Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Alleged SAS War Crimes Report

You seem incapable of drawing a distinction between the process of obtaining convictions against individuals through the courts,

Brilliant, you absolute belter. Just to remind you

The shooting is clearly a murder of an unarmed and motionless individual.

Now, what were you saying about about the court process ?

Are CDF and the IGADF keyboard commandos? Because they've concluded that there's sufficient evidence to warrant an institutional response.

It does not matter what they have concluded - It is what the subsequent investigation and the Courts conclude.

You seem incapable of drawing a distinction between the process of obtaining convictions against individuals through the courts,

Take your face to a mirror and have a long hard look and reflect on this

The shooting is clearly a murder of an unarmed and motionless individual.

I am not aware that anyone has been through Due Process, tried in a Court of Law and convicted of anything, let alone murder.

I think your motivations here are fascinating. Why are you fighting tooth and nail to defend war crimes on a technicality?

What a belter.

Who has been convicted of anything, let alone war crimes ?
 
I'm told the Blackhawk crew had something to say about it too........

They may well have done.

Were you told if they spoke up at the time ?

If not why not. If they did, why wasn't anything done at the time ?

Perhaps Patrol Leaders could also influence Blackhawk crews as well as the CoC. Sounds like these guys had the whole Military based in Afghan under their thumbs :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
They may well have done.

Were you told if they spoke up at the time ?

If not why not. If they did, why wasn't anything done at the time ?

Perhaps Patrol Leaders could also influence Blackhawk crews as well as the CoC. Sounds like these guys had the whole Military based in Afghan under their thumbs :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You appear to do "fuckwit" with little to no effort, I tip my hat to your Higgsian levels of extrapolation and ridiculous inference.
 
You appear to do "fuckwit" with little to no effort, I tip my hat to your Higgsian levels of extrapolation and ridiculous inference.

The insult.

The last bastion of those that do not have a reply and are stumped.

I used to think that you were much better than that. Obviously I was very much mistaken.

Do you want to have a bash at redeeming yourself by attempting to answer a couple of logical and valid questions based on what someone apparently told you, and you posted above ?

I'm told the Blackhawk crew had something to say about it too........


Were you told if they spoke up at the time ?

If not, why not. If they did, why wasn't anything done at the time ?

If not - save your keyboard and scroll on by.

ETA

You got a dumb, because the comment was totally dumb.
 
Does anyone buy that shy, timid shit? It’s not as if SASR platoon commanders are fresh faced subies straight out of Duntroon.
He dealt pretty promptly with the incident when one of his patrol corporals cut off the hand of a dead taliban for identifcation purposes, informed the COC and got the incident fully investigated which turned out that he had carried out SOP's a bit too literally. In Chris Masters book 'No Front Line' it states:

Having heard whispers about SOTG members taking the law into their own hands on previous rotations, Hastie, like other commanders before him, felt compelled to gather his patrol commanders and troop sergeants and fortify adherence to ethical and lawful conduct.
 
Last edited:
I've made it perfectly clear that mass murder is disgusting and unjustifiable, wherever and whatever. I'm merely pointing out that the Nazis were the first to make it an active and deliberate part of foreign, rather than just domestic, policy in the modern era. Anyway, Mao was probably responsible for more deaths than either Stalin or Hitler.

I'm trying to figure out your motivation here:
  • Are you trying to defend the Nazis, because "the Soviets were worse" / "the Germans were forced into being racist genocidal maniacs"?
  • Are you trying to defend Australian war criminals, because "it's always been that way" / "they haven't been convicted in a court of law, so you can't say they're guilty"?
Why did you bring the Nazis into the thread anyway? It's toatally irrelevant to the thread. It was a classic case of Godwin's law and virtue signalling. Mass murder is mass murder whether you are killing your own people or another race. However how does that relate to 39 allegations of murder by 19 suspects over a 7 year period.

As for your second paragraph, your questions are just too stupid to dignify with an answer and say a lot about you and the people who liked your post.
 
I'll just leave this here

Australia has issued termination notices to at least 10 special forces soldiers after the release of a report that found credible evidence of unlawful killings in Afghanistan, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) said on Thursday.

Note the wording - No mention of murder, strange that one, eh @Caecilius

None of the above are part of the 19 referred by the Brereton report.

So what of the 19 Referred ?

The broadcaster did not identify any of the 10 but said all of them were witnesses or accessories and therefore not among the 19 referred for possible criminal charges.


You see those words @Caecilius

Possible criminal charges.
  • No criminal investigation yet
  • No charges brought yet
  • No Court cases yet
  • No-one found guilty of anything yet.
Makes you a bit of a muppet shouting about murder.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I'll just leave this here



Note the wording - No mention of murder, strange that one, eh @Caecilius

None of the above are part of the 19 referred by the Brereton report.

