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!

SASR "Execute" unarmed Afghan

If the location of the wounds are incorrect I'd be wondering for how long the deceased had been unarmed and treating the claim of innocence with a pinch of salt too.

Is there a minimum time that they need to be unarmed to make the shooting of an unarmed person lawful.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Is there a minimum time that they need to be unarmed to make the shooting of an unarmed person lawful.
I wouldn't have thought so, just that should he have thrown down his weapon immediately preceding the shooting it might throw some doubt on the claim of his innocence.
Not condoning the shooting, but I prefer not to pass judgement before all the facts are revealed.
 
I wouldn't have thought so, just that should he have thrown down his weapon immediately preceding the shooting it might throw some doubt on the claim of his innocence.
Not condoning the shooting, but I prefer not to pass judgement before all the facts are revealed.

Having looked at the video of the incident, I can’t remotely see that he posed any threat to the bloke who shot him.
 
If the location of the wounds are incorrect I'd be wondering for how long the deceased had been unarmed and treating the claim of innocence with a pinch of salt too.

No I meant that the bloke whose tweet is in the post, got the facts wrong about where the afghan was shot. He said shot in the head three times, whereas in the report from the soldiers in the video, reports from his father, and the media reports, the afghan was shot in the head and chest, not just the head.

We can take it with a pinch of salt, however we'd have to ignore the fact that Soldier C gave information in his report that initially cleared him, that has been clearly contradicted by what he actually did and where he was in the helmet cam footage of him.
 
Last edited:

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
No I meant that the bloke whose tweet is in the post, got the facts wrong about where the afghan was shot. He said shot in the head three times, whereas in the report from the soldiers in the video, reports from his father, and the media reports, the afghan was shot in the head and chest, not just the head.

We can take it with a pinch of salt, however we'd have to ignore the fact that Soldier C gave information in his report that initially cleared him, that has been clearly contradicted by what he actually did and where he was in the helmet cam footage of him.
So did I.
 
Now talks of disbandment....the author seems to have a thin grasp of what SOF units are since he recommends the new version of AUS SOF should be like the French GCP (his comparison) while the GCP (Pathfinders of the ABN Bgde) are in fact a specialized but not special unit

 
Now talks of disbandment....the author seems to have a thin grasp of what SOF units are since he recommends the new version of AUS SOF should be like the French GCP (his comparison) while the GCP (Pathfinders of the ABN Bgde) are in fact a specialized but not special unit

His grasp of many things is thin. The article is factually flawed throughout. For example:

Special Operations Command (the umbrella organisation that manages Australia’s special forces) recruits and trains completely separately from the rest of the Army . . .

They only train separately when it suits. They mainly recruit from the wider Army and often/generally attend courses with Ordinary Forces.
 
His grasp of many things is thin. The article is factually flawed throughout. For example:

Special Operations Command (the umbrella organisation that manages Australia’s special forces) recruits and trains completely separately from the rest of the Army . . .

They only train separately when it suits. They mainly recruit from the wider Army and often/generally attend courses with Ordinary Forces.
Agree with that. He mentions 'Sparrow Force' in Timor in 1942. The Australian AIF Infantry battalions were forced to surrender when the Japanese invaded. 2/2 Independent Company was Commando trained and made for the hills where they conducted guerilla warfare against the Japanese, later reinforced by 2/4 Independent Company. The Australian Independent Companies (later Commando companies) were set up and trained by Mike Calvert and Spencer Chapman and some British NCO's in 1940 near where the present Swan Island base is in Victoria today.

The idea of having SF trained elements in regular infantry battalions is nonsense as they would just be misused on non SF tasks, especially if they are on, say a peacekeeping tour abroad, where they wouldn't be available if needed. Who would carry out the West and East coat anti-terrorist team duties?

The author is a typical academic. A Phd researcher at the Defence Studies Department, Kings College, London with probably no pratical experience of what he is talking about (outside the OTC) just writing an article with an 'eye catching' headline to justify his academic existance. As @fantassin has pointed out, he hasn't even done his background research properly.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Now talks of disbandment....the author seems to have a thin grasp of what SOF units are since he recommends the new version of AUS SOF should be like the French GCP (his comparison) while the GCP (Pathfinders of the ABN Bgde) are in fact a specialized but not special unit


Disbandment of the unit is definitely possible, although probably unlikely. Even if it does get disbanded I think the idea that Aus will just get rid of any meaningful SOF capability (naively described by the author as 'as an advanced infantry skillset') is nonsense. Awful article.
 
Last edited:
Disbandment of the unit is definitely possible, although probably unlikely. Even if it does get disbanded I think the idea that Aus will just get rid of any meaningful SOF capability (naively described by the author as 'as an advanced infantry skillset') is nonsense.
They may of course be purged, disbanded, "lessons learned", and then after suitably discrete period of time quietly reformed under a new name.
 
Or they may just purge the bad hats and carry on. No point in throwing out the baby with the bath water.
There are several potential outcomes. In the end however, Australia will likely have some sort of special forces even if under a new name with no direct continuity to the past. Too much of what they need to do in the world requires a selection of different size hammers as opposed to just "no hammer" and "big hammer".
 
The author is a typical academic. A Phd researcher at the Defence Studies Department, Kings College, London with probably no pratical experience of what he is talking about (outside the OTC) just writing an article with an 'eye catching' headline to justify his academic existance. As @fantassin has pointed out, he hasn't even done his background research properly.

6 years in the Aussie Army prior to leaving for academia.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer

Latest Threads

Top