[News] SAS ‘Death Squad’

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

One of the pillars of our nationhood and our management of our relationships with other nations is our ability to take the moral high ground. As a nation we understand that ISIS, the Taliban, Putin and others are to a greater or lesser extent bad people, suffiently bad to justify military action in some instances.

Without the ability to take the moral high ground our actions are determined by nothing more than naked self interest*.

Our position has of course evolved. In the 1800s we facilitated the 'Secret treaty of the triple alliance' that resulted in genocide in Paraguay, for no more reason than it suited our strategic interests. Not a lot of people know that. But times change. Unless we maintain the moral high ground we have acquired then only nationalistic hubris justifies our opposition to Putin's adventures in Ukraine, and only racism and revenge justifies our opposition to ISIS.

All that said, until the programme is aired we have nothing to go on.

*Which is why it is so important we purge the nation of Johnson and his legacy.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

But that’s exactly what does happen in the real world , govts authorise killings in extreme circumstances to protect their national interests , not just British most foreign govts have had small numbers of people taken out over the last few decades . It still goes on but usually we don’t hear about it . It’s not just the countries you would expect either .

Does 'extreme circumstances' extend to executing three unarmed guys in a petrol station forecourt?

 

[Bry Nylon]

If this isn't the outcome that those commanding operations at the highest levels wanted or expected then I fail to understand why they tasked SF operators with these particular missions in the first place. I heard one of those former SF soldiers turned author being interviewed some time ago - and when asked about 'this sort of thing' he simply said the one piece of equipment SAS troopers don't tend to carry is handcuffs, and left it there.

 

[SeagullinExile]

Without discussing whether the war was right or not we were at war and horrible things happen in war. These were British soldiers dropped into very hostile territory not knowing who was going to pull a gun and with split seconds to make decisions and where things could go wrong quickly. I suspect they shot first and asked questions later and that is how they survived. Planting weapons was probably the accounting paperwork which would not have been required in WW2 or Korea etc.

It is easy to take a moral stand when you are not there but the guys on the ground are often put into very difficult positions.

Hmm. That argument doesn’t really stand up does it? They apparently went on operations with ‘drop weapons’. Surely that shows an element of premeditation? Would you accept that excuse from Russian & (to a lesser extent) Ukraine forces in the current war?

 

[Weststander]

If only we could trust the BBC not to thrive on stirring things up and just report.

The opinionated point scoring by often aggressive presenters on Breakfast TV has made it unwatchable for me since the Covid outbreak. I always end up just turning it off once I've seen the headlines these days.

I would not be vaguely surprised if atrocities were committed by the SAS, it comes with the territory with every nationality who carry out covert operations from what I can deduce over the years.

Good post and ditto.

Not just the BBC Breakfast presenters with their rabid holier than though stance over the last 28 months, also Piers Morgan and hypocritical lockdown law-breakers Burley and Beth Rigby. Minchin and Walker morphed themselves into charmless Morgan clones.

Always a reach for the remote control.

 

[jakarta]

If this isn't the outcome that those commanding operations at the highest levels wanted or expected then I fail to understand why they tasked SF operators with these particular missions in the first place. I heard one of those former SF soldiers turned author being interviewed some time ago - and when asked about 'this sort of thing' he simply said the one piece of equipment SAS troopers don't tend to carry is handcuffs, and left it there.

Well quite, the Taliban are not/were not the Boy Scouts, given these are in/out operations get as much information as you can from them then slot them all.

Wouldn't lose a nights sleep. Sorry and all that...

 

[Bold Seagull]

Well quite, the Taliban are not/were not the Boy Scouts, given these are in/out operations get as much information as you can from them then slot them all.

Wouldn't lose a nights sleep. Sorry and all that...

Even if the victims happened to be non combatant innocent civilians?

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

OK.

If. And it's a massive if, our servicemen and women have been executing civilians and been involved in the committing of war crimes, then I hope the full truth comes out and the people involved spend the rest of their lives in prison. Whole regiments may have to be disbanded if (again, I know unproven) murder has become commonplace

If it turns out this can't be proved or is proved to be wrong, then I hope the BBC offer a full and public apology for smearing our forces.

But as things stand ...... Well done the BBC for exposing that there is a case to answer. It's up to the military now to answer it and I hope the appropriate investigations are carried out as soon and as fully as possible.

We need to be better than countries like Russia

 

[B-right-on]

If this is a Panorama programme, then that's a very different approach from breakfast TV presenters trying to provoke a reaction to get a story.

Erm, no it is not. Have you not seen the sensationalistic BS that Panorama spews out? I remember a 'hatchet job' they did on Michael O'Leary of Ryain Air fame where they chopped up the answers to one question with the answers to another, just to make him look a total *anker and create a program out of nothing. Fortunatly he videoed it himself and you can see the original 'uncut' version.

Plus it is (or was, I dont know now) headed up by Jeremy Slime, what more evidence do you need?

The legal issues alone will mean that whatever they have put out will have been carefully checked over and they will have given all parties involved the chance to comment and correct.

LOL, the BBC have bigger, better and more expensive lawyers. Truth has nothing to do with it.

I'd be very suprised if there was no substance to the claims.

Prepare to be surprised

And why you should never start a war on the basis of a set of lies and a promise to that American guy that you desperately want to like you.

This I agree with. As Bush himself said recently "The illegal invasion of Iraq".

