[News] SAS ‘Death Squad’

[nickjhs]

I am struggling with the idea that just because we expect someone to behave in a certain way it somehow means they escape consequences?

Where did I suggest this should be the case? I am just amused that given the setup people are so shocked by the behaviour. I am disgusted by the behaviour as I am disgusted by the fact that our respective governments took us down this path and the leaders avoided being charged for doing it.

 

[Javeaseagull]

Well I watched it last night and am deeply unimpressed. To me it was all hearsay and innuendo, very little in the way of evidence.
I am sure something went on but whether it was more than one rogue unit I couldn’t tell. I thought towards the end that nothing I had seen and heard would stand up in court.

 

[BadFish]

Where did I suggest this should be the case? I am just amused that given the setup people are so shocked by the behaviour. I am disgusted by the behaviour as I am disgusted by the fact that our respective governments took us down this path and the leaders avoided being charged for doing it.

Ah okay, my apologies. I didn't see people's reactions as shocked. More just disapproving.

Anyway, it sounds like the story may not be correct.

 

[GOM]

Well I watched it last night and am deeply unimpressed. To me it was all hearsay and innuendo, very little in the way of evidence.
I am sure something went on but whether it was more than one rogue unit I couldn’t tell. I thought towards the end that nothing I had seen and heard would stand up in court.

Interesting thought process.

Firstly you say 'it was all hearsay and innuendo, very little in the way of evidence' then you say in the very next sentence 'I am sure something went on...'

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It’s all gone quiet over there.

The first pages, before the “exposé” had even aired, were crying national shame - funnily enough it was the usual anti-Britain yay everyone else brigade.

Where are they now?

The show was absolute trash. Hearsay, not a shred of proof and it’s almost like those salivating and rubbing their hands at another scandal to be mock outraged about are disappointed.

Maybe something happened, if it did this hit-piece didn’t expose it. It was brutally bad and completely lacking in any foundation.

My comments were heavily caveated and were directed at those pushing the line that 'everyone does it'. My bottom line was if this were true it would be bad. Turns out there is no evidence it is true.

As I've been musing about confirmation bias again, here is what I think (for what it is worth, which is nothing). The population is divided into three here:

The first lot are convinced the SAS are murderers and are slightly disappointed this programme didn't quite deliver on the evidence they know to be out there.

The second lot imagine the SAS murder people all the time as policy, using profiling rather than risk assessment to identify targets, and don't care.

The final lot accept that the SAS have a very hard job, try to act wisely, but need to exercise judgement meaning people may die, sometimes innocent people.

I'm in group three. I have no idea if I'm right and so its fine for journalists to ask questions, but sloppy journalism simply allows the viewer to feed their confirmation bias. As in this case.

 

[Javeaseagull]

Interesting thought process.

Firstly you say 'it was all hearsay and innuendo, very little in the way of evidence' then you say in the very next sentence 'I am sure something went on...'

That’s what hearsay does to you! I think I mean “No smoke without fire” sort of conclusion. Not enough for a court.

 

[jcdenton08]

My comments were heavily caveated and were directed at those pushing the line that 'everyone does it'. My bottom line was if this were true it would be bad. Turns out there is no evidence it is true.

As I've been musing about confirmation bias again, here is what I think (for what it is worth, which is nothing). The population is divided into three here:

The first lot are convinced the SAS are murderers and are slightly disappointed this programme didn't quite deliver on the evidence they know to be out there.

The second lot imagine the SAS murder people all the time as policy, using profiling rather than risk assessment to identify targets, and don't care.

The final lot accept that the SAS have a very hard job, try to act wisely, but need to exercise judgement meaning people may die, sometimes innocent people.

I'm in group three. I have no idea if I'm right and so its fine for journalists to ask questions, but sloppy journalism simply allows the viewer to feed their confirmation bias. As in this case.

Agree with every word. Also in the third camp.

I just think it’s a very risky business making these types of programmes unless you have something solid. It was all very un-Panorama-like. It does make me wonder what couldn’t “go before the jury” for legal/security reasons though. But on its own, the show proved absolutely nothing and I’ve seen more convincing documentaries “proving” that Jack the Ripper was a member of the Royal Family!

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

So your happy to let known terrorists walk the streets then ?

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

Nah. I just feel uncomfortable with squaddies summarily executing suspects in the street with minimal oversight

 

[Wardy's twin]

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')

So what would be your view if say in WW2 someone had decided to create a behind the lines special operation to go to Germany and shoot an unarmed Hitler ? Ok on the far side of the spectrum but to me it highlights there is no absolute rule to be followed.

In a close combat situation where you have the upper hand but you are behind enemy lines and things can change quickly what are you going to do. One thing to be clear is that be caught alive by the Taliban was not an option.

In Afghanistan the enemy weren't wearing uniform , the rules are immediately blurred by that.

Regards NI , the SAS carried out a number of ambushes of 'combatants' Gibraltar was not the only one but there were probably worse incidents though e.g. Bloody Sunday where the victims were not even involved with the paramilitaries.

What I am saying is you put people in the situation they were in don't be surprised by the outcome.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

So what would be your view if say in WW2 someone had decided to create a behind the lines special operation to go to Germany and shoot an unarmed Hitler ? Ok on the far side of the spectrum but to me it highlights there is no absolute rule to be followed.

In a close combat situation where you have the upper hand but you are behind enemy lines and things can change quickly what are you going to do. One thing to be clear is that be caught alive by the Taliban was not an option.

In Afghanistan the enemy weren't wearing uniform , the rules are immediately blurred by that.

Regards NI , the SAS carried out a number of ambushes of 'combatants' Gibraltar was not the only one but there were probably worse incidents though e.g. Bloody Sunday where the victims were not even involved with the paramilitaries.

What I am saying is you put people in the situation they were in don't be surprised by the outcome.

Bollocks on this occasion to your whatiffery. That was a state-sponsored turkey shoot

'Immediately after the shootings, the soldiers donned berets to identify themselves' Source: wikipedia

 

[Bold Seagull]

So what would be your view if say in WW2 someone had decided to create a behind the lines special operation to go to Germany and shoot an unarmed Hitler ? Ok on the far side of the spectrum but to me it highlights there is no absolute rule to be followed.

In a close combat situation where you have the upper hand but you are behind enemy lines and things can change quickly what are you going to do. One thing to be clear is that be caught alive by the Taliban was not an option.

In Afghanistan the enemy weren't wearing uniform , the rules are immediately blurred by that.

Regards NI , the SAS carried out a number of ambushes of 'combatants' Gibraltar was not the only one but there were probably worse incidents though e.g. Bloody Sunday where the victims were not even involved with the paramilitaries.

What I am saying is you put people in the situation they were in don't be surprised by the outcome.

It is not the outcome that is surprising, what would be surprising is if the chain of command knew of the outcomes but took no action, covered it up, or even had a part in ordering it to happen. The combat stress of a solider under fire, witnessing horrific things happening around them, and breaking is a whole different question than a commander back in the comfort of HQ allowing it to happen.

The one really interesting person interviewed by Panorama was Colonel Oliver Lee who commanded the Royal Marines in Afghanistan, not a person without credible weight, but as I imagine most in the forces do, they pride themselves on their professionalism, adherence to discipline and the chain of command. It is the cornerstone of our forces, they don't adhere to traditions sometimes hundreds of years old, because it's a shoulder shrug that bad things happen in war when it gets difficult.

We have veterans on the boards, I have a serving officer cousin in the Navy who served in Afghanistan, and I think he'd be horrified that a public attitude might think it completely unsurprising these things probably happen and you just get on with it. They do hold themselves to high standards they are very proud of.

The surprising thing wouldn't be bad things happen, it would be surprising if they happened knowingly without consequence.

 

[GOM]

Bollocks on this occasion to your whatiffery. That was a state-sponsored turkey shoot

'Immediately after the shootings, the soldiers donned berets to identify themselves' Source: wikipedia

Source Wikipedia

 

[rippleman]

So your happy to let known terrorists walk the streets then ?

Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

Huh? We do that all the time anyway. Here's one:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45911160

From the report:-

He spent most of his time at HMP Frankland, County Durham, where he became the first inmate to be held in a separation unit, designed for the most high-risk terrorism offenders who are capable of radicalising others. (My emphasis)

And then we let him out after he only served half his sentence anyway. Not any old terrorist but a high-risk terrorist capapable of radicalising others.

So your point was....?