Discussion:
Shifty Bill
(too old to reply)
Rich80105
2017-04-03 23:48:48 UTC
Permalink
http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/04/gordon-campbell-on-shifty-bills-last-stand/

Worth reading in full, but near the end it includes:
"Clearly, a political decision has been made by the English government
that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few people
will read the book and (c) the sort of people who read books written
by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are never going to vote for National
anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with respect
to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that it
is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone who
thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead they’re
insurgents and if they believe Hager, they’re dead to us. QED."

So do people not really care? It certainly hasn't disappeared from
our news media:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831300
Rachel Smalley: Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a
dead child?

It's no surprise there will be no inquiry into allegations about the
SAS raids in Afghanistan.

The process by which we've got to this decision is flawed.

The Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister have looked at
video footage taken from aircraft that were involved in the 2010 raid
in Baghlan, and have said there's no case to answer.

Bill English says he didn't see all of the footage, but of what he saw
he's confident that troops involved in the raids met the "benchmark"
of acting within the rules of engagement.

The advice from defence head Tim Keating is there is no need for an
independent inquiry.

Neither Lieutenant General Keating nor the Prime Minister were in
their respective roles at the time of the raid.

Neither were involved in the decision-making process that led to the
raid.

Neither would have been involved in the aftermath.

The footage is from aircraft. Our troops were on the ground, and from
what we've been told, none of the SAS soldiers involved in the raid
have been spoken to about the allegations in the book Hit and Run.

Again, this is not a criticism of our Defence Force. Our Defence Force
have - and continue to do - remarkable work all over the world.

But you have to take heed of Wayne Mapp's comments. He was the
Government's Defence Minister at the time. A very capable and
well-respected Cabinet Minister. And he himself served as an infantry
major in the Territorials, specialising in military intelligence.

It was Mapp who said the raid was - quote - "disastrous". A "fiasco",
he said.

Surely his opinion and position on this is important. Something isn't
sitting comfortably on his shoulders. And we know - and the Government
has confirmed this - civilians died in that raid.

There should be an inquiry. I don't think it should be public, but it
should be independent.

I don't understand why, when there are so many questions to answer, we
won't budge on this.

Is it because they're Afghanis? Is it because they're people from a
failed state on the other side of the world who we don't identify
with? Is that why we find this easy to dismiss?

Is it because the Government is relying on the wrath of right-wingers
to discredit Hit & Run authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson?

Again, we're playing the man and not the ball on this.

You cannot discredit Mapp's concerns. He was the Minister. He says
there should be an inquiry.

And what I would point out is this.

Right now we're in the midst of a two-month inquiry into why we shot a
dog at Auckland Airport.

A dog that was running amok, and held up 16 flights.

We're investigating a dog's death.

Come on, New Zealand.

Should we not be investigating how a 3-year-old girl was shot dead
while in her mother's arms in a small village in Afghanistan?

What does that say about us? About you and me? Why are we horrified by
shooting dead a dog, but not the killing of an Afghani toddler?

