International British Special Forces Alleged to Regularly Execute Civilians in Afghanistan

...like someone knowing about how 9/11 was going to happen and not holding them accountable for the death of 3,000 Americans? Completely in-line with legal norms. Weren't spies killed by both sides during the "50s, "60s, and "70s?
So you think one of the poor farmers or civilians that British special forces killed knew about 9/11...? And the lack of legal protection for spies is being caught in enemy uniforms or out of your country's uniform. The issue isn't that you'rea spy in those scenarios.
 
They were living on an island. Learn to fish, dumbasses:)

Which was considered poaching under British occupation but what do you expect from a bunch of cunts who considered famine "an effective mechanism for reducing surplus population".

It's not surprising British specials forces shot unarmed civilians, they've been doing it years and covering it up.
 
The Major also found at least five separate incidents where more people were killed than there were weapons recovered. That means either the weapons went missing or the people who were killed were not armed. In one case, nine people had been killed and only three weapons had been recovered.
?
Does everyone killed need to have a weapon? What if the weapons were rotated between individuals? Remember, if they have a knife, they have a weapon...
 
Whatever the hell that means. I mean, there's plenty of stories of U.S. soldiers told not to interfere with the Afganis who fuck little boys. It's so prevalent in their culture, the U.S. kind of had to make a deal with the devil and turn a blind eye to it. U.S. soldiers could get serious disciplinary infractions for trying to do anything about it. But yeah, let's brush that aside.
Funny thing is bacha bazi actually increased after the US invasion. Taliban cracked down on them but when the US overthrew the Taliban they had to make this Faustian deal with the old Northern Alliance commanders who fuck boys. US literally installing a deep state government of pedophiles on Afghanistan
They should not have murdered civilians, it was the wrong thing to do
Fair enough
If that's true, I'd never support it. But I don't think it's good to ignore all the times the soldiers were killed because there actually was weapons hidden.
Huh? What do you mean? No one is ignoring it, why would that be relevant? If someone is detained you should be able to keep them from reaching for a gun I imagine.
?
Does everyone killed need to have a weapon? What if the weapons were rotated between individuals? Remember, if they have a knife, they have a weapon...
Uh yeah when you're claiming that they're reaching for guns and grenades it helps if there are actually guns and grenades there. Jesus Christ no wonder they get away with it, must have guys like you as their superiors.
 
No it pointed out they said they didn't do anything.
I would like to know why they were targeted and what proof the military had if this was a targeted raid.
Alright man believe what you want.
 
I have nothing against the British but, as a country, they have a history of some of the worst treatment of other cultures, including the Irish, the Welsh, the Chinese, Indians, Africans, etc. So, it wouldn't surprise me if this story was true.
 
Uh, did you actually read the article? Because it kind of did point that out...

Well actually I did read it. It says that there was an incident where some family members of a household were killed. The soldiers claimed they were armed with grenades and other weapons. The family of the men killed claim they were unarmed. And some random people found it suspicious.

There's really not much there in the article to suggest murders. That said, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if we found that they were killing suspected insurgent fighters and claiming senf defense against some made up attack. I have doubts that they are just running around murdering for sport or fun. It makes a lot more sense that they have a really loose sense of their rules of engagement and consider terrorists fair game to kill regardless of the rules.
 
Funny thing is bacha bazi actually increased after the US invasion. Taliban cracked down on them but when the US overthrew the Taliban they had to make this Faustian deal with the old Northern Alliance commanders who fuck boys. US literally installing a deep state government of pedophiles on Afghanistan.

Are you still putting forward this tired nonsense? Stop being so insecure and accept that this is part of the greater collective culture of Islam, and not a small, cultish sect of Afghanistan.
 
Well actually I did read it. It says that there was an incident where some family members of a household were killed. The soldiers claimed they were armed with grenades and other weapons. The family of the men killed claim they were unarmed. And some random people found it suspicious.

There's really not much there in the article to suggest murders. That said, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if we found that they were killing suspected insurgent fighters and claiming senf defense against some made up attack. I have doubts that they are just running around murdering for sport or fun. It makes a lot more sense that they have a really loose sense of their rules of engagement and consider terrorists fair game to kill regardless of the rules.
You would be very wrong about the not for sport or fun part. For example, one U.S. unit received ceremonial tomahawk and those guys ended up multilating bodies for fun.
 
Well actually I did read it. It says that there was an incident where some family members of a household were killed. The soldiers claimed they were armed with grenades and other weapons. The family of the men killed claim they were unarmed. And some random people found it suspicious.

There's really not much there in the article to suggest murders. That said, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if we found that they were killing suspected insurgent fighters and claiming senf defense against some made up attack. I have doubts that they are just running around murdering for sport or fun. It makes a lot more sense that they have a really loose sense of their rules of engagement and consider terrorists fair game to kill regardless of the rules.
So if you read the article why are you misrepresenting it? Random people? How about a commanding officer of the Afghans, the people they were conducting these night raids with
A commanding officer from the Afghan forces is quoted as having said that no one was firing at the British but the four family members were shot anyway and that "he sees this as confirmation that innocents were killed".

