Aussie SAS report
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the politicians who sent them to war be tried for sending troops to an un-lawful war based on lies by GW Bush jr, (weapons of mass destruction etc) ?
Will the Afghans also have a court for those who planted IED's against coalition troops ?
Will the Afghans prosecute Afghans soldiers who killed coalition troops ?
Can the statements made by the Afghans be trusted after all, it's in their interest to make such a statement
Will the Afghans also have a court for those who planted IED's against coalition troops ?
Will the Afghans prosecute Afghans soldiers who killed coalition troops ?
Can the statements made by the Afghans be trusted after all, it's in their interest to make such a statement
Weapons of mass destruction....Iraq
Stopping Afghanistan from being used as a base for Al Qaeda was and is the mission.
Even Obama ended up supporting it.
The real issue is the lack of definition of what constitutes victory.
We should have done deal with the Taliban way back at Tora Bora.
The justification for staying is simply that pulling out will be a worse outcome , not just for the US but for the people of Afghanistan.
Text book mission creep.
The Taliban is nowhere near being defeated and Pakistan has been duplicitous all the way. They don’t want an Afghanistan aligned with India and are terrified of Pashtun independence.
No end in sight .
Not worth the bones of one Australian SAS.
Time to get out.
Thanks for your reply George. I understand that the Afghan war came after the Iraq war, both were linked. My brother was in the Tora Bora mountains not lang after 9/11 so I have an idea what was happening in the early days.
Both the invasion of Iraq and Afgan came after GW Bush wanted to show his old man he had a set as well (and to send reprisals after 9/11 that the US won't forget what happened)
I'm 100% behind all our coalition troops for the job they did and still do
Both the invasion of Iraq and Afgan came after GW Bush wanted to show his old man he had a set as well (and to send reprisals after 9/11 that the US won't forget what happened)
I'm 100% behind all our coalition troops for the job they did and still do
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your reply George. I understand that the Afghan war came after the Iraq war, both were linked. My brother was in the Tora Bora mountains not lang after 9/11 so I have an idea what was happening in the early days.
Both the invasion of Iraq and Afgan came after GW Bush wanted to show his old man he had a set as well (and to send reprisals after 9/11 that the US won't forget what happened)
I'm 100% behind all our coalition troops for the job they did and still do
Both the invasion of Iraq and Afgan came after GW Bush wanted to show his old man he had a set as well (and to send reprisals after 9/11 that the US won't forget what happened)
I'm 100% behind all our coalition troops for the job they did and still do
I also am 100% behind our troops.
But its way past time that the politicians who sent our troops into harms way remake the case for why we are there.
Ever heard of the Pentagon Papers ?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I presume similar reports are available in the Australian press?https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/w...imes-rr5q658p0
Australian SAS inquiry: MP Andrew Hastie says military leadership complicit in alleged war crimes
Senior military leaders “sanitised” and “stage managed” information from the battlefield in Afghanistan, a senior Australian MP who served in the war there has said amid a scandal over alleged war crimes.
Andrew Hastie, who spent five years in the SAS including fighting in Afghanistan and now chairs parliament’s intelligence and security committee, said he believed “the very top” of the military should be accountable for any war crimes that may have been committed by Australian soldiers.
Both the chief of the Australian defence force and the chief of the army have said they were unaware that some rogue platoon leaders and soldiers in Australia’s special forces had carried out dozens of alleged unlawful killings in Afghanistan including “blooding” junior SAS members by ordering them to shoot detained Afghans. The report of an official inquiry into atrocities was published last week and identified 39 suspected unlawful killings by Australian special forces in Afghanistan. The report, by the judge Paul Brereton, is expected to result in criminal prosecutions and compensation payments to families of those who died.
Mr Hastie, 38, who was deployed to Afghanistan as a platoon commander in 2013, the year after many of the alleged unlawful killings in the report occurred, said that he had been aware of rumours of wrongdoing by Australian special forces before his deployment. Yet Australia’s most senior military commanders had been “very effective” at sanitising information about the country’s troops in Afghanistan through the use of “legions” of public affairs officers, Mr Hastie wrote in The Australian.