 

[Weststander]

Hope you'd agree that they need to operate under certain legally-enforceable ground rules tho eh? Else you just end up with state-sponsored executions like the three IRA guys in Gibraltar in 1988 (Google 'Operation Flavius')

Exaggerating to suit your bias.

The ECJ ruled that was no conspiracy in the killing of the three bombers, rejecting claims it was premeditated,

At tactical level, they concluded:

“The accusation of a breach by a State of its obligation under Article 2 (art. 2) of the Convention to protect the right to life is of the utmost seriousness. For the reasons given above, the evaluation in paragraphs 203 to 213 of the judgment seems to us to fall well short of substantiating the finding that there has been a breach of the Article (art. 2) in this case. We would ourselves follow the reasoning and conclusion of the Commission in its comprehensive, painstaking and notably realistic report. Like the Commission, we are satisfied that no failings have been shown in the organisation and control of the operation by the authorities which could justify a conclusion that force was used against the suspects disproportionately to the purpose of defending innocent persons from unlawful violence. We consider that the use of lethal force in this case, however regrettable the need to resort to such force may be, did not exceed what was, in the circumstances as known at the time, "absolutely necessary" for that purpose and did not amount to a breach by the United Kingdom of its obligations under the Convention”.

 

[theboybilly]

If this is true, someone really needs to be held to account. Disgusting stuff, makes me ashamed to be British

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62083196

I don't think we send elite troops to do battle with 'green' soldiers. My guess is the SAS wouldn't expect quarter either. War is war, its not a game

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Even if the victims happened to be non combatant innocent civilians?

This. At what point did we appoint these soldiers judge, jury and executioner? We'd rightly condemn any other regime that did exactly the same

 

[jcdenton08]

Let’s wait for Sue Gray’s report, excuse me, I mean the programme

 

[Icy Gull]

But what should be done about it? Swept under the carpet, or exposed and punished?

It should be exposed and punished and as stated by someone else on this thread Panorama are normally very objective, so hopefully this will be a balanced report and not more finger pointing and shit stirring. The very nature of what the SAS do means I am sure they sometimes over step the mark most consider reasonable but those who shout the loudest are seldom the people whose lives are at risk

If you weren't there how do you know the full story?

 

[Charlies Shinpad]

Good post and ditto.

Not just the BBC Breakfast presenters with their rabid holier than though stance over the last 28 months, also Piers Morgan and hypocritical lockdown law-breakers Burley and Beth Rigby. Minchin and Walker morphed themselves into charmless Morgan clones.

Always a reach for the remote control.

This Piers Morgan you mean !!!

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

 

[drew]

When a country goes into an illegal war then it all feels
Like murder to me.

What was illegal about the conflict in Afghanistan?

 

[Swansman]

Special operation forces of pretty much any country are always going to kill civilians, break laws and operate in highly immoral fashion. Sometimes for economic reasons - try make a real effort to nationalise the gold mines in Africa and you're dead - sometimes for strategic reasons, sometimes for safety/defensive reasons (killing terrorists or key people who smuggle shit into this or that country)... this will be the case as long as these organisations are accepted, which they will be as long as people find it heroic to join armies and use violence to resolve problems... which is a perception that won't disappear any time soon, as long as the military-industrial complex keep pouring out pro-war/pro-army propaganda.

But even those who buy into that should be well aware that to become a member of special organisations like this, you have to be ruthless. Thats the kind of people they'll be looking for. And any organisation gathering the most violent and limitless people may turn into cruel organisations, killing or torturing people despite other solutions being available or even for the fun of it. Good and brave to keep them under the scope as far as possible, I wish Swedish media would have done the same thing when the KSI went down and "protected Swedish interests" (Lundin Oil) in Sudan through directly or indirectly killing thousands of people.

 

[herecomesaregular]

Hope you'd agree that they need to operate under certain legally-enforceable ground rules tho eh? Else you just end up with state-sponsored executions like the three IRA guys in Gibraltar in 1988 (Google 'Operation Flavius')

Not sure of the relevance of the comparison tbh. The 3 killed in Gibraltar were confirmed as IRA and confirmed as planning a bombing. The fact that when they were actually killed they were unarmed at that moment and their bomb making bits n bobs were in another of their cars? Shame.

 

[herecomesaregular]

One of the pillars of our nationhood and our management of our relationships with other nations is our ability to take the moral high ground. As a nation we understand that ISIS, the Taliban, Putin and others are to a greater or lesser extent bad people, suffiently bad to justify military action in some instances.

Without the ability to take the moral high ground our actions are determined by nothing more than naked self interest*.

Our position has of course evolved. In the 1800s we facilitated the 'Secret treaty of the triple alliance' that resulted in genocide in Paraguay, for no more reason than it suited our strategic interests. Not a lot of people know that. But times change. Unless we maintain the moral high ground we have acquired then only nationalistic hubris justifies our opposition to Putin's adventures in Ukraine, and only racism and revenge justifies our opposition to ISIS.

All that said, until the programme is aired we have nothing to go on.

*Which is why it is so important we purge the nation of Johnson and his legacy.

I'm amazed anyone would think this?!

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Not sure of the relevance of the comparison tbh. The 3 killed in Gibraltar were confirmed as IRA and confirmed as planning a bombing. The fact that when they were actually killed they were unarmed at that moment and their bomb making bits n bobs were in another of their cars? Shame.

So you're in favour of state-sponsored summary execution then? Nice.