So what of the 19 Referred ?




You see those words @Caecilius

Possible criminal charges.
  • No criminal investigation yet
  • No charges brought yet
  • No Court cases yet
  • No-one found guilty of anything yet.
Makes you a bit of a muppet shouting about murder.

Obviously. As I have said for pretty much the entire thread, there is a difference between the legal process of finding a particular individual guilty of a crime, and the process of finding out what happened. At no point have I disputed that charges have not yet been brought. I used the term murder as it is used in common parlance - I think it is a good description for the act of shooting someone three times when they're unarmed and lying motionless infront of you.

I think we're probably done here. You're clearly a war crimes apologist who keeps falling back on tedious legal definitions to avoid having to acknowledge the result of an extensive enquiry.

If you're still saying this in response to the enquiry finding credible evidence of large numbers of unlawful killings away from the heat of battle:
Who has been convicted of anything, let alone war crimes ?
then you're either being incredibly disingenuous, or you're too thick to understand what's happening. You don't seem daft so that leaves us with the first option. Either way, if you aren't going to engage with reality then there's little point in carrying on a discussion.


You did have a brief moment of self awareness though, so thanks for giving me a laugh:

What a belter

The insult.

The last bastion of those that do not have a reply and are stumped.
 
Last edited:
I think we're probably done here.

We are indeed.

There is no point in continuing anything with someone who does not understand the difference between an Inquiry and a Criminal Investigation.

An inquiry has found evidence of wrongdoing. ( Taken from the report )

A Criminal investigation will establish the facts of the wrong doing.

I used the term murder as it is used in common parlance

Sure - If you have been living under a rock for the last 20 years or so.
 
Last edited:
He has not.

Do you know him ?

Could you put your heads together and examine Brereton's report and repost any part that mentions murder ?

There is a very good reason why it is not used.

The same reason that the older Op Banner guys will remember the official definitions of terrorists weapons being reclassified as long and short barrel weapons.
 
We are indeed.

There is no point in continuing anything with someone who does not understand the difference between an Inquiry and a Criminal Investigation.

An inquiry has found evidence of wrongdoing. ( Taken from the report )

A Criminal investigation will establish the facts of the wrong doing.



Sure - If you have been living under a rock for the last 20 years or so.
Agree. Let's wait and see if and how the Trooper explains the shooting if it goes to trial.
 
Do you know him ?

Could you put your heads together and examine Brereton's report and repost any part that mentions murder ?

There is a very good reason why it is not used.

The same reason that the older Op Banner guys will remember the official definitions of terrorists weapons being reclassified as long and short barrel weapons.
OK, so you haven't looked at the report. Actually the word "murder" appears in the IGADF report 184 times. Its use is not always directly related to alleged events in Afghanistan, but carefully-chosen phrases such as "credible information of murder" do occur. That is obviously not a finding of criminal guilt. If criminal prosecutions do ensue, it will be for the defence to argue, if they think fit, that publication of the redacted report has been prejudicial.
 
OK, so you haven't looked at the report. Actually the word "murder" appears in the IGADF report 184 times. Its use is not always directly related to alleged events in Afghanistan, but carefully-chosen phrases such as "credible information of murder" do occur. That is obviously not a finding of criminal guilt. If criminal prosecutions do ensue, it will be for the defence to argue, if they think fit, that publication of the redacted report has been prejudicial.
It’s plainly obvious that he hasn’t read the report.

However, the use of the word murder surprised me, particularly phrases like the “credible information of murder” you quote. For that pre-supposes mens rea. Was the inquiry competent to judge the mental health of the soldiers concerned?

I would have thought “credible information of unlawful killing” would have been more appropriate phraseology?
 
Without having seen the video that you mention, I could not possibly comment on it.

There was also pictures of Iraqi's being abused splashed all over the UK MSM.

Which turned out to have been taken in a TA Centre somewhere in England.

No Iraqi's were present / harmed at the taking of the photo's
You're taking the piss. HTH
 
Its use is not always directly related to alleged events in Afghanistan, but carefully-chosen phrases such as "credible information of murder" do occur.

Sorry, I was not clear. The report does not directly accuse anyone of murder. Unlike the bold @Caecilius, who could make that judgement after a 2:09 minute video clip.

I will direct you to what I said last Friday.

Note the wording '' Unlawfully killed - Anybody talking about murder charges at this stage is a f***ing clown and that includes the CDF.

When the Criminal investigation is complete and the PPS decides on charges. That will be the time to talk about murder.
 
What has that got to do with





Or are you trying to say that Patrol Leaders were able to influence the outcome of AAR's / Patrol debriefs with those further up the CoC ?

Is that pointing yet again, towards another failing within the CoC ?
Are you Donald Trump by any chance?
 

Latest Threads

Top