“We stage-managed Australia’s contribution to the Afghanistan war through a carefully crafted information operation. This approach stifled public-interest reporting. Perhaps with greater access for the Australian media, some of the events alleged by the Brereton report might never have happened,” he wrote, adding that the UK and the US took “a liberal approach, allowing reporters to see their soldiers at war”.
Mr Hastie was also scathing about parliament’s ability to scrutinise the activities of the military effectively. “There is no independent joint defence committee where tough questions can be asked in a classified, protected space. Parliamentary scrutiny these days is surface level. It amounts to senior defence leadership presenting a few Powerpoint slides and giving parliamentarians a pat on the head,” he wrote.
He added that when he was first deployed, politicians including Malcolm Turnbull, the former prime minister, and Julie Bishop, the former foreign minister, visited Afghanistan as opposition MPs and seemed not to know what questions to ask......
Australian SAS inquiry: MP Andrew Hastie says military leadership complicit in alleged war crimes
Senior military leaders “sanitised” and “stage managed” information from the battlefield in Afghanistan, a senior Australian MP who served in the war there has said amid a scandal over alleged war crimes.
Andrew Hastie, who spent five years in the SAS including fighting in Afghanistan and now chairs parliament’s intelligence and security committee, said he believed “the very top” of the military should be accountable for any war crimes that may have been committed by Australian soldiers.
Both the chief of the Australian defence force and the chief of the army have said they were unaware that some rogue platoon leaders and soldiers in Australia’s special forces had carried out dozens of alleged unlawful killings in Afghanistan including “blooding” junior SAS members by ordering them to shoot detained Afghans. The report of an official inquiry into atrocities was published last week and identified 39 suspected unlawful killings by Australian special forces in Afghanistan. The report, by the judge Paul Brereton, is expected to result in criminal prosecutions and compensation payments to families of those who died.
Mr Hastie, 38, who was deployed to Afghanistan as a platoon commander in 2013, the year after many of the alleged unlawful killings in the report occurred, said that he had been aware of rumours of wrongdoing by Australian special forces before his deployment. Yet Australia’s most senior military commanders had been “very effective” at sanitising information about the country’s troops in Afghanistan through the use of “legions” of public affairs officers, Mr Hastie wrote in The Australian.
“We stage-managed Australia’s contribution to the Afghanistan war through a carefully crafted information operation. This approach stifled public-interest reporting. Perhaps with greater access for the Australian media, some of the events alleged by the Brereton report might never have happened,” he wrote, adding that the UK and the US took “a liberal approach, allowing reporters to see their soldiers at war”.
Mr Hastie was also scathing about parliament’s ability to scrutinise the activities of the military effectively. “There is no independent joint defence committee where tough questions can be asked in a classified, protected space. Parliamentary scrutiny these days is surface level. It amounts to senior defence leadership presenting a few Powerpoint slides and giving parliamentarians a pat on the head,” he wrote.
He added that when he was first deployed, politicians including Malcolm Turnbull, the former prime minister, and Julie Bishop, the former foreign minister, visited Afghanistan as opposition MPs and seemed not to know what questions to ask......
Thread Starter
A mate who is a lawyer says she reckons the only reason prosecutions are now being pushed is that the Oz Govt realised if they didn't do something, this whole mess would end up in the ICC.
Which completely aligns with motivations of the current bunch of cynical arse-coverers warming the Government benches in Canberra at the moment.
Which completely aligns with motivations of the current bunch of cynical arse-coverers warming the Government benches in Canberra at the moment.
Why did we send our soldiers there in the first place
Why was Oz involved?
If your understanding of Geo-politics and military matters is so limited that you find yourself asking why Australia sent troops to Afghanistan then maybe it would be best not to post on a military forum.
Just sayin’.
BV
Just sayin’.
BV
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Scotland
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^
I generally enjoy your posts Bob, so don't get too bent out of shape here...
If you refer to Blackouts post, I think he makes a perfectly good point. It depends on what theoretical or philosophical level you wish to enter the argument.
(And I have 27 years military background and a Masters Degree in International Relations, so I'm comfortable with my footing here).
I am struck by the overall lack of context in this discussion, although some posters have made worthwhile efforts to broaden it. I would recommend for context some of the more graphic accounts of the behaviour of US solidiers (generally very young draftees with very limited training from very poor backgrounds). Once such A Hard Rain Falls details acts against civilians that will turn the hardest stomach. There are many other books of the same ilk.
And it is worth noting that the eventual collapse of discipline within US ground forces in Vietnam, with the continual rise in drug use and "fragging" their own officers, also gives a context to the arguments that "the leaders should have had a better grip". Hard to follow up on that when the brutal 19 year old killers you have so successfully trained are just as likely to turn their weaponary on their own. Not saying this happened in this instance...I'm only trying to give context here.
My point is simply this. All these acts are a consequence of warfare. They always have been (I live in Scotland, most of the towns near me have had their civilian populations put to the sword at one time or another) and they always will be.
In no way am I condoing these acts...they are crimes and in a lawful society they must be prosecuted and punished.
I am merely pointing out that in the context of military action they are not out of the ordinary. They have happened in every large scale conflict (define that as you will) throughout history and they will continue to happen in everyone in the future.
Therefore there must always be accountability for those that send soldiers into battle on behalf of their societies (usually politicians). The more accountable we hold these politicians through the democratic process, the more discerning their decisions will be.
Education is a key part of this process (as it so nearly always is).
Hence my post and my point. Looked at from the very top of the philosophical debate, Blackout's point is not only entirely valid...it is one of the most pertinent in this entire thread.
I generally enjoy your posts Bob, so don't get too bent out of shape here...
If you refer to Blackouts post, I think he makes a perfectly good point. It depends on what theoretical or philosophical level you wish to enter the argument.
(And I have 27 years military background and a Masters Degree in International Relations, so I'm comfortable with my footing here).
I am struck by the overall lack of context in this discussion, although some posters have made worthwhile efforts to broaden it. I would recommend for context some of the more graphic accounts of the behaviour of US solidiers (generally very young draftees with very limited training from very poor backgrounds). Once such A Hard Rain Falls details acts against civilians that will turn the hardest stomach. There are many other books of the same ilk.
And it is worth noting that the eventual collapse of discipline within US ground forces in Vietnam, with the continual rise in drug use and "fragging" their own officers, also gives a context to the arguments that "the leaders should have had a better grip". Hard to follow up on that when the brutal 19 year old killers you have so successfully trained are just as likely to turn their weaponary on their own. Not saying this happened in this instance...I'm only trying to give context here.
My point is simply this. All these acts are a consequence of warfare. They always have been (I live in Scotland, most of the towns near me have had their civilian populations put to the sword at one time or another) and they always will be.
In no way am I condoing these acts...they are crimes and in a lawful society they must be prosecuted and punished.
I am merely pointing out that in the context of military action they are not out of the ordinary. They have happened in every large scale conflict (define that as you will) throughout history and they will continue to happen in everyone in the future.
Therefore there must always be accountability for those that send soldiers into battle on behalf of their societies (usually politicians). The more accountable we hold these politicians through the democratic process, the more discerning their decisions will be.
Education is a key part of this process (as it so nearly always is).
Hence my post and my point. Looked at from the very top of the philosophical debate, Blackout's point is not only entirely valid...it is one of the most pertinent in this entire thread.
Last edited by Richard Dangle; 25th Nov 2020 at 07:26.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Explanation
Bear with me, I’ve had a couple of beers!
The point I was clumsily (I thought obviously) trying to make was that countries like Aus (and the UK) go to war in places like Afghanistan because they want a seat at the top table.
Whether you believe the cause was just, noble or worthwhile is irrelevant. If your country wants to be taken seriously it has to be seen to be taking part.
I thought that was obvious but apparently not.
