SAS: torturers’ henchmen?

113 comments on “SAS: torturers’ henchmen? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. ASA 1

   22 April 2011 at 4:55 pm

   Pablo’s blog on Kiwipolitico ( http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2011/04/tactical-utu-in-a-strategic-quagmire/ ) adds to this, by revealing a different insight into the SAS revenge raid last year. Interesting that this was revealed on the eve of Easter, to limit opportunities for the media etc to follow up on the story. I also note that once again dear leader has left the breaking of uncomfortable news to someone else while he heads off overseas.
   • todd 1.1

     22 April 2011 at 6:09 pm

     Pablo writes:
      
     I shall leave aside the fact that John Key said in 2009 that the NZSAS was deployed in a “training and mentoring” role for the Afghan Army counter-terrorism Crisis Response Unit (CRU) based in Kabul, and that it would not be engaged in combat operations. I shall also leave aside the fact that Mr. Key has continued to say that the SAS would not lead any raids but instead, as part of its mentoring role, “accompany” Afghan troops into battle when needed. Yet the raid against Lt. O’Donnell’s killers was led by the SAS in concert with US troops and air cover, with only a supporting role delegated to Afghan Army units.
      
     National MP and Defence Minister Wayne Mapp says nobody was handed over while the evidence says otherwise.  He states that even if they were handed over to known torturers, the SAS were not directly related to the torture so they did nothing wrong. That’s like giving your cat to a ravenous bull dog and then saying it wasn’t your fault when the cat gets ripped to pieces. Yet another gaff by the Government, In fact we can probably add this to the long list of lies by National… I’m running out of paper.

     Who are the real terrorists?
2. infused 2

   22 April 2011 at 5:28 pm

   This info was out years ago. No where does it say SAS were aware they were going to be tortured.
3. David 3

   22 April 2011 at 5:59 pm

   Not sure it is “uncomfortable news”, the SAS did what they are trained to do and took out some nutty terrorists who killed a kiwi soldier and threatened the rest of the PRT. Its what they are trained to do, its the reason why they are there and it was the right and proper thing to do. I doubt you would find 1 in 100 kiwi blokes who would not think this was the right thing to do, if I was defence minister I would have proudly held a press conference. Unfortunately in NZ the media think we have all turned into big girls who think the taliban must have had a diffucult childhood and need more hugs.
   • Vicky32 3.1

     22 April 2011 at 6:37 pm

     I doubt you would find 1 in 100 kiwi blokes who would not think this was the right thing to do

     If I thought you were right, I would despair of ‘kiwi blokes’… however, thankfully, I know you are not.
     Nutty terrorists? I bet you’re a great video game fan, hey? The war in Afghanistan is not and was not and never will be a legitimate war, but a great big scam.. Their blood for ‘our’ oil!

      
     • todd 3.1.1

       22 April 2011 at 6:57 pm

       A scam we should not be involved in, even if the lie that we’re just there to “train and mentor” was true… Supporting an illegitimate war is dumb and unaffordable.
        
       I watched a documentary by John Pilger the other week, it was very sobering. It’s called The War You Don’t See. Check out a trailer here:
        
       http://www.johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-you-dont-see-trailer
     • infused 3.1.2

       22 April 2011 at 7:01 pm

       queue oil claim. Go do a bit of research on how much the US has made off  iraqi oil and how much it’s spent on the war.
       • Zetetic 3.1.2.1

         22 April 2011 at 7:31 pm

         so their accounting did work out. But it would have if it had gone as the neo-cons expected.

         Haven’t you seen the new British papers about their meetings with BP prior to the invasion?

         The neo-cons had this fantasy where they would knock over Saddam, pacify Iraq easily for western oil and its neighours would be knocked down in turn. That’s what Bush referred to victory in the ‘battle’ of Iraq beneath that mission accomplished sign.

         Just because a plan fucks up doesn’t mean there wasn’t a plan.
         • infused 3.1.2.1.1

           22 April 2011 at 9:07 pm

           Bullshit. Why are they still there then eh? If that was the plan, and it didn’t go to plan, they would have pulled out along time ago.

           And I don’t know if it’s a typo, but their accounting *didn’t* work out.
           • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.1.1.1

             23 April 2011 at 12:17 am

             There still there because there’s still plenty of profits for the big corporations payable from the poor USians. The big oil companies are probably still making profit from Iraqs oil wells and those wells also need protection else the natives might take them back.
       • Puddleglum 3.1.2.2

         22 April 2011 at 10:14 pm

         The oil in Iraq was never about the money that could be made from it. It wasn’t even about ensuring that the US voters’ SUVs could keep having full tanks.

         The oil angle in Iraq was and is about the US military sitting on top of the second largest known reserves of oil in the world. Their interests have always been to limit the amount of Iraqi oil pumped into the world system. That provides a huge geopolitical power advantage as the effects of peak oil mount. Having military control of that supply ensures power.

         And power is what this is about infused – not money.

         Your geopolitical nouse is very poor. You would never have been hired by the Bush administration – or, for that matter, by any other US administration since the dawn of the 20th century (i.e., since the dawn of the age of oil).
       • Vicky32 3.1.2.3

         22 April 2011 at 10:37 pm

         queue oil claim. Go do a bit of research on how much the US has made off  iraqi oil and how much it’s spent on the war.

         It was an incredibly stupid idea. The fact that it didn’t work, doesn’t invalidate it all being about oil…
   • Zetetic 3.2

     22 April 2011 at 6:41 pm

     remind me again why the SAS are in Afghanistan. Training Afghanis, wasn’t it?

     Also, explain to me how the men the SAS killed were ‘nutty terrorists’. They may very well be the guys who shot the kiwi soldier but that doesn’t make them terrorists, it makes them soldiers.

     To me, the big reason why the West is losing in Afghanistan is it refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of its opponents’ motivations. When you persist in demeaning people who are willing to give their lives to try to get you out of their country as ‘nutty’ ‘bad guys’ and ‘terrorists’ you’ll never understand why they are your enemies in the first place. You can’t kill ’em all, nor should you. Everyone you kill just makes more enemies.

     The only route to peace – where you can stop killing and being killed, is agreeing to a future that all sides find acceptable.
     • infused 3.2.1

       22 April 2011 at 7:04 pm

       It does not make them Soldiers. It makes them rebels at best. The west isn’t losing if Iraq, it’s jut not making much progress.

       “The only route to peace – where you can stop killing and being killed, is agreeing to a future that all sides find acceptable.”

       You’ve got to be fucking kidding? You obviously have no idea about what their future is eh? Their future is taliban rule throughout the world with all other religions wiped out.

       Some of you need a wakeup call. The world is not all hugs and kisses.
       • Zetetic 3.2.1.1

         22 April 2011 at 7:28 pm

         what’s the difference between a rebel and a soldier? Which side you’re on?

         You don’t understand the first thing about the Taliban. Of course the Taliban government was a blight on the world but most people fighting the international forces now, some of whom call themselves Taliban, had nothing to do with the regime.
       • Zetetic 3.2.1.2

         22 April 2011 at 7:37 pm

         “The west isn’t losing if Iraq”

         we’re talking about Afghanistan, fool. 