The Afghan commander suggests that "two men were shot trying to run away, and that the other two men were "assassinated" on target after they had already been detained and searched".
How about the fact that more than a few times there were more bodies than weapons?
The Major also found at least five separate incidents where more people were killed than there were weapons recovered. That means either the weapons went missing or the people who were killed were not armed.

In one case, nine people had been killed and only three weapons had been recovered.
How about the fact that they have used the same improbable cover story over and over again?
_113779203_paranoma_documents2_v2_640-nc-002.png

I think you said you were SF in anotherthread, wouldn't be surprised if you rather this wasn't true. Not a good look for the coalition forces.
 
I have nothing against the British but, as a country, they have a history of some of the worst treatment of other cultures, including the Irish, the Welsh, the Chinese, Indians, Africans, etc. So, it wouldn't surprise me if this story was true.

Might want to switch that British to English if you're taking that line.
 
How about the fact that more than a few times there were more bodies than weapons?

That's not really uncommon. We're talking about an insurgency in a country with a single paved road in it.
 
Are you still putting forward this tired nonsense? Stop being so insecure and accept that this is part of the greater collective culture of Islam, and not a small, cultish sect of Afghanistan.
Is that why the Taliban made it punishable by death while the US told their forces to look the other way? In fact the rise of the Taliban is rooted in the disgust the populace had with the practice and the Taliban's hardliner stance against it. The practice returned with a vengeance after the US occupation though
The Taliban had a deep aversion towards bacha bazi, outlawing the practice when they instituted strict nationwide sharia law. According to some accounts, including the hallmark Times of London article “Kandahar Comes out of the Closet” in 2002, one of the original provocations for the Taliban’s rise to power in the early 1990s was their outrage over pedophilia. Once they came to power, bacha bazi became taboo, and the men who still engaged in the practice did so in secret.
When the former mujahideen commanders ascended to power in 2001 after the Taliban’s ouster, they brought with them a rekindled culture of bacha bazi. Today, many of these empowered warlords serve in important positions, as governors, line ministers, police chiefs, and military commanders.

Since its post-2001 revival, bacha bazi has evolved, and its practice varies across Afghanistan. According to military experts I talked to in Afghanistan, the lawlessness that followed the deposing of the Taliban’s in rural Pashtunistan and northern Afghanistan gave rise to violent expressions of pedophilia. Boys were raped, kidnapped, and trafficked as sexual predators regained their positions of regional power. As rule of law mechanisms and general order returned to the Afghan countryside, bacha bazi became a normalized, structured practice in many areas.
Sorry but the sad fact is the US installed a literal deep state pedophile government on Afghanistan.
 
Is that why the Taliban made it punishable by death while the US told their forces to look the other way? In fact the rise of the Taliban is rooted in the disgust the populace had with the practice and the Taliban's hardliner stance against it. The practice returned with a vengeance after the US occupation though


Sorry but the sad fact is the US installed a literal deep state pedophile government on Afghanistan.


Why would the Taliban, as fundamentalist of an organization as there is make illegal something that is permissible under Islam? Make that make sense for me.

EDIT: as you and I have discussed before, I was nowhere near Afghanistan, and it was everywhere. You want to pretend this is a regional issue because you're more comfortable with that than with the truth.
 
Why would the Taliban, as fundamentalist of an organization as there is make illegal something that is permissible under Islam? Make that make sense for me.
Source?
 
Which was considered poaching under British occupation but what do you expect from a bunch of cunts who considered famine "an effective mechanism for reducing surplus population".

It's not surprising British specials forces shot unarmed civilians, they've been doing it years and covering it up.


<Fedor23>

Compared to the IRA, the SAS are blushing virgins.
 
You would be very wrong about the not for sport or fun part. For example, one U.S. unit received ceremonial tomahawk and those guys ended up multilating bodies for fun.

I'm sure they consider killing Taliban to be kind of sporty. They are the most elite soldiers on the planet. They're going after serious targets in seriously dangerous areas. So they probably run into the real "enemy" on a regular basis without just cause to legally target them at that moment. I'm certain that leads to them killing unarmed suspected combatants.

So if you read the article why are you misrepresenting it? Random people? How about a commanding officer of the Afghans, the people they were conducting these night raids with

How about the fact that more than a few times there were more bodies than weapons?

How about the fact that they have used the same improbable cover story over and over again?
_113779203_paranoma_documents2_v2_640-nc-002.png

I think you said you were SF in anotherthread, wouldn't be surprised if you rather this wasn't true. Not a good look for the coalition forces.

In their stories about why the engaged those men, they didn't claim to have been fired upon. So why would the commanding officer of the Afghans hear gunfire?
 
In their stories about why the engaged those men, they didn't claim to have been fired upon. So why would the commanding officer of the Afghans hear gunfire?
They claimed to have run into a guy hiding behind a bush with an AK at night. Somehow this guy got no shots off? Somehow two people they detained reached for guns? Its a bullshit story, they executed those guys and didn't even have the respect to concoct a believable alibi. That's how low the standard for integrity seems to be.
 
Back
Top