- Joined
- 7 Nov 2023
- Messages
- 13,523
- Reaction score
- 7,811
- Country

how many times, there are none.So the ex soldiers who who served with the SAS and SBS just made up their eyewitness accounts of alleged executions to sensationalise it.


how many times, there are none.So the ex soldiers who who served with the SAS and SBS just made up their eyewitness accounts of alleged executions to sensationalise it.


As usual you deliberately confuse the issue...A split second decision is required to either end your own life or someone elses. No time to ask yourself if this will go against me in a court of law. Kill or be killed is the decision to make.

A sleeping child? Absolute poppy cock. Its like saying a sleeping adult. Who is to say they were asleep once killed? I don't believe this has happened at all. Just another Taliban family making it up. In order to stengthen the case they say they were asleep. You do realise this was a Taliban commanders house in this case don't you?But what 'split second decision' do you think is required when faced with such a 'dangerous adversary' as a sleeping child?

The SF witnesses.Who is to say they were asleep once killed?

There isn't any.The SF witnesses.

Only my opinion but I feel certain of it.I know you think that. Some don't.
You're in blatant denial.there isnt any

Have you an example of where this is evident?If the war crimes are not acknowledged and dealt with, they will multiply and become ever more horrific.
The inquiry can enforce their presence and hear their testimony.There is no SAS or SBS witnesses. If they were so concerned why have they come forward now to the BBC and not told the MOD during the de briefings after the mission. Why won't they go to the investigation and only speak with the BBC who will not give their identities up? They will never go to a hearing or give their account. Therefore there are no credible witnesses who were there other than the Taliban fighters families talking rubbish in order to try and get compensation from the deal. The BBC are simply dramatising the whole thing. They have history of this. How has this all come to light? If the MOD were concerned after the de briefing and viewing the video footage, if there was any wrong doings, this would have been dealt with at the time. Not years later been dragged up by the BBC and Panorama which Panorama is the BBC. It is a complete load of rubbish.

No they can'tThe inquiry can enforce their presence and hear their testimony.
Look at history.Have you an example of where this is evident?