         Hey, the Taliban was booted from power by the Northern Alliance backed by Western airpower and special forces over 9 years ago. At what point, if foreign troops were in your country acting like they owned the place and killing civilians along with rebels would you decide that these people aren’t liberators any more but new oppressors? If your uncle or cousin was killed by these foreigners (who would no doubt say ‘whoops, sorry about that, those wedding parties sure look like training camps from 10,000 feet) would you be a meek little pussy and do nothing, praying that your wouldn’t be next, or would you fight?
       • Pascal's bookie 3.2.1.3

         22 April 2011 at 8:10 pm

         The west isn’t losing if Iraq, it’s jut not making much progress….

         …Their future is taliban rule throughout the world with all other religions wiped out.
         
         Congratulations. Two of the most ridiculous statements on the conflict one could think to see, and both in the same comment. 

         On the first:

         We are fighting in their country. That means that they are not going anywhere, we on the other hand, will leave. What that means is that they don’t have to defeat us to win. Absorb this if you genuinely want to pretend to have anything approaching a moderately informed opinion.

         ‘Us not making progress’ is exactly the same thing as ‘us losing’. A stalemate, is a loss for us and a victory for them. They win by simply surviving.

         On the second:

         This is not 1935, Afghanistan is not Germany, and you sure as shit aren’t Churchill.

         The Taliban never fully controlled Afghanistan. The success they had was greatly helped by the Pakistani ISI. Pakistan has its own strategic interests in the area. Those interests do not coincide with Taliban rule of Pakistan. Pakistan’s interest was, and is, strategic depth with regard to a potential India conflict. A client state in Afghanistan gives them that depth. 

         Given those facts, how the fuck do you think the Taliban, who have shown precisely zero interest in areas outside of pashtun territory, are going to march triumphantly through the streets of Delhi, let alone Dannevirke?
         • infused 3.2.1.3.1

           22 April 2011 at 9:08 pm

           :faceplan: do some reading. In fact, it was in the media about a year or so ago.
           • Pascal's bookie 3.2.1.3.1.1

             22 April 2011 at 10:05 pm

             I’ve done, and do, plenty of reading.

             What are you talking about?
       • Vicky32 3.2.1.4

         22 April 2011 at 10:43 pm

         Infused, to call them rebels implies that the Karzai goverment is legitiimate, which it clearly is not and never has been.
         Taliban rule through out the world? Utter bollocks.
         Vicky
         • terryg 3.2.1.4.1

           22 April 2011 at 11:56 pm

           Vicky, you’re absolutely right. Its like all the AlQaeda hype – it is simply not possible for Al Qaeda, or Afghanistan, to pose an existential threat to the west. For example, the Afghanistan Navy doesnt even exist – there goes any possible maritime threat (IOW 70% of the globe is, by definition, safe).
            
           Mind you, I hear the Afghani air force is the scourge of humanity, so perhaps I better go hide in fear.
            
   • Eddie 3.3

     22 April 2011 at 7:54 pm

     what problem could these people possibly have with the foreign soldiers on their land?

     http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/4918834/US-drones-kill-25-in-Pakistan

     Oops, some more dead civilians. Sorry about that. Don’t dare try to get revenge or we’ll label you ‘nutty terrorists’ and kill you too.
   • Puddleglum 3.4

     22 April 2011 at 8:25 pm

     From Dave:

     “took out some nutty terrorists who killed a kiwi soldier and threatened the rest of the PRT”

     and, from Metro:

     “In May 2002 the SAS led a mission in the village of Bande Timur, 80km west of Kandahar.
     According to Metro, it resulted in the deaths of at least three people, including a small child”

     They make ‘nutty terrorists’ at an early age in Afghanistan.
   • Terry 3.5

     23 April 2011 at 11:24 am

     This David is something else but regrettably all too typical of what he calls “kiwi blokes” (99 out of 100 ignoramuses like him?). Naturally a good kiwi bloke is, like David, also sexist (crack about “big girls”) What the hell was your
     childhood like David? You are more “taliban” than the “taliban”. Sorry you missed out on the hugs which you desperately needed. 
   • the pink postman 3.6

     24 April 2011 at 3:41 pm

     That is not the question  , .What needs to be asked is what hell we are doing in this unwinnable conflict. Its time to admitt we should have never been involved and bring our young men back . We now must repair the damage done to our “Peace Corps” reputation .
4. Gooner 4

   22 April 2011 at 7:49 pm

   This is disgusting.
   Whoever authorised our SAS to go to Afghanistan in 2002 is equally culpable.  That person’s head should roll, along with the Prime Minister of the day.
    
    
   • Eddie 4.1

     22 April 2011 at 7:52 pm

     don’t be such a fucken child. These are real people and real crimes have been committed against them.

     Culpability extends to those who issued the orders and those who obeyed them. I seriously doubt any politician was issuing orders that prisoners be handed over to specific Afghani organisations. But if they were they are culpable.
     • McFlock 4.1.1

       22 April 2011 at 9:52 pm

       heh – so HC committed troops without any idea as to what they were doing?
       This sort of shit is exactly why the alliance party was against it (however the caucus decided to vote).
        
       Economically, labour were much less worse than national, but they still neglected their socialist roots. A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends.
       • terryg 4.1.1.1

         22 April 2011 at 11:58 pm

         Wow, two fantastic sentences in quick succession. I like “labour were much less worse than national”, but your last sentence is brilliant, and deserves repeating:
          
         A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends.
          
          
          
         • McFlock 4.1.1.1.1

           23 April 2011 at 3:47 pm

           yeah – old school. It goes back at least to WW1.
           • felix 4.1.1.1.1.1

             24 April 2011 at 8:47 am

             Lenin?
             • McFlock …

               24 April 2011 at 3:23 pm

               Lenin is a common attribution, but my impression from a quick google is that the source is John MacLean (a WW1 Scottish socialist and pacifist).
                
               Besides, Lenin was too damned fond of using them.
                
5. rosy 5

   22 April 2011 at 8:20 pm

   It does not make them Soldiers. It makes them rebels at best

   You got the language wrong – rebels are our non-standard soldiers, the enemy non-standard soldiers are called insurgents.
6. Rolling 6

   22 April 2011 at 10:40 pm

   Their the Taliban and they hate everything about you….no I’m actually serious they do.  Are we forgetting their inhumane crimes against women and children. 

   Perhaps you should talk to a Tampa refugee and see what they think of them.  

   Karzai’s regime are not much better, but at least they are not cutting up female genitalia and hanging people from the goalposts at the local soccer stadium.   

   Or perhaps we should just bail on the country and let it return to the ‘good ole days’
   • Eddie 6.1

     23 April 2011 at 9:49 am

     It’s good the Taliban regime is gone but labeling everyone fighting the foreign forces in Afghanistan now as Taliban is a fatal misunderstanding. We’re now fighting the people who take up arms when they see their relatives and friends being killed by foreigners – ie everyone with balls who isn’t in the pay of the foreigners.
     • Rolling 6.1.1

       23 April 2011 at 10:01 am

       You’re right not everyone fighting in Afghanistan is the Taliban, it’s a largely tribal country.  

       But the Taliban are still very strong, as we have seen in Pakistan, and they would have the resources to take the country back if we abandoned it.  

       The other thing that worries me is China.  The US made an announcement a few months ago that there is an estimated 1 Trillion Dollars worth of raw materials buried in the mountains of Afghanistan.  

       China has an Islamic uprising it is currently repressing ruthlessly in it’s West.  

