Victory
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2017
- Messages
- 2,268
- Location
- London
It is a very tricky subject.
Remember seeing a documentary about Afghanistan, where the rules of engagement for British land forces were restrictive in that they were not permitted to fire unless being fired upon.
It is a war where the enemy often (but not always) wear civilian clothes and/or embed themselves in civilian populations rather than military bases, or basically are civilians who work on farms and sometimes pick up a weapon, fire it at the Allies, then go straight back to ploughing a field.
So how do Special Forces raids fit into that?
It is a mass of questions of which I have no answers:
Who ordered the killings, was it Ruperts (officers) or did an unauthorised collective with Special Forces decide they would take the law into their own hands?
If they did, what was the "operational" reason?
And the motive?
Was it a protest against the rules of engagement?
Was it designed to striker fear/respect into the hearts of the enemy?
Was it blood lust/revenge?
Was it racially motivated?
Was it a test of machismo?
To what extent are the allegations true?
It looks right now as "No smoke without fire", and the whistleblowers are senior Special Forces veterans,
but
Remember Carl Beech (Nick), the fake child abuse accuser?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...serial-child-abuse-accuser-became-the-accused
And remember there are interests who want to smear British forces, and other military forces, who have been accused of firing on civilians.
But then subsequently a considered investigation shows that the so-called civilians were far from the media depiction of friendly chaps who just happened to be mucking around with a gun they found on the street after a night out and a kebab on the way home.
Let's procede with caution until more details emerge, or not.
Remember seeing a documentary about Afghanistan, where the rules of engagement for British land forces were restrictive in that they were not permitted to fire unless being fired upon.
It is a war where the enemy often (but not always) wear civilian clothes and/or embed themselves in civilian populations rather than military bases, or basically are civilians who work on farms and sometimes pick up a weapon, fire it at the Allies, then go straight back to ploughing a field.
So how do Special Forces raids fit into that?
It is a mass of questions of which I have no answers:
Who ordered the killings, was it Ruperts (officers) or did an unauthorised collective with Special Forces decide they would take the law into their own hands?
If they did, what was the "operational" reason?
And the motive?
Was it a protest against the rules of engagement?
Was it designed to striker fear/respect into the hearts of the enemy?
Was it blood lust/revenge?
Was it racially motivated?
Was it a test of machismo?
To what extent are the allegations true?
It looks right now as "No smoke without fire", and the whistleblowers are senior Special Forces veterans,
but
Remember Carl Beech (Nick), the fake child abuse accuser?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...serial-child-abuse-accuser-became-the-accused
And remember there are interests who want to smear British forces, and other military forces, who have been accused of firing on civilians.
But then subsequently a considered investigation shows that the so-called civilians were far from the media depiction of friendly chaps who just happened to be mucking around with a gun they found on the street after a night out and a kebab on the way home.
Let's procede with caution until more details emerge, or not.