Answer that question for me, and tell me again that we shouldn't have
an inquiry.
Tony
2017-04-04 23:35:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/04/gordon-campbell-on-shifty-bills-last-stand/
"Clearly, a political decision has been made by the English government
that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few people
will read the book and (c) the sort of people who read books written
by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are never going to vote for National
anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with respect
to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that it
is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone who
thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead they’re
insurgents and if they believe Hager, they’re dead to us. QED."
So do people not really care? It certainly hasn't disappeared from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831300
Rachel Smalley: Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a
dead child?
It's no surprise there will be no inquiry into allegations about the
SAS raids in Afghanistan.
The process by which we've got to this decision is flawed.
The Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister have looked at
video footage taken from aircraft that were involved in the 2010 raid
in Baghlan, and have said there's no case to answer.
Bill English says he didn't see all of the footage, but of what he saw
he's confident that troops involved in the raids met the "benchmark"
of acting within the rules of engagement.
The advice from defence head Tim Keating is there is no need for an
independent inquiry.
Neither Lieutenant General Keating nor the Prime Minister were in
their respective roles at the time of the raid.
Neither were involved in the decision-making process that led to the
raid.
Neither would have been involved in the aftermath.
The footage is from aircraft. Our troops were on the ground, and from
what we've been told, none of the SAS soldiers involved in the raid
have been spoken to about the allegations in the book Hit and Run.
Again, this is not a criticism of our Defence Force. Our Defence Force
have - and continue to do - remarkable work all over the world.
But you have to take heed of Wayne Mapp's comments. He was the
Government's Defence Minister at the time. A very capable and
well-respected Cabinet Minister. And he himself served as an infantry
major in the Territorials, specialising in military intelligence.
It was Mapp who said the raid was - quote - "disastrous". A "fiasco",
he said.
Surely his opinion and position on this is important. Something isn't
sitting comfortably on his shoulders. And we know - and the Government
has confirmed this - civilians died in that raid.
There should be an inquiry. I don't think it should be public, but it
should be independent.
I don't understand why, when there are so many questions to answer, we
won't budge on this.
Is it because they're Afghanis? Is it because they're people from a
failed state on the other side of the world who we don't identify
with? Is that why we find this easy to dismiss?
Is it because the Government is relying on the wrath of right-wingers
to discredit Hit & Run authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson?
Again, we're playing the man and not the ball on this.
You cannot discredit Mapp's concerns. He was the Minister. He says
there should be an inquiry.
And what I would point out is this.
Right now we're in the midst of a two-month inquiry into why we shot a
dog at Auckland Airport.
A dog that was running amok, and held up 16 flights.
We're investigating a dog's death.
Come on, New Zealand.
Should we not be investigating how a 3-year-old girl was shot dead
while in her mother's arms in a small village in Afghanistan?
What does that say about us? About you and me? Why are we horrified by
shooting dead a dog, but not the killing of an Afghani toddler?
Answer that question for me, and tell me again that we shouldn't have
an inquiry.
It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in its
attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry on the
death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap piece of
journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should be an
inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent - there is
precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself is
meaningless and a waste of time.
Put up or shut up I say!
Tony
JohnO
2017-04-04 23:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/04/gordon-campbell-on-shifty-bills-last-stand/
"Clearly, a political decision has been made by the English government
that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few people
will read the book and (c) the sort of people who read books written
by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are never going to vote for National
anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with respect
to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that it
is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone who
thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead they’re
insurgents and if they believe Hager, they’re dead to us. QED."
So do people not really care? It certainly hasn't disappeared from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831300
Rachel Smalley: Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a
dead child?
It's no surprise there will be no inquiry into allegations about the
SAS raids in Afghanistan.
The process by which we've got to this decision is flawed.
The Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister have looked at
video footage taken from aircraft that were involved in the 2010 raid
in Baghlan, and have said there's no case to answer.
Bill English says he didn't see all of the footage, but of what he saw
he's confident that troops involved in the raids met the "benchmark"
of acting within the rules of engagement.
The advice from defence head Tim Keating is there is no need for an
independent inquiry.
Neither Lieutenant General Keating nor the Prime Minister were in
their respective roles at the time of the raid.
Neither were involved in the decision-making process that led to the
raid.
Neither would have been involved in the aftermath.
The footage is from aircraft. Our troops were on the ground, and from
what we've been told, none of the SAS soldiers involved in the raid
have been spoken to about the allegations in the book Hit and Run.
Again, this is not a criticism of our Defence Force. Our Defence Force
have - and continue to do - remarkable work all over the world.
But you have to take heed of Wayne Mapp's comments. He was the
Government's Defence Minister at the time. A very capable and
well-respected Cabinet Minister. And he himself served as an infantry
major in the Territorials, specialising in military intelligence.
It was Mapp who said the raid was - quote - "disastrous". A "fiasco",
he said.
Surely his opinion and position on this is important. Something isn't
sitting comfortably on his shoulders. And we know - and the Government
has confirmed this - civilians died in that raid.
There should be an inquiry. I don't think it should be public, but it
should be independent.
I don't understand why, when there are so many questions to answer, we
won't budge on this.
Is it because they're Afghanis? Is it because they're people from a
failed state on the other side of the world who we don't identify
with? Is that why we find this easy to dismiss?
Is it because the Government is relying on the wrath of right-wingers
to discredit Hit & Run authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson?
Again, we're playing the man and not the ball on this.
You cannot discredit Mapp's concerns. He was the Minister. He says
there should be an inquiry.
And what I would point out is this.
Right now we're in the midst of a two-month inquiry into why we shot a
dog at Auckland Airport.
A dog that was running amok, and held up 16 flights.
We're investigating a dog's death.
Come on, New Zealand.
Should we not be investigating how a 3-year-old girl was shot dead
while in her mother's arms in a small village in Afghanistan?
What does that say about us? About you and me? Why are we horrified by
shooting dead a dog, but not the killing of an Afghani toddler?
Answer that question for me, and tell me again that we shouldn't have
an inquiry.
It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in its
attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry on the
death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap piece of
journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should be an
inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent - there is
precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself is
meaningless and a waste of time.
Put up or shut up I say!
Tony
Hagar's allegations aren't worth a knob of goat poo. We don't need to go running off to start an inquiry every time this weasel comes up with some unattributed hearsay and proven incorrect claims.

He's just throwing dung at our bravest soldiers. Best to ignore him.
george152
2017-04-05 02:15:20 UTC
Permalink
On 4/5/2017 11:39 AM, JohnO wrote:


Snipped for the readers sake
Post by JohnO
Hagar's allegations aren't worth a knob of goat poo. We don't need to go running off to start an inquiry every time this weasel comes up with some unattributed hearsay and proven incorrect claims.
He's just throwing dung at our bravest soldiers. Best to ignore him.
How about an inquiry into the dirty duos doings.
A close examination is what they call for..
then a close examination is what they get
Who did they talk to in SAS?
Was it Walter Mitty, Walter Mitty or Walter Mitty
Rich80105
2017-04-05 20:11:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by george152
Snipped for the readers sake
Post by JohnO
Hagar's allegations aren't worth a knob of goat poo. We don't need to go running off to start an inquiry every time this weasel comes up with some unattributed hearsay and proven incorrect claims.
He's just throwing dung at our bravest soldiers. Best to ignore him.
How about an inquiry into the dirty duos doings.
A close examination is what they call for..
then a close examination is what they get
Who did they talk to in SAS?
Was it Walter Mitty, Walter Mitty or Walter Mitty
Probably none of those, but it may (or may not) have been the same
person who spoke to the Herald, giving much the same story. Do you
understand why whistle-blowers may have required that their name be
not published?
Pooh
2017-04-06 03:37:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by george152
Snipped for the readers sake
Post by JohnO
Hagar's allegations aren't worth a knob of goat poo. We don't need to go running off to start an inquiry every time this weasel comes up with some unattributed hearsay and proven incorrect claims.
He's just throwing dung at our bravest soldiers. Best to ignore him.
How about an inquiry into the dirty duos doings.
A close examination is what they call for..
then a close examination is what they get
Who did they talk to in SAS?
Was it Walter Mitty, Walter Mitty or Walter Mitty
Probably none of those, but it may (or may not) have been the same
person who spoke to the Herald, giving much the same story. Do you
understand why whistle-blowers may have required that their name be
not published?
Rich you have to be the stupidest troll in history! You attack people ho
use anecdotal story's in an effort to educate you because they can't
provide names. Yet when a loopy lefty loon rites a book using anecdotal
evidence you defend the useless little prick as though he as the
greatest journalist known to New Zealand rather than the delusional
marxist conspiracy theorist he is.

But then looking at the way Labour and it's supporters credibility is
plunging it doesn't surprise me :)

Pooh
Rich80105
2017-04-05 03:32:05 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/04/gordon-campbell-on-shifty-bills-last-stand/
"Clearly, a political decision has been made by the English government
that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few people
will read the book and (c) the sort of people who read books written
by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are never going to vote for National
anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with respect
to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that it
is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone who
thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead they’re
insurgents and if they believe Hager, they’re dead to us. QED."
So do people not really care? It certainly hasn't disappeared from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831300
Rachel Smalley: Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a
dead child?
It's no surprise there will be no inquiry into allegations about the
SAS raids in Afghanistan.
The process by which we've got to this decision is flawed.
The Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister have looked at
video footage taken from aircraft that were involved in the 2010 raid
in Baghlan, and have said there's no case to answer.
Bill English says he didn't see all of the footage, but of what he saw
he's confident that troops involved in the raids met the "benchmark"
of acting within the rules of engagement.
The advice from defence head Tim Keating is there is no need for an
independent inquiry.
Neither Lieutenant General Keating nor the Prime Minister were in
their respective roles at the time of the raid.
Neither were involved in the decision-making process that led to the
raid.
Neither would have been involved in the aftermath.
The footage is from aircraft. Our troops were on the ground, and from
what we've been told, none of the SAS soldiers involved in the raid
have been spoken to about the allegations in the book Hit and Run.
Again, this is not a criticism of our Defence Force. Our Defence Force
have - and continue to do - remarkable work all over the world.
But you have to take heed of Wayne Mapp's comments. He was the
Government's Defence Minister at the time. A very capable and
well-respected Cabinet Minister. And he himself served as an infantry
major in the Territorials, specialising in military intelligence.
It was Mapp who said the raid was - quote - "disastrous". A "fiasco",
he said.
Surely his opinion and position on this is important. Something isn't
sitting comfortably on his shoulders. And we know - and the Government
has confirmed this - civilians died in that raid.
There should be an inquiry. I don't think it should be public, but it
should be independent.
I don't understand why, when there are so many questions to answer, we
won't budge on this.
Is it because they're Afghanis? Is it because they're people from a
failed state on the other side of the world who we don't identify
with? Is that why we find this easy to dismiss?
Is it because the Government is relying on the wrath of right-wingers
to discredit Hit & Run authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson?
Again, we're playing the man and not the ball on this.
You cannot discredit Mapp's concerns. He was the Minister. He says
there should be an inquiry.
And what I would point out is this.
Right now we're in the midst of a two-month inquiry into why we shot a
dog at Auckland Airport.
A dog that was running amok, and held up 16 flights.
We're investigating a dog's death.
Come on, New Zealand.
Should we not be investigating how a 3-year-old girl was shot dead
while in her mother's arms in a small village in Afghanistan?
What does that say about us? About you and me? Why are we horrified by
shooting dead a dog, but not the killing of an Afghani toddler?
Answer that question for me, and tell me again that we shouldn't have
an inquiry.
It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in its
attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry on the
death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap piece of
journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should be an
inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent - there is
precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself is
meaningless and a waste of time.
Hager and Stepenson are real journalists - I gather Stephenson is back
in Afghanistan at present; possibly investigating for another story.
The book presented real evidence in much the same way as the 2014
documentary provided credible evidence - they led to others concluding
that there is a real possibility of actions contrary to legal
requirements.Isn;t that how journalists are supposed to work?

As for a comparson with a different issue, we accept that sort of
comparison quite often with issues such as sentencing for different
crimes, salaries for different jobs - why not for the expense and
degree of concern necessary for an investigation. As Wayne Mapp said:
"The law of armed conflict accepts that civilian casualties might
occur in military operations, and in many cases there is no legal
liability for them, particularly if they were accidental.

But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?

For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.

This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.

We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.

On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.

New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.

Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."

Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.

It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, noit just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Tony
JohnO
2017-04-05 21:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/04/gordon-campbell-on-shifty-bills-last-stand/
"Clearly, a political decision has been made by the English government
that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few people
will read the book and (c) the sort of people who read books written
by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are never going to vote for National
anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with respect
to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that it
is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone who
thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead they’re
insurgents and if they believe Hager, they’re dead to us. QED."
So do people not really care? It certainly hasn't disappeared from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831300
Rachel Smalley: Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a
dead child?
It's no surprise there will be no inquiry into allegations about the
SAS raids in Afghanistan.
The process by which we've got to this decision is flawed.
The Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister have looked at
video footage taken from aircraft that were involved in the 2010 raid
in Baghlan, and have said there's no case to answer.
Bill English says he didn't see all of the footage, but of what he saw
he's confident that troops involved in the raids met the "benchmark"
of acting within the rules of engagement.
The advice from defence head Tim Keating is there is no need for an
independent inquiry.
Neither Lieutenant General Keating nor the Prime Minister were in
their respective roles at the time of the raid.
Neither were involved in the decision-making process that led to the
raid.
Neither would have been involved in the aftermath.
The footage is from aircraft. Our troops were on the ground, and from
what we've been told, none of the SAS soldiers involved in the raid
have been spoken to about the allegations in the book Hit and Run.
Again, this is not a criticism of our Defence Force. Our Defence Force
have - and continue to do - remarkable work all over the world.
But you have to take heed of Wayne Mapp's comments. He was the
Government's Defence Minister at the time. A very capable and
well-respected Cabinet Minister. And he himself served as an infantry
major in the Territorials, specialising in military intelligence.
It was Mapp who said the raid was - quote - "disastrous". A "fiasco",
he said.
Surely his opinion and position on this is important. Something isn't
sitting comfortably on his shoulders. And we know - and the Government
has confirmed this - civilians died in that raid.
There should be an inquiry. I don't think it should be public, but it
should be independent.
I don't understand why, when there are so many questions to answer, we
won't budge on this.
Is it because they're Afghanis? Is it because they're people from a
failed state on the other side of the world who we don't identify
with? Is that why we find this easy to dismiss?
Is it because the Government is relying on the wrath of right-wingers
to discredit Hit & Run authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson?
Again, we're playing the man and not the ball on this.
You cannot discredit Mapp's concerns. He was the Minister. He says
there should be an inquiry.
And what I would point out is this.
Right now we're in the midst of a two-month inquiry into why we shot a
dog at Auckland Airport.
A dog that was running amok, and held up 16 flights.
We're investigating a dog's death.
Come on, New Zealand.
Should we not be investigating how a 3-year-old girl was shot dead
while in her mother's arms in a small village in Afghanistan?
What does that say about us? About you and me? Why are we horrified by
shooting dead a dog, but not the killing of an Afghani toddler?
Answer that question for me, and tell me again that we shouldn't have
an inquiry.
It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in its
attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry on the
death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap piece of
journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should be an
inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent - there is
precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself is
meaningless and a waste of time.
Hager and Stepenson are real journalists
They are nothing of the sort. A "real journalist" would have looked at both sides of the story, and in particular asked NZDF for their version. Then they would have reported the facts dispassionately. They would have fact checked.

They are activists. They only look at the one side of the story that supports their agenda and they presented it emotively. They never fact checked.
Post by Rich80105
- I gather Stephenson is back
in Afghanistan at present; possibly investigating for another story.
The book presented real evidence in much the same way as the 2014
documentary provided credible evidence - they led to others concluding
that there is a real possibility of actions contrary to legal
requirements.Isn;t that how journalists are supposed to work?
As for a comparson with a different issue, we accept that sort of
comparison quite often with issues such as sentencing for different
crimes, salaries for different jobs - why not for the expense and
"The law of armed conflict accepts that civilian casualties might
occur in military operations, and in many cases there is no legal
liability for them, particularly if they were accidental.
But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?
For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.
This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.
We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.
New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.
Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."
Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.
It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, noit just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Tony
Rich80105
2017-04-05 22:24:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/04/gordon-campbell-on-shifty-bills-last-stand/
"Clearly, a political decision has been made by the English government
that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few people
will read the book and (c) the sort of people who read books written
by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are never going to vote for National
anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with respect
to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that it
is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone who
thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead they’re
insurgents and if they believe Hager, they’re dead to us. QED."
So do people not really care? It certainly hasn't disappeared from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831300
Rachel Smalley: Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a
dead child?
It's no surprise there will be no inquiry into allegations about the
SAS raids in Afghanistan.
The process by which we've got to this decision is flawed.
The Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister have looked at
video footage taken from aircraft that were involved in the 2010 raid
in Baghlan, and have said there's no case to answer.
Bill English says he didn't see all of the footage, but of what he saw
he's confident that troops involved in the raids met the "benchmark"
of acting within the rules of engagement.
The advice from defence head Tim Keating is there is no need for an
independent inquiry.
Neither Lieutenant General Keating nor the Prime Minister were in
their respective roles at the time of the raid.
Neither were involved in the decision-making process that led to the
raid.
Neither would have been involved in the aftermath.
The footage is from aircraft. Our troops were on the ground, and from
what we've been told, none of the SAS soldiers involved in the raid
have been spoken to about the allegations in the book Hit and Run.
Again, this is not a criticism of our Defence Force. Our Defence Force
have - and continue to do - remarkable work all over the world.
But you have to take heed of Wayne Mapp's comments. He was the
Government's Defence Minister at the time. A very capable and
well-respected Cabinet Minister. And he himself served as an infantry
major in the Territorials, specialising in military intelligence.
It was