       It also has a limitless hunger for resources.  It’s only a short step away from linking the Islamic uprising to a full-scale invasion of a resource rich country. 

       China would not be anywhere near as benevolent as the West when it comes to the locals.
7. ak 7

   22 April 2011 at 10:41 pm

   When the media lubricated the current suppository into the beehive, I don’t think anyone was too worried: it was obvious that he lacked the cajones or mettle to do too much damage to our internal progression.  But there was always that nagging worry about what damage a narcissistic dilettante could do to our international rep: and yep, sure as eggs, here we are, a de facto – which means actual, in the eyes of victims – member of the coalition of the willing.  Thanks, Joycie: I’ll pray that no more blood accrues to your mitts, but no guarantees son.  See you at Mass.
8. Afewknowthetruth 8

   22 April 2011 at 10:45 pm

   I wonder how NZers would respond if some nation -let’s say Saudi Arabia for the sake argument- were to invade NZ in order to control the production of milk and decide where it is exported, and in doing so kill thousands of civilians, bomb homes, kill people attending weddings ‘by mistake’, generally smash up the place, and abduct and torture those who resisted. 

   By the way, the pretext for the invasion -the 9/11 scam- seems to have been forgotten.

   Concrete and steel buildings do not collaspe at free-fall speed as a result of short-lived, low temperture fires. 9/11 was, of course, an inside job, a false flag operation designed to sucker the ignorant masses and get them to support illegal and immoral wars.
   • Vicky32 8.1

     22 April 2011 at 11:07 pm

     By the way, the pretext for the invasion -the 9/11 scam- seems to have been forgotten.
     Concrete and steel buildings do not collapse at free-fall speed as a result of short-lived, low temperature fires. 9/11 was, of course, an inside job, a false flag operation designed to sucker the ignorant masses and get them to support illegal and immoral wars.

     At the isk of getting the treatment Travellereve got, I am going to say I agree with you, Afewknowthetruth
     • ak 8.1.1

       23 April 2011 at 12:45 am

       Akshully, I’ll isk the wrath of both of you and point out that the pretext for Iraq was the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction able to be deployed in minutes, argued passionately and fervently at the UN and susequently and unequivocally exposed as blatant, preconceived and deliberate lies to the whole world by the leaders of the western world, who now not only enjoy continued plaudits and obscene personal recompence but posit “massacre of his own people” as a pretext for the latest invasion, escalation and inevitable massacre of civilians with similar lack of evidential basis.  And claim the prize for the longest sentence of the thread.   
       • todd 8.1.1.1

         23 April 2011 at 7:10 pm

         Thank god for Aljezeera. At least now there is an opposition to Americas disinformation machine. There is still an effort to impeach George W. Bush over the false weapons of mass destruction and other crimes.
          
         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush
         • freedom 8.1.1.1.1

           24 April 2011 at 8:19 am

           don’t forget RT on Sky and it has live streaming 24/7 including a low bandwidth option. Currently runnning on RT is the excellent David vs Monsanto doco, which clearly lays out our future thanks to the TPP 

           http://rt.com/

           It is worth watching just to do comparisin on the big stories and how western media brings new meaning to the phrase corrupt journalism 

           The recent articles on the Middle East and especially the discussion panels are lightyears ahead of anything coming from Murdoch and the others.
   • Rolling 8.2

     23 April 2011 at 9:54 am

     So what you’re saying is that 19 people (we know this from phone calls made from inside the planes), hijacked commercial airliners, trained to fly them (again there are solid records of them training in the US), flew them into buildings and the US were so involved they had pre-rigged the buildings with dynamite.  

     A couple of questions spring to mind.
     1. Why would the US want to bring the buildings down, surely the images of planes flying in to them would be enough to incite anger?

     2. How on earth can a large scale domestic operation of this nature be undertaken without one person leaking files or blowing the whistle? 

     3. How did the US convince 19 people to hijack the planes in the first place?  Did they use hypnosis?  

     I have no doubt that the US government at the time used a justified invasion of Afghanistan to start an illegal and immoral war in Iraq.  But I don’t think for one second they could have pulled off such a large and complex operation without it being leaked by someone.  

     The Taliban are evil and have a track record of cruel violence and relentless oppression.  Whilst you might not like the methods of the SAS they are without doubt the lesser of two evils.
     • gobsmacked 8.2.1

       23 April 2011 at 10:01 am

       Anyone who believes 9/11 was an “inside job” is beyond the reach of reason.
       • freedom 8.2.1.1

         24 April 2011 at 8:38 am

         http://www.ae911truth.org/

         go do some actual study, stop parroting the official story, think for yourself  and let the warm light of reality brighten that bloodied flag you keep saluting

         p.s. to Gobsmacked, and Rolling and every other cliche spewing troglodyte, secrecy is easy when reality is departmentalized, and have you ever heard of a little thing called the Manhattan Project……. at the time no-one had
     • Afewknowthetruth 8.2.2

       23 April 2011 at 10:38 am

       Answers.
       1. Why would the US want to bring the buildings down, surely the images of planes flying in to them would be enough to incite anger?

       A. The buildings contained asbestos which had been identified as a health hazard and needed to be removed. The cost of removal and lost rent would have been enormous: far better to demolich the buildings and work an insurance scam (which included put option of arlines grounded atfer the ‘attack’). Those who orchestrated 9/11 made a fortune out of it.

       Also, note that the images were used ovre and over and over to brainwash the masses into believing the official story.  
       2. How on earth can a large scale domestic operation of this nature be undertaken without one person leaking files or blowing the whistle?

       A. There were plenty of leaks. There was a huge ‘fight between the FBI and the CIA over failure to act on ‘leaks’, The 9/11 Commission -headed by one of Bush’s close mates- fabricated a report that supported the original set of lies and refused to accept testimony form those who disagreed.

       3. How did the US convince 19 people to hijack the planes in the first place?  Did they use hypnosis? 

       A. the ’19’ were also a fabrication. Several of the ’19’ were intervied afterwards and were astonished to discover they were ‘dead’.  

       Much more to the point:

       How could a large commercial ailiner crash into the Pentagon and generate such a small hole in the building and leave almost no wreckage? 

       A, It was a drone that fired a missile at the building -and hit the only part that was empty of personnel. There were no passengers.

       What happened to all teh security camera fottage of the event?

       A. Confiscated by the government.

       How could airliners fly around for up to an hour and half in the most heavily guarded airpsace on the planet without being intercepted?

       A. Dick Cheney had sent them on exercises awat from the district.

       How  come a building that wasn’t even hit by a plane had a short-lived fire and fell to the ground at demolistion speed and showed characterisitic criming due to demolition charges?

       A, It was demolition job.

       Why did there plumes of white smoke emerge as the towers collapsed?

       A Thermite charges installed previously released white smoke when detonated. 
       All this stuff has been extremely well documented. However, most people don’t bother to look at the evidence.

       The Taliban were installed by the previous US administration, but fell out of favour when they severely reduced the supply of poppies needed for the production of drugs marketed by the CIA in the US and they refused to allow a US-backed oil pipeline to be built across Afghanistan.
   • Morrissey 8.3

     23 April 2011 at 12:47 pm

     Your first paragraph is excellent, my friend.

     After that, however, you’re in lala-land. Nobody with any brains thinks that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. That’s idiotic. Shame on you for wasting, I’m sure, hundreds of hours on reading and viewing these delusional fantasies.