The justifications and discussions about what is ‘right’ could go on forever. The simple fact is we take part because we are ‘morally’ (economically) obliged to.
Has the beer made me sound cynical?!
BV
The point I was clumsily (I thought obviously) trying to make was that countries like Aus (and the UK) go to war in places like Afghanistan because they want a seat at the top table.
Whether you believe the cause was just, noble or worthwhile is irrelevant. If your country wants to be taken seriously it has to be seen to be taking part.
I thought that was obvious but apparently not.
The justifications and discussions about what is ‘right’ could go on forever. The simple fact is we take part because we are ‘morally’ (economically) obliged to.
Has the beer made me sound cynical?!
BV
It made you forget all the economically successful European countries [one with a seat at the top table], who tend to contribute 2/3 of 4/5 of the square root of bugger all.
The recent history of intervention is not, shall we say, entirely satisfactory.
Protect vital interests, yes. Mind our own business otherwise, yes. Switzerland does rather well out of it.
The recent history of intervention is not, shall we say, entirely satisfactory.
Protect vital interests, yes. Mind our own business otherwise, yes. Switzerland does rather well out of it.
Completely coincidentally, I stumbled across “The Kill Team” on a movie channel last night. It is a 2019 dramatised version of real events that ended up with a number of American troops being jailed for war crimes in Afghanistan.
Here is a commentary on the movie https://www.esquire.com/entertainmen...ory-explained/
I found the number of similarities to the Brereton report, in the nature of the allegations, terminology and the complete isolation of the chain of command from any responsibility to be striking as well as disturbing.
I think that the sub-text of Mr Hastie’s comments in this weekend’s newspaper is very revealing.
Flysafe
PJ88
Here is a commentary on the movie https://www.esquire.com/entertainmen...ory-explained/
I found the number of similarities to the Brereton report, in the nature of the allegations, terminology and the complete isolation of the chain of command from any responsibility to be striking as well as disturbing.
I think that the sub-text of Mr Hastie’s comments in this weekend’s newspaper is very revealing.
Flysafe
PJ88
Australia has demanded China apologise for posting a fake picture on a government Twitter account that depicted an Australian soldier murdering an Afghan child. Prime Minister Scott Morrison said Beijing should be "utterly ashamed" for sharing the "repugnant" image. It comes amid escalating political tensions between the two countries. The image referred to alleged war crimes by some Australian soldiers.
Thread Starter
So, Beijing takes a page out of the Trump playbook.
Reducing diplomacy to infantile levels.
Their Foreign Ministry spokesperson was just on the telly here:
"The Australian Government should do some soul searching and bring the culprits to justice, and offer an official apology to the Afghan people and make the solemn pledge that they will never repeat such crimes," Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said.
Errrm, it has, it will, it has and it has.
For once I find myself agreeing with Scotty from marketing - all the CCP have done is diminished themselves.
Reducing diplomacy to infantile levels.
Their Foreign Ministry spokesperson was just on the telly here:
"The Australian Government should do some soul searching and bring the culprits to justice, and offer an official apology to the Afghan people and make the solemn pledge that they will never repeat such crimes," Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said.
Errrm, it has, it will, it has and it has.
For once I find myself agreeing with Scotty from marketing - all the CCP have done is diminished themselves.
"The Australian Government should do some soul searching and bring the culprits to justice, and offer an official apology to the Afghan people and make the solemn pledge that they will never repeat such crimes," Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said.
4th June 1989.
China taking an interest in human rights, what a joke, remind me what Tiananmen Square was all about. A 900 pound gorilla running rampant with the finesse of a bull in a China shop. A warped quote if ever there was one.
The 107-212% 'anti dumping' tariffs they just put on Australian wine is impressive, makes Trump's 25% tariff look silly.
I guess they are confident that the West is so dependent on their production that no retaliation is possible.
The coming Chinese hegemony is likely to be uncomfortable, as the Chinese have no reason to love the West.
More photos now emerging from the Guardian. I don’t think this is going anyway anytime soon.