong.

What if they were significant enemy combatants (in recent history) or they had just made a recent video of a You Tube beheading of a Western Aid worker.

Or maybe we could have issued an arrest warrant?

Or send jets in to destroy most of the village?

It must be very hard to differentiate.

These are very nasty wars.

I have argued on here that we should not get involved but our Government at the time (Blair?) sanctioned these wars/conflicts.
 
Redwurzel said:
What if they were significant enemy combatants (in recent history) or they had just made a recent video of a You Tube beheading of a Western Aid worker.
Click to expand...
If they were any of those things then the intelligence would probably have mentioned them.

The whole point of this is that the SAS were sent in to capture/investigate suspects at night. Presumably when they were expected to be sleeping.

In the cases highlighted (assuming the evidence is correct) they had restrained the suspects and then somehow lost control (multiple times) and had to shoot them.

I wasn't there. I don't know what happened. If the SAS is incompetent then something needs to be done. If everything is above board then it should be relatively easy to prove.
 
They haven’t just gone out and killed random civilians. These people will have been targets, but because of all the do gooders now, as they didn’t have a weapon it’s classed as murder??

So to kill them do they have to directly be in line with you firing at you?

If so what about all the missile strikes fired from distance at a general who was talking in a car park? There’s plenty of those videos kicking about on the internet
 
Bigstrongman said:
They haven’t just gone out and killed random civilians. These people will have been targets, but because of all the do gooders now, as they didn’t have a weapon it’s classed as murder??

So to kill them do they have to directly be in line with you firing at you?

If so what about all the missile strikes fired from distance at a general who was talking in a car park? There’s plenty of those videos kicking about on the internet
Click to expand...
If we accept war is war, and that brutality goes hand in hand and anything goes, then fair enough, kill whoever, whenever, in whatever way. But we cannot complain or feel revulsion when the same thing happens and any British soldiers or possible civilians, who are captured armed, unarmed or who surrender are treated and killed in the same way.
If that's how humans, who don't know each other, want to treat each other then we live in the world we deserve.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a bit loose and fast to call them 'civilians'. Yes they may not have been armed yet they will be the next day or IED makers. These will he graded 'Tier' targets with plenty of back ground work and investigations.

It's not a conventional war. These people are effectively 'civilians' who have taken up arms. The moment they put those weapons down are they no longer a threat? I'd say 'of course they are'.

Also the fact it's the SAS that have went after them suggest they were pretty important.

What's the difference between the SAS taking them out at point blank range or a drone strike on a building? The chances are they will he sat around eating or with family members when a drone strikes. Also very much unarmed when the strike hits.

We going after drone operators next?
 
Scrote said:
If they were any of those things then the intelligence would probably have mentioned them.

The whole point of this is that the SAS were sent in to capture/investigate suspects at night. Presumably when they were expected to be sleeping.

In the cases highlighted (assuming the evidence is correct) they had restrained the suspects and then somehow lost control (multiple times) and had to shoot them.

I wasn't there. I don't know what happened. If the SAS is incompetent then something needs to be done. If everything is above board then it should be relatively easy to prove.
Click to expand...
I mentioned beheadings of civilians/solders because this went on in the Middle East by extremist groups, possibly to provoke extreme reactions by others. It might not be pertinent to the specific cases in the documentary but it was a type of risk that solders could face if captured.

Ref "lost control" - The SAS are far from perfect and wars are littered with mistakes by any armed force, look at the stuff coming out about the many mistakes in the Falklands War that were almost covered up at the time. Its impossible to have armed forces that don't mistakes. Obviously the aim is to mimimise the mistakes, look after the lives of your own forces and protect innocent civilians while meeting objectives given in advance - all while acting at speed behind enemy lines with possibly fair from accurate inside information and in some cases deliberately fed wrong information.

I possibly need to watch the documentary in full - was it saying the SAS were deliberately going out to kill any civilian who was an Afgan male and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - sort of revenge/anger killings? in the vein of My Lai (US Atrocities in Vietnam 1968).

or were they conducting executions to protect themselves from possible attack?

or were they taking the law into their own hands type executions based on what the captured told them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top