     What’s next for you? Let me guess—the moon landings were all fake? Why the world is irrefutably 6,000 years old? How the Jews run the world? How Peter Ellis hid a giraffe in the creche without anybody else seeing it except the kids?
9. Andrew Kensington 9

   23 April 2011 at 1:09 am

   The only instance of a report which mentions Afghans being killed by ISAF special forces, around the time and place Wayne Mapp claims the SAS killings took place, was this one:

   https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/world/asia/25afghan.html?_r=2

   “KABUL, Afghanistan — A team of investigators from the American-led forces here headed to a volatile corner of northeast Afghanistan on Tuesday after local officials reported that a nighttime raid by NATO commandos there had left 8 civilians dead and 12 wounded.
   Details were sketchy, but the governor of Tala Wa Barfak, a district in Baghlan Province, said the Afghans had been killed in the village of Naik early Sunday by what appeared to have been a raid carried out by special forces.”
   The governor, Mohammed Ismail, said a group of tribal elders he had sent to the village had returned with details. Among the dead were two women and a child, he said. Six of the dead were found in Naik, and two more villagers were found later in a field farther away, he said.
   “It was a cruel act against the civilians,” he said.
   Witnesses said the raid began Sunday at 2 a.m., when a number of helicopters descended on Naik. Groups of commandos entered a pair of houses, where the gunfire began, the witnesses said.
   “As they entered our neighbor’s house, we heard some shouting and yelling and then gunshots,” said Ahmad Shah, a resident of Naik.”

   If this is the case, the SAS is carrying on in the typical fashion of all occupying military forces throughout modern times – if any occupiers are killed the local population is used to as an example to demonstrate to others the consequences of being suspected of supporting insurgents.

   It is interesting that Wayne Mapp is so certain no civilians were killed in the attack and the mainstream media are so willing to accept that assurance.
   
   
10. Sam 10

    23 April 2011 at 5:36 am

    Tim O’Donnell went over there as part of a UN authorised reconstruction and security mission and was killed by dogmatic misogynist zealots. If you think that the SAS are the bad guys in all this then you’re as messed up as the Taliban
11. chris73 11

    23 April 2011 at 8:20 am

    This is good news, I bet there’ll be much less activity in their area now (which will mean it’ll be safer for everyone)
    You kill one of ours and we kill nine of yours…thats something terrorist rag-heads understand
    The SAS has the total and utter respect of everyone I know for these actions
    • Pascal's bookie 11.1

      23 April 2011 at 9:38 am

      Have you read much about the Russians tried to win there? remarkably similar to the approach you suggest. 

      Like us, they had two doctrines in place. One, for largely domestic consumption, talked about the evilness of the enemy, the consequences of failure, and the idea that they were fighting to defend that new struggling government in afghanistan against a small but strangely resilient foe, and that all they neeed to do was cow the ragtags and show the population that they were only fighting to  defend them from the troublesome terrirsts.

      The other was how the war was fought on the ground. Which was telling the population a totally different story. Primarily, that the lives of the occupying soldiers were worth far more then that lives of local civilians. If that is the story being told by the actions on the ground, then the COIN forces will genuinely struggle to convince locals that they are fighting for them.
      • gobsmacked 11.1.1

        23 April 2011 at 9:51 am

        @Chris73

        If you’re so confident that such actions result in “much less activity”, making everyone safer, can you explain why the war in Afghanistan has now been going on for longer than WW2? Why haven’t “we” won and left?

        But don’t bother telling us on a New Zealand blog. Just e-mail the Pentagon, they’ve been missing your military genius for nearly a decade now.
        • chris73 11.1.1.1

          23 April 2011 at 11:49 am

          I perhaps should have clarified by meaning safer for everyone in the NZSAS area of operations as opposed to everyone in Afghanistan, this is because the Taliban will be under no illusions as to exactly what the NZSAS are calpable of and will instead focus on less defended/aggresive areas
          To be fair I believe the USA could have averted all this back in the 80s (as was said in Charlie Wilsons War) and are now paying for their inability to see that theres more ways to win a war then just from the barrel of a gun (hearts and minds)
          Untill the USA remove their fascination with overwhelming force and technology as the only way to win wars they will continually be bogged down by third world countries that fight wars differently</p>
          • Pascal's bookie 11.1.1.1.1

            23 April 2011 at 11:54 am

            Dude, you are arguing that we should and shouldn’t win it through the barrel of a gun.

            The hearts and minds thing means that you should place the protection of your own forces below that of not killing local civilians, (and that includes retaliation as well as normal ‘force protection’ measures such as calling in airstrikes on suspects instead of sending in light infantry, using drones etc, ad nauseam)
            • chris73 11.1.1.1.1.1

              23 April 2011 at 12:19 pm

              No, I’m arguing that the NZSAS actions have made their area of operations safer not that it would win the war
              Nothing more nothing less but gobsmacked asked some questions so I answered them as best I could
              My point is whether the action in Afghanistan is “right” or not the NZSAS are doing what they’re trained to do and are doing a damn fine job of it
              Respect to the boys
              • Morrissey …

                23 April 2011 at 12:27 pm

                “Respect to the boys” ?!?!?!?!?!?

                The “boys” were bullied into handing over captive Afghani citizens to the tender ministrations of American and Afghani torturers and (quite possibly) executioners. These “boys” deserve about as much respect as the New Zealand soldiers who participated in the murder of civilians at Surafend in 1918.
                • chris73 …

                  23 April 2011 at 12:30 pm

                  Grow up you little pussy
                  • Morrissey …

                    23 April 2011 at 12:52 pm

                    You’re a real tough guy. Respect for the way you endorse torture and illegal executions, man.
                    • chris73 …

                      23 April 2011 at 1:23 pm

                      “These “boys” deserve about as much respect as the New Zealand soldiers who participated in the murder of civilians at Surafend in 1918.”
                       
                      And you’re a dick by daring to judge these men (who’re unable to defend themselves) and by trying to link it to a completely different era
                       
                      What next?
                       
                      You going to vilify the americans, french, german, japanese, english, middle easterns, spanish, portuguese, dutch, various african countries etc etc who’ve all without exception done very bad things to others (since 1918)
                      Remove your cranium from your anal cavity
                  • joe90 …

                    23 April 2011 at 1:30 pm

                    Grow up you little pussy

                    Yeah dude,. be a real man.
                    • todd …

                      23 April 2011 at 7:57 pm

                      Chris73, There are many actions that are indefensible. War is built on retribution and conquest, those people being tortured in the Rolling Stones photos have parents and brothers. Your contention that the SAS killing nine people will make the area safe is so deluded I find it hard to believe that there are people so incomprehensibly dumb in New Zealand. Not only have such actions escalated killing on both sides, it makes New Zealand a target for terrorism.
                       
                      Your claim that the Afghani freedom fighters will be under no illusions as to exactly what the NZSAS are capable of is correct, as it is their family members that have been killed. Thinking that knowledge of your enemies capabilities will deter an attack is like saying America is not in Iraq for the oil. Saying that the boys are doing a fine job fighting an illegitimate war and murdering people in retribution is fucked! It is juvenile and puerile thinking, that shows you have a mental capability that deserves our sympathy at most.
                       
