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

When a bloke standing over a detainee, cowering in the foetal position, calmly asks various oppos three times whether he should "slot this ****", the balance of probability is that he didn't need to.

Do you disagree?

Without agreeing or disagreeing.

On the balance of probabilities, what that 2:09 minutes of video clip showed me.

1. Was not a highly trained, steely eyed dealer of death, who are trained to go about their business silently and ruthlessly.

2. Was a soldier who was unsure, not in control and did not really know what he was doing.

Which raises even more questions.

1. Who is soldier '' C '' A regular or a Reservist.

2. On the balance of probabilities, I would need to see the minutes prior to the shown 2:09 to try to understand why a trained, steely eyed dealer of death appears to be so unsure, not in control and not really know what he was doing.

3. Was his head completely ****** up by multiple tours that he just completely lost it.

So many questions, but officers, apparently have no case to answer.
 
So many questions.......

Read it again. There was only one question.

Here it is again.

When a bloke standing over a detainee, cowering in the foetal position, calmly asks various oppos three times whether he should "slot this ****", the balance of probability is that he didn't need to.

Do you disagree?
 
Without agreeing or disagreeing.

On the balance of probabilities, what that 2:09 minutes of video clip showed me.

1. Was not a highly trained, steely eyed dealer of death, who are trained to go about their business silently and ruthlessly.

2. Was a soldier who was unsure, not in control and did not really know what he was doing.

Which raises even more questions.

1. Who is soldier '' C '' A regular or a Reservist.

2. On the balance of probabilities, I would need to see the minutes prior to the shown 2:09 to try to understand why a trained, steely eyed dealer of death appears to be so unsure, not in control and not really know what he was doing.

3. Was his head completely ****** up by multiple tours that he just completely lost it.

So many questions, but officers, apparently have no case to answer.
We’ve been round this one before. If the video is genuine, it depicts murder.

The circumstances; his state of mind, how many tours he had done, his apparent unsureness etc etc are irrelevant to the primary issue; he shot an unarmed man cowering in the foetal position.

The circumstances may include a defence of diminished responsibility, but that would be a matter for the defence to prove.
 
Read it again. There was only one question.

Here it is again.

When a bloke standing over a detainee, cowering in the foetal position, calmly asks various oppos three times whether he should "slot this ****", the balance of probability is that he didn't need to.

Do you disagree?

Is there something that you have difficulty in understanding in my previous answer ?

There is nothing to agree or disagree with in a 2:09 minute clip.

When the whole video is shown then there will be something to agree or disagree with.

Come back to me then and it will be worthy of discussion.
 
Labor shows support for Diggers.

Labor MP shows support for troops. Doesn't Ingelburn have a large military population with the Australian Army School of Infantry being based there? Could that have a bearing on their support?
School of Inf is at Singleton, has been for decades. Ingleburn (Bardia Bks IIRC) used to be a training centre for reservists, until reserve recruit training was moved to Kapooka.

Labor will support anything IOT oppose the government.
 
The comments in the article were quite interesting, I liked this one.

So 3000 ADF personel 99% of them entirely innocent and blameless are to lose their citation. Yep innocent until proven guilty is really at work here.

General Campbell has been awarded a Distinguished Service Cross for “Distinguished command and leadership in action as Commander of the joint task force 633 on operation Slipper from January 2011 to December 2011.”

The HQ was in Qatar remote from Afghanistan. Not for them the dust and heat.
Breretonin the report says he was too remote from the field to have a “sufficient degree of command and control.” so therefor could not be held responsible.

Question:
If he did not have a “sufficient degree of command and control.” why was he awarded the DSC?
Yes, comments are always 'interesting'. Apparently Qatar has sorted out its dust problem and cooled down since I was last there.
 
Without agreeing or disagreeing.

On the balance of probabilities, what that 2:09 minutes of video clip showed me.

1. Was not a highly trained, steely eyed dealer of death, who are trained to go about their business silently and ruthlessly.

2. Was a soldier who was unsure, not in control and did not really know what he was doing.

Which raises even more questions.

1. Who is soldier '' C '' A regular or a Reservist.

2. On the balance of probabilities, I would need to see the minutes prior to the shown 2:09 to try to understand why a trained, steely eyed dealer of death appears to be so unsure, not in control and not really know what he was doing.

3. Was his head completely ****** up by multiple tours that he just completely lost it.

So many questions, but officers, apparently have no case to answer.
What difference does it make if Soldier C was a regular or reservist?
 
What difference does it make if Soldier C was a regular or reservist?

It makes no difference to the guy that was slotted.

It makes a whole heap of difference to the CoC.

You know, those people who are responsible for who actually gets into an Operational Theatre.
 
It makes no difference to the guy that was slotted.

It makes a whole heap of difference to the CoC.

You know, those people who are responsible for who actually gets into an Operational Theatre.
I can see how it is no difference to the slottee, but how does a soldier's status (ie. Regular or Reservist on FTRS) make any difference to the CoC? All members of a contingent go through pre-deployment training together and emerge at the end of the process as one completely integrated unit, where a soldier's original unit is neither here nor there. I have deployed with soldiers who were reservists and not realised that they were until half way through the deployment. I have also deployed with absolute fannies who turned out to be regulars.
 
All members of a contingent go through pre-deployment training together and emerge at the end of the process as one completely integrated unit,

In theory yes. In practice, not always the case.

I have also deployed with absolute fannies who turned out to be regulars.

The thread is about SASR. Whilst I am sure there will be some fannies in terms of persona, I doubt that there is many fannies in terms of soldiering ability.

As I stated above, soldier '' C '' from the 2:09 minute clip did not fill me with confidence in his soldiering abilities*

If people can howl about murder based on that 2:09 minutes clip, with 22 years under my belt, I can certainly raise questions about his soldiering abilities.

* I will retract that statement if it is subsequently proven that his head was ****** through over deployment / PTSD or other factor.
 
We’ve been round this one before. If the video is genuine, it depicts murder.

The circumstances; his state of mind, how many tours he had done, his apparent unsureness etc etc are irrelevant to the primary issue; he shot an unarmed man cowering in the foetal position.

The circumstances may include a defence of diminished responsibility, but that would be a matter for the defence to prove.
I have to disagree there Bob. All we are seeing is a video of an incident that happened in three minutes. We see it through tunnel vison via the camera. We see soldier C highly agitated after a chase catch up with a man running off after a chase who has been brought down by the patrols dog. He appears agitated and is asking should he terminate the man on the ground, he doesn't receive a definate answer and so shoots the man and walks away. End of video. We subsequently learn that the dead person is an innocent man who is just a young man with learning difficulties.

What we don't know from the short video is the background before the incident and Soldier C's intent. There are a number of things that the defence would look at if Soldier C ends up in court and pleads 'Not Guilty'.

Mark Donaldson in his autobiography states that they had to deal with loots of IED's and that there were intelligence reports of a bombmaker in Pakistan sending young teenagers and mentally impaired young people into the area with suicide vests who were told to set them off near coalition forces. He also states that footpads of hard pack earth along the river bank and cutting in between each field were high traffic areas and vunerable for IED's as the enemy knew that they would be walking along the footpads.

What was the background of Soldier C? Was he a new guy on his first tour just off reinforcement cycle, or was he an experienced soldier who had carried a number of tours? If so, was he showing any signs of strain? Mark Donaldson says that this was an extremely busy tour. What incidents had Soldier C dealt with before this event? Had he or his patrol dealt with IED's and suicide bombers before?

What was the mission that day and had there been any int in the briefing about IED's and suicide bombers? Was the target close to where the incident took place? The deceased was spotted by the aircrew digging near a footpad by the riverbank which may suggest that the helicopter was approaching its target area. The heliocopter pilot radio's the patrol that they have seen a suspicious male digging a whole who may be planting an IED.

The heliocopter lands near the young man, who being simple minded is frightened that this big bird lands near him disgorging angry armed westerners and runs off. The patrol think he is running because he is planting an IED and gives chase. The land shark is released and brings down the young man. The patrol catches up, the dog handler recalls his job. The lead scout - Soldier C covers the man and the others stand a bit back. The young man, being simple minded and having just been mauled by a land shark is terrified and naturely curls up in a ball and clutches his red prayer beads, which is the worst thing he could do in the circumstances.

Soldier C is in tunnel vision mode thinking 'suicide bomber' as the events leading up to this moment with the young man digging, running off, and then curling up in a ball clutching what could be a detonater fits the profile of a suicide bomber. He asks his patrol several times if he should shoot the person on the ground. The answer he receives from his patrol members is inconclusive. They don't know. The decision goes back to Soldier C. Several seconds have passed where a genuine suicide bomber could have detonated his bomb vest, but this is not in Soldier C's thought train. A young man who has learning difficulties may have been confused and hesitant to iniate a bomb vest if he had been a genuine suicide bomber.

Soldier C then shoots the young man killing him. Are ATO then called to check the body to see if he has a suicide vest or this this done by the patrol? The video does not show this.

Taking into account the events leading up to the fatal shooting and the unfortunate actions of the young Afghan, if Soldier C had a genuine belief he was dealing with a suicide bomber and that his life and that of his patrol was imminent danger then his actions would be justified under the laws of self defence even though subsequent events proved that there was no such danger.

Therefore the would be no intent of murder and no manslaughter as his actions would not be reckless to the consequences.

Off course they could have just been passing, seen an Afghan digging and run off when they landed, set the land shark on him and then Soldier C murdered the young man for 'shit and giggles' as it was obvious they were only prayer beads and you could see he had nothing under his clothing when he was curled up in a ball.

We will soon find out if it goes to court. In the meantime we will have to make do with the verdicts from the armchair Perry Mason's.
 
I have deployed with soldiers who were reservists and not realised that they were until half way through the deployment. I have also deployed with absolute fannies who turned out to be regulars.
FFS retread2: Weren't you on Operation Storm in the early seventies? You must have been the oldest gun slinger in town. Did you use your zimmer frame as a fire mount for your machine gun?
 
FFS retread2: Weren't you on Operation Storm in the early seventies? You must have been the oldest gun slinger in town. Did you use your zimmer frame as a fire mount for your machine gun?
While I was in Dhofar when Op STORM was winding down, I was very much Ordinary Forces*.

* Some might say very ordinary . . .
 
I have to disagree there Bob. All we are seeing is a video of an incident that happened in three minutes. We see it through tunnel vison via the camera. We see soldier C highly agitated after a chase catch up with a man running off after a chase who has been brought down by the patrols dog. He appears agitated and is asking should he terminate the man on the ground, he doesn't receive a definate answer and so shoots the man and walks away. End of video. We subsequently learn that the dead person is an innocent man who is just a young man with learning difficulties.

What we don't know from the short video is the background before the incident and Soldier C's intent. There are a number of things that the defence would look at if Soldier C ends up in court and pleads 'Not Guilty'.

Mark Donaldson in his autobiography states that they had to deal with loots of IED's and that there were intelligence reports of a bombmaker in Pakistan sending young teenagers and mentally impaired young people into the area with suicide vests who were told to set them off near coalition forces. He also states that footpads of hard pack earth along the river bank and cutting in between each field were high traffic areas and vunerable for IED's as the enemy knew that they would be walking along the footpads.

What was the background of Soldier C? Was he a new guy on his first tour just off reinforcement cycle, or was he an experienced soldier who had carried a number of tours? If so, was he showing any signs of strain? Mark Donaldson says that this was an extremely busy tour. What incidents had Soldier C dealt with before this event? Had he or his patrol dealt with IED's and suicide bombers before?

What was the mission that day and had there been any int in the briefing about IED's and suicide bombers? Was the target close to where the incident took place? The deceased was spotted by the aircrew digging near a footpad by the riverbank which may suggest that the helicopter was approaching its target area. The heliocopter pilot radio's the patrol that they have seen a suspicious male digging a whole who may be planting an IED.

The heliocopter lands near the young man, who being simple minded is frightened that this big bird lands near him disgorging angry armed westerners and runs off. The patrol think he is running because he is planting an IED and gives chase. The land shark is released and brings down the young man. The patrol catches up, the dog handler recalls his job. The lead scout - Soldier C covers the man and the others stand a bit back. The young man, being simple minded and having just been mauled by a land shark is terrified and naturely curls up in a ball and clutches his red prayer beads, which is the worst thing he could do in the circumstances.

Soldier C is in tunnel vision mode thinking 'suicide bomber' as the events leading up to this moment with the young man digging, running off, and then curling up in a ball clutching what could be a detonater fits the profile of a suicide bomber. He asks his patrol several times if he should shoot the person on the ground. The answer he receives from his patrol members is inconclusive. They don't know. The decision goes back to Soldier C. Several seconds have passed where a genuine suicide bomber could have detonated his bomb vest, but this is not in Soldier C's thought train. A young man who has learning difficulties may have been confused and hesitant to iniate a bomb vest if he had been a genuine suicide bomber.

Soldier C then shoots the young man killing him. Are ATO then called to check the body to see if he has a suicide vest or this this done by the patrol? The video does not show this.

Taking into account the events leading up to the fatal shooting and the unfortunate actions of the young Afghan, if Soldier C had a genuine belief he was dealing with a suicide bomber and that his life and that of his patrol was imminent danger then his actions would be justified under the laws of self defence even though subsequent events proved that there was no such danger.

Therefore the would be no intent of murder and no manslaughter as his actions would not be reckless to the consequences.

Off course they could have just been passing, seen an Afghan digging and run off when they landed, set the land shark on him and then Soldier C murdered the young man for 'shit and giggles' as it was obvious they were only prayer beads and you could see he had nothing under his clothing when he was curled up in a ball.

We will soon find out if it goes to court. In the meantime we will have to make do with the verdicts from the armchair Perry Mason's.
Agreed. This incident could very well be 'in the heat of battle' and as such not one identified by Justice Brereton to be investigated.
 
Is that correct bobthebelter ?

Manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility ring any bells in that dense head of yours ?
You should perhaps engage your brain before resorting to the ad hominems. We’ve been round this enough over the last few days.

Diminished responsibility is a defence against a charge of Murder, which reduces the offence to Manslaughter. The charge is Murder; it’s up to the Defence to prove diminished responsibility. Until they do, that film appears to show a murder.

With the caveat that WA law you includes three levels of homicide, Wilful Murder, Murder and Manslaughter.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top