                      The SAS has the total and utter disrespect of everyone I know for these actions.
    • Eddie 11.2

      23 April 2011 at 9:46 am

      And when a little Afghan child is killed by the SAS, how many SAS should die?

      Or are some human lives worth more than others?

      You’ll never stop resistance by the threat of genocide underlying your ‘9 for 1’ doctrine.

      If you were a civilian and an occupying army was killing civilians and fighters in revenge killings at your ‘9 for 1’ ratio, what would you do? If you’ve got any courage at all you would fight them.

      Is it any wonder, then, that the Afghani fighting groups (calling them all Taliban is silly) have no shortage of recruits?
12. higherstandard 12

    23 April 2011 at 8:34 am

    Good on the SAS – doing their job – loved the chap from Waikato uni reaming the TV reporter who was wringing his hands over them actually killing insurgents.
    • Eddie 12.1

      23 April 2011 at 9:42 am

      ‘bad guys’ aren’t they HS?

      Do you know why these people were fighting the foreign soldiers in their land?
      • higherstandard 12.1.1

        23 April 2011 at 11:26 am

        Yes Eddie they are bad guys, good on the SAS for tracking them down and killing them.
        • Colonial Viper 12.1.1.1

          23 April 2011 at 11:31 am

          Republicans love the ‘pacifying the wild west’ meme.
           
          Of course ‘pacification’ means white people killing coloured people with guns, usually to the point of genocide, but its just tradition, y’know.
          • higherstandard 12.1.1.1.1

            23 April 2011 at 11:41 am

            What colour are most Afgahnis then ?
            • todd 12.1.1.1.1.1

              23 April 2011 at 8:12 pm

              Does HS have any brain cells to rub together? Glorification of war through movies might have helped you to develop such thought processes HS, but thinking that an invading force that systematically kills civilians, thinks that killing Afgahni children is good and tortures and maims people without any lawful process (all for the almighty dollar) are in some way the good guys is certifiable. They are murderers, plain and simple.
    • Afewknowthetruth 12.2

      23 April 2011 at 10:59 am

      ‘Good on the SAS – doing their job’

      By ‘doing their job’  I assume you mean attempting to make it safe for global corporations to steal resources from Afghanistan.

      So, should NZ now send troops to Libya to facilitate the theft of resources by BP, Shell etc?

      Of course global corporations don’t need to send in the troops to steal from NZers: NZers are so stupid they actually vote for theft by corporations and vote for the impoverishment that ensues.
      • higherstandard 12.2.1

        23 April 2011 at 11:25 am

        “So, should NZ now send troops to Libya to facilitate the theft of resources by BP, Shell etc?”

        If the global community weren’t such pantywaists they would have assassinated Muamar some decades ago.
        • Pascal's bookie 12.2.1.1

          23 April 2011 at 11:29 am

          Anyone else on your little list, tough guy?
          • higherstandard 12.2.1.1.1

            23 April 2011 at 11:39 am

            Bob Mugabe, Kimmy Jong Il, Saddam straight after the Kuwait biffo, Silvio Berlusconi, Helen Clark, Gerry Brownlee…….. the list goes on and on.

            ‘If I ruled the world every day would be the first day of spring..’ tra la la
            • Pascal's bookie 12.2.1.1.1.1

              23 April 2011 at 11:42 am

              The SIS is watching dude.
              • higherstandard …

                23 April 2011 at 1:03 pm

                I thought you were an only child.
            • Morrissey 12.2.1.1.1.2

              23 April 2011 at 12:43 pm

              You forgot to put Binyamin Netanyahu in your little list. Why?
    • Morrissey 12.3

      23 April 2011 at 12:41 pm

      That “chap from Waikato” was Dr. Ron Smith, one of a group of infamous loons at that institution. Smith still regularly airs his “view” that there actually were weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq, and that “snuggling up under the American nuclear umbrella is a virtue”. (That’s an actual quote from Smith, who styles himself as a “security expert”.)

      He is notorious for his racist and bloodthirsty statements against the Palestinians; when Israel descended on Gaza in 2008-9 and killed more than 1400 people, Smith loudly and repeatedly stated his approval of Israel’s onslaught, including the use of white phosphorus. 

      That you would approvingly quote such an extreme and generally ridiculed figure as Ron Smith says a lot about you—quite apart from the fatuous content of your actual post.
13. Andrew Kensington 13

    23 April 2011 at 9:33 am

    The problem with killing ‘the Taliban’ is the term Taliban has become synonymous with the term Afghan. Whoever gets killed in by the occupying forces in Afghanistan, as long as they are not part of the occupation, are written off as being Taliban.

    It takes a dedicated form of racism to accept the slaughter of those Afghans, in their own country, by European occupiers as acceptable. Foreign troops, including New Zealand troops, are not welcome and should definitely not be participating in this US imperial adventure.

    If this massacre, carried out by the SAS, was even remotely justified we would have seen and heard more about it. The mealy mouthed reassurances being offered by Wayne Mapp and the mainstream media echo chamber only serves to reinforce the suspicion that civilians were killed in retaliation for the death of Tim O’Donnell. As far as I am aware acts of collective punishment are considered crimes against humanity.

    Far from making the local environment safer for New Zealand troops this form of violence only serves to further inflame an already volatile region. Hamid Karzai, the West’s flunky-in-chief, is desperate for the invasion to end and for the foreign troops to leave Afghanistan. If the invaders were really concerned about democracy they would allow the Afghans to vote in a referendum on whether foreign troops should stay or leave; once the results of that referendum were known the invaders should abide by the results and leave … that is, if the occupiers really were interested in ‘exporting democracy’.
14. joe90 14

    23 April 2011 at 12:32 pm

    Market lessons from the Pashtun.

    “Duh…fifty more years of scratching at my lice and shoveling cow shit…versus a quick glorious death if we lose, and lotsa enemy villages full of implied consent if we win?” I know how I’d choose.
    Well, the Pashtun are sensible people too. They don’t have much to lose, and they’re not that scared of dying. It’s not going to stop them having a little fun with us. What we’re offering them in return is just a flat-out lie—that bullshit about how they’ll transform in one or two generations, zoom to the top, shave and learn to write up a winning business plan and start their own fro-yo empire.
15. millsy 15

    23 April 2011 at 1:39 pm

    It seems here that Chris73, infused and higherstandard think that torture and killing in cold blood of those on the other side is acceptable.

    I would love to know what they would do if they saw taliban coming towards them with the white flag, and they had a fully loaded automatic weapon in their hands. My guess is that they would not think twice about pulling the trigger.

    Would they also torture and kill enemy prisoners. My guess is yes.

    I also think they would gun down civilians in cold blood as well and not be bothered in the slightest. That is a fact.

    Anyway, the obvious solution would be to pull out of Afghanistan now.
    • chris73 15.1

      23 April 2011 at 2:04 pm

      I’ve had dumps in the toilet that contain more substance than this statement.That is a fact.
      • joe90 15.1.1

        23 April 2011 at 2:22 pm

        How fucking old are you idiot73, 7..8…?.. because my 7 year old nephew likes bum jokes too.
        • chris73 15.1.1.1

          23 April 2011 at 2:42 pm

          Yeah? And my 3 year old niece thinks swearing is cool
          • McFlock 15.1.1.1.1

            23 April 2011 at 10:29 pm

            I still appreciate both.
            captcha: inserting
            [giggles]
            • chris73 15.1.1.1.1.1

              24 April 2011 at 9:45 am

              Anyone who doesn’t like farts or farting in general has no sense of humour
    • higherstandard 15.2

      24 April 2011 at 10:02 am

      It seems that Millsy spends his entire life pig fucking.
16. Sanctuary 16

    23 April 2011 at 3:39 pm

    First of all, I am re-assured that the New Zealand Army is sufficiently martial and bloodthirsty to exact a terrible revenge on those who dare kill one of our soldiers. These are exactly the right values for a combat organisation. The spirit of the fury of the Silent Division and the 2nd NZEF lives on.

    Secondly, while I support the operational need to extract a heavy price from those who killed Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell, if we were weren’t in that damned country supporting a corrupt and evil regime in its war against a pitiless and cruel Taliban then neither he would be dead or this raid would have been necessary. We absolutely should not be in Afghanistan.

    I am glad this issue has occured on the eve of ANZAC day, a day when we like to pretend war is a glorious and certain moral crusade where every death has meaning and we are always righteous. The handling of prisoners – from the routine “to late chum” killing of Germans attempting to surrender on the western front to handing them over to certain torture and/or execution – highlights the moral ambiguities and the slow corrosion of war on standards of decent behaviour that the true cost of killing inflicts on our whole society – something nowhere more evident than in America’s militarised society and the unthinkable rendered routine savagery of the US Military.

    The all-round questionable morality of this little episode – the random and senseless killing in an ambush, the animal savagery of the reprisal, the routine breach of the Geneva conventions relating to prisoners – is a salutary reminder on the eve of our annual celebration of our militarism that war is a near-absolute evil and must always be reserved as a tool of last resort.

    Lest we forget.
17. Pascal's bookie 17

    23 April 2011 at 6:54 pm

    If the former head of NZDF is found to have lied about this stuff (transfer of detainees) we may need a new GG.
18. El Mutante 18

    23 April 2011 at 7:07 pm

    I’m left wondering how many of these gung ho keyboard warriors who think the war is such a great idea would be willing to sign up and actually just fuck off to Afghanistan rather than boring us with their armchair general bullshit.
    • chris73 18.1

      23 April 2011 at 9:08 pm

      Sorry the closest I got was to Timor and I had left by the time afghanistan rolled around
      • felix 18.1.1

        24 April 2011 at 9:14 am

        Kill any children there, tough guy?
        • chris73 18.1.1.1

          24 April 2011 at 9:43 am

          Not enough sleep last night or haven’t had that first cup of coffee I’m guessing
          • felix 18.1.1.1.1

            24 April 2011 at 10:12 am

            ?
            You’re the one trying to use your military experience to give weight to your views on the participation of NZ soldiers in the the killing and torturing of at least one child in Afghanistan.
             
            So how much weight should it give?
            • chris73 18.1.1.1.1.1

              24 April 2011 at 10:21 am

              No that was just a really stupid comment
              • felix …

                24 April 2011 at 10:25 am

                I agree.
                 
                Implying that serving in the military endows you with special powers to determine morality is very very stupid indeed and I’m glad you’ve come to your senses.

                Killing children is wrong whether it’s you, Willie Apiata, or anyone else doing it.
                 
                • chris73 …

                  24 April 2011 at 10:37 am

                  And yet there you are judging others morality
                  • felix …

                    24 April 2011 at 11:21 am

                    Where did I do that?
                     
                    I said killing and torturing children is wrong. Is that the moral judgement you’re referring to? Care to argue against it then?

                    If that’s not what you meant then please be kind enough to point where I did.
                     
                    p.s. you’ve gone a bit quiet. Wah happened?
                    • chris73 …

                      24 April 2011 at 11:39 am

                      Certainly:
                       
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children
                       
                      Firstly at what age is it “acceptable” to kill a person if that person has a weapon and is trying to kill you?
                      I believe everybody has the right to self-defence and if a child (for this we’ll say under the age of 13) has a weapon and is trying to kill you or others then unfortunately you should return fire
                       
                      Secondly is torture ever acceptable under any circumstances?
                      If the only way (and I accept it rarely is but for the sake of arguement we’ll assume it is) to rescue the person you love most in the world is to torture someone would you?
                       
                      If torturing someone to get information to save others was the only way would you?
                       
                      Or would you go no I don’t torture but allows to do it on your behalf?
                       
                       
                    • felix …

                      24 April 2011 at 2:40 pm

                      Congratulations Chris, you’re justifying the murder and torture of children on a Sunday morning. I think I can quite safely make a moral judgement that you’re scum.
                       
                      BTW why did you make up the bit about having a weapon and trying to kill you?
                       
                      And where did you pluck the age of 13 from?
                       
                       
    • todd 18.2

      23 April 2011 at 9:17 pm

      El Mutante/Rabid Fire’s last post = Tuesday, June 8, 2010. Perhaps you should try writing something people want to read, rather than making assumptions about the contributors here.
      • chris73 18.2.1

        24 April 2011 at 10:34 am

        Chris73, There are many actions that are indefensible.
        War is built on retribution and conquest, those people being tortured in the Rolling Stones photos have parents and brothers.
        -Yes mostly right however things are rarely black and white, for instance the Falklands War could arguably be about Thatcher retaining power (under the guise of defending her people) and certainly WWII was about conquest but I’m hoping you don’t think the British empire shouldn’t have entered (you know two sides and all that)
         
        Your contention that the SAS killing nine people will make the area safe is so deluded I find it hard to believe that there are people so incomprehensibly dumb in New Zealand.
        -No buddy that comes under aggressive patrolling, controlling your area of operations so that the enemy has a hard time doing anything (and by anything I mean trying to kill you)
        Not only have such actions escalated killing on both sides, it makes New Zealand a target for terrorism.
        -Fair point
        Your claim that the Afghani freedom fighters will be under no illusions as to exactly what the NZSAS are capable of is correct, as it is their family members that have been killed. Thinking that knowledge of your enemies capabilities will deter an attack is like saying America is not in Iraq for the oil.
        -The point being if you have some options of where to attack do you attack:
        a. An area where the NZSAS are located or
        b. A “softer” target, civilians, NGA etc etc
        (Hint the correct answer is generally not a.)
         
        Saying that the boys are doing a fine job fighting an illegitimate war and murdering people in retribution is fucked! It is juvenile and puerile thinking, that shows you have a mental capability that deserves our sympathy at most.
        -No it is not and heres why:
        The NZSAS are showing why they are some of the best at what they do, you may not like what they do, agree with the need of what they do but it doesn’t change the fact that they are very good at what they do
         
        However whether the NZSAS or indeed anybody should be in Afghanistan is a seperate issue though as I’ve already stated before this could have been avoided

        The SAS has the total and utter disrespect of everyone I know for these actions.
        -And you and your friends are entitled to your opinions as are myself and my friends and thats why NZ is still a great country
        • todd 18.2.1.1

          24 April 2011 at 11:34 am

          Chris73
           
          -No buddy that comes under aggressive patrolling, controlling your area of operations so that the enemy has a hard time doing anything (and by anything I mean trying to kill you).
           
          Thinking that the invading forces can win because they have a bigger stick is also incorrect. There are no winners in war, which is a defunct concept in itself. Just as revenge killing is murder, war is sanctioned murder. There is no justification for murder. If you believe there is, and undertake such action, then you become as bad as those you wish to remove.
           
          -The point being if you have some options of where to attack do you attack:
          a. An area where the NZSAS are located or
          b. A “softer” target, civilians, NGA etc etc
          (Hint the correct answer is generally not a.)
           
          So you congratulate the revenge motive of the SAS while saying that the families of those they killed do not have the same motivation. It is more likely that they will be attacked when they become a softer target, or that the target becomes the soldier’s homeland. The Israel false passports debacle, Rainbow Warrior bombing and Corporate Attack showing just how inept New Zealand is in dealing with such attacks. Strange that these acts of war against New Zealand have all been from countries we call allies.
           
          -No it is not and heres why:
          The NZSAS are showing why they are some of the best at what they do, you may not like what they do, agree with the need of what they do but it doesn’t change the fact that they are very good at what they do.
           
          Hitler was pretty good at what he did as well. A question of their effectiveness was not the argument. The argument concerned the thought process that leads to people believing our forces are doing a good job fighting an illegitimate war. Saying they are doing a good job is like saying that car that just ran you over had a nice V8.
           
          -And you and your friends are entitled to your opinions as are myself and my friends and thats why NZ is still a great country.
           
          The KKK is entitled to their opinions as well, but when people start getting killed then acceptance of that opinion changes dramatically.
           
          New Zealand is a great country. However sending our forces to fight a war for an oil pipeline and killing the inhabitants who have a rightful claim to those resources makes us complicit in war crimes.
           
          US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11
           
          http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml
           
          By way of corroboration, one should note the curious fact that neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration ever placed Afghanistan on the official State Department list of states charged with sponsoring terrorism, despite the acknowledged presence of Osama bin Laden as a guest of the Taliban regime. Such a designation would have made it impossible for an American oil or construction company to sign a deal with Kabul for a pipeline to the Central Asian oil and gas fields.
          • chris73 18.2.1.1.1

            24 April 2011 at 11:54 am

            -No buddy that comes under aggressive patrolling, controlling your area of operations so that the enemy has a hard time doing anything (and by anything I mean trying to kill you).

            Thinking that the invading forces can win because they have a bigger stick is also incorrect. There are no winners in war, which is a defunct concept in itself. Just as revenge killing is murder, war is sanctioned murder. There is no justification for murder. If you believe there is, then you become as bad as those you wish to remove.
             
            -If you’re going to argue the point with me then stick to what I’ve said, not trying to change what I’ve said to suit your own arguement
            I’m talking about controlling your area of operations so it is safer for you, nowhere did I say anything about winning the war (although I will concede that controlling all areas does lead to defeating your enemy)
            And as for being no winners in war, maybe not but theres certainly the right side to be on and the wrong side but again that has nothing to do with my original statement.

            -The point being if you have some options of where to attack do you attack:
            a. An area where the NZSAS are located or
            b. A “softer” target, civilians, NGA etc etc
            (Hint the correct answer is generally not a.)

            So you congratulate the revenge motive of the SAS while saying that the families of those they killed do not have the same motivation. It is more likely that they will be attacked when they become a softer target, or that the target becomes the soldier’s homeland. The Israel false passports debacle, Rainbow Warrior bombing and Corporate Attack showing just how inept New Zealand is in dealing with such attacks. Strange that these acts of war against New Zealand have all been from countries we call allies.
             
            -again seriously answer what I’ve raised, not go off on your own tangent

            -No it is not and heres why:
            The NZSAS are showing why they are some of the best at what they do, you may not like what they do, agree with the need of what they do but it doesn’t change the fact that they are very good at what they do.

            Hitler was pretty good at what he did as well. A question of their effectiveness was not the argument. The argument concerned the thought process that leads to people believing our forces are doing a good job fighting an illegitimate war. Saying they are doing a good job is like saying that car that just ran you over had a nice V8.
            -Yeah fair point Hitler was very good at what he did and what he did was mostly (good thing there was a war to stop him)

            -And you and your friends are entitled to your opinions as are myself and my friends and thats why NZ is still a great country.

            The KKK is entitled to their opinions as well, but when people start getting killed then acceptance of that opinion changes dramatically.
            -The freedoms we enjoy are tested when someone says or does something we don’t agree with (I’m assuming you’re not linking me to the KKK) for example I don’t smoke and I think its disgusting BUT as long as people do it where it doesn’t effect my health I’m ok with it

            New Zealand is a great country. However sending our forces to fight a war for an oil pipeline and killing the inhabitants who have a rightful claim to those resources makes us complicit in war crimes.
            -Its always been that most wars are fought over trade, conquest or religion and its not likely to change anytime soon

            US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11

            http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/nov2001/afgh-n20.shtml

            By way of corroboration, one should note the curious fact that neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration ever placed Afghanistan on the official State Department list of states charged with sponsoring terrorism, despite the acknowledged presence of Osama bin Laden as a guest of the Taliban regime. Such a designation would have made it impossible for an American oil or construction company to sign a deal with Kabul for a pipeline to the Central Asian oil and gas fields.
            • todd 18.2.1.1.1.1

              24 April 2011 at 1:58 pm

              Chris73
               
              Again seriously answer what I’ve raised, not go off on your own tangent.
               
              My statement was: So you congratulate the revenge motive of the SAS while saying that the families of those they killed do not have the same motivation.
               
              You presume to tell me what to write while ignoring the questions I pose. What an arrogant twerp!
               
              The freedoms we enjoy are tested when someone says or does something we don’t agree with (I’m assuming you’re not linking me to the KKK) for example I don’t smoke and I think its disgusting BUT as long as people do it where it doesn’t effect my health I’m ok with it
               
              In this war, our freedoms are not affected by the Afghans saying or doing something we do not agree with. New Zealand should not be in this war. Americas war for oil and the resultant increase in carbon emissions will have more affect on NZ than anything the Afghans can say or do, as long as we do not instigate their retribution against us.
               
              The best thing is to not get yourself into a conflict situation and if you are, try to remove yourself. You do not free a country by killing its inhabitants, even if freedom was not a complete and utter lie perpetrated by corrupt and delusional Governments.
               
              I’m not linking you to the KKK. I used it as an example of why your thought process is defunct. To think I was trying to say you are racist with that statement gives more weight to my argument that you have a mental capability that deserves our sympathy at most.
               
              You’re OK with people killing themselves through smoking cigarettes? It does affect you because you pay taxes, which go towards looking after people who become ill from smoking cigarettes.
               
              The wars for oil are costing us billions of dollars. They are not about freedom; they’re about repression and control. In some ways they are about Christian fundamentalists trying to cause a holy war or Armageddon. The war for oil I can understand, but the Christian crusade aspect is completely mental!
               
              Its always been that most wars are fought over trade, conquest or religion and its not likely to change anytime soon.
               
              So now you agree with my initial assertion that war is built on retribution and conquest. The fact that peace takes time when so many resources are put into war does not discount the fact that people should not kill each other.

              Thou shalt not kill… Thou shalt not covert thy neighbours goods. These are good principles to follow whether you’re Christian or not.
               
              You have not adequately responded thus failing in your argument that the SAS is justified in being in Afghanistan or in an action of retribution which culminated in them murdering nine people. Your argument is juvenile and puerile Chris73.
               
              Captcha: Wake up!
              • chris73 …

                24 April 2011 at 3:12 pm

                -The problem with people like you (that is to say lefties) is that you come from a stand point of thinking you know best because “we care about people” and that somehow makes you morally better then anyone who dares to disagree with you
                 
                -Lefties like free speech as long as that speech agrees with general left thinking, anything else is wrong/evil/corrupt/right-wing whatever label you happen to think
                 
                -So lefties like to spout of catch-phrases like “war is wrong” well that is an incorrect statement, some wars may not needed to have been fought, some wars have been fought for the wrong reasons but SOME wars have been needed and necessary
                 
                -And yes I will tell you what to write because when you reply to my posting and then try to change what I’ve said then you may as well not bother posting at all
                 
                for example
                 
                -The point being if you have some options of where to attack do you attack:
                a. An area where the NZSAS are located or
                b. A “softer” target, civilians, NGA etc etc
                (Hint the correct answer is generally not a.)
                “So you congratulate the revenge motive of the SAS while saying that the families of those they killed do not have the same motivation. It is more likely that they will be attacked when they become a softer target, or that the target becomes the soldier’s homeland. The Israel false passports debacle, Rainbow Warrior bombing and Corporate Attack showing just how inept New Zealand is in dealing with such attacks. Strange that these acts of war against New Zealand have all been from countries we call allies.

                -Please explain to me exactly what your above response has to do with the points I raised”
                 
                “You’re OK with people killing themselves through smoking cigarettes? It does affect you because you pay taxes, which go towards looking after people who become ill from smoking cigarettes.”
                -I don’t like it, I don’t agree with it but yes I’m ok with it because you can’t legislate against peoples stupidity (not that you lefties wouldn’t like to try)
                 
                You have not adequately responded thus failing in your argument that the SAS is justified in being in Afghanistan or in an action of retribution which culminated in them murdering nine people. Your argument is juvenile and puerile Chris73.
                -I haven’t tried to justifiy why they’re in Afghanistan and they didn’t “murder” nine people because murder is illegal (love the emotive language) they did however undertake a military action and undertake it successfully
                 
                Your arguement is inaccurate and full of mis-quotes
                • lprent …

                  24 April 2011 at 3:26 pm

                  You mean free speech like you have here? I seem to remember giving you a ban a while back for behavior. I cannot remember ever curbing your expression of opinions.

                  The rest of your comment is the same moronic generalizations by someone who usually isn’t quite so stupid. Have you been eating intelligence degrading drugs?
                • Colonial Viper …

                  24 April 2011 at 3:28 pm

                  you come from a stand point of thinking you know best because “we care about people” and that somehow makes you morally better then anyone who dares to disagree with you

                  People who disagree with the Left position tend to put caring about financial capital ahead of caring about people.
                   
                  That in itself doesn’t just “somehow” make the Left position morally better, it definitively does.

                   
                • felix …

                  24 April 2011 at 3:49 pm

                  Yeah, caring about people actually does make you a better person than someone who doesn’t, Chris.
                   
                  And torturing and murdering people – especially children – definitely makes you a worse person.
                   
                • Vicky32 …

                  24 April 2011 at 6:43 pm

                  like “war is wrong” well that is an incorrect statement, some wars may not needed to have been fought, some wars have been fought for the wrong reasons but SOME wars have been needed and necessary
                   

                  Sorry Chris, I could not agree less. All wars are always wrong and always have been. Yes, I am a radical pacifist, and yes I do know all the arguments against –

                  It’s all very well for a woman to say that
                  What if someone was coming for your children
                  Wouldn’t you fight back to defend your life?
                  Etc

                  In order: Women serve in the Armed Forces nowadays, my children are grown and it’s up to then, and no, I wouldn’t.
                  (I do know how to fire a gun, (I had to learn from a father with PTSD) but I choose not to, and not to approve of or support those who do.)
                   
                • todd …

                  24 April 2011 at 11:11 pm

                  Chris73
                   
                  Lefties like free speech as long as that speech agrees with general left thinking, anything else is wrong/evil/corrupt/right-wing whatever label you happen to think.
                   
                  Healthy debate and freedom of speech are good things. However when that freedom of speech is abused and utilised to further an illegitimate war or make the populace believe something that is not true, it is no longer called freedom of speech.
                   
                  So lefties like to spout of catch-phrases like “war is wrong” well that is an incorrect statement, some wars may not needed to have been fought, some wars have been fought for the wrong reasons but SOME wars have been needed and necessary.
                   
                  Perhaps some people feel justified in going to war, however this is usually based on propaganda and disinformation. This is definitely the case with America’s wars for oil. War as a way to resolve conflict or to gain economic advantage is unjustifiable.
                   
                  I don’t like it, I don’t agree with it but yes I’m ok with it because you can’t legislate against peoples stupidity (not that you lefties wouldn’t like to try)
                   
                  We can choose not to be involved in illegitimate wars. We can legislate against stupid politicians bowing down to overseas interests. You don’t need to be a “leftie” to think war for oil is wrong. Any sane person thinks that killing people for a resource when there are alternatives that are readily available is wrong.
                   
                  I haven’t tried to justify why they’re in Afghanistan and they didn’t “murder” nine people because murder is illegal (love the emotive language) they did however undertake a military action and undertake it successfully.

                  They undertook a military action motivated by revenge in a war that is unjustifiable. That is murder in my book.
                   
                  Your arguement is inaccurate and full of mis-quotes.
                   
                  Where is my argument inaccurate? I have not misquoted you anywhere Chris73. Is that the best you can do?
                   
                  There is no re-writing history by the victor these days. The truth is recorded and disseminated to a degree that will make the people of nations who undertake illegitimate wars, turn against their own countries.
19. felix 19

    24 April 2011 at 10:14 am

    These so-called “revenge killings”, are they legally murder?
     
    Or would “honour killings” be a better way of understanding them?
     
     
20. RobertM 20

    24 April 2011 at 3:30 pm

    American rage after 9-11 made US military action and our support inevitable in Afghanistan. Ten years late the time has passed and enough utu has been done. The war is now pointless, destabalising Pakistan and potentially India. The gains made in protecting the lives and right to education of some unfortunate women in Kabul is far outweighted by the damage being done to the half advanced society of Pakistan which is being fatally weakened by the continuing stupid US, UK, NZ involvement. Seven or eight years ago it might have been possible to posture some good coming from it, but the approach of the British army which is also the basis of some of our thinking in peacemaking and pacification now appears hopeless.
    On the methods of the SAS and the American forces my general comment is that the purpose of the war to defend the west,liberalism and western values has been lost site of with the emphasis of loyalty to your mates, pack gang loyalty and retribution at the expense of loss of sight of what their there for.
    In the long term campaign against the Taliban, Al Queda and Islamic fundamentalism, great ruthlessness will eventually be required but neither Afghanistan or Libya is of any great importance or the time or the place.
    The Middle East, Near East and North Africa must be seen in perspective. Afghanistan and Libya are primitive nations without sophisticated social structures or militaries. Iraq proved how dangerous intervention is in a more substantial society and the much larger and more important Egypt and Iran are potentially game changing problems and intervention in may eventually produce world changing forces.
21. joe90 21

    24 April 2011 at 4:24 pm

    If you can think of anything ethical about war and killing people here’s an interview with the IDFs chief ethicist.

    capch: leads

Links to post

1. Anzacs and Afghans « The Standard: posted on 25 April 2011 at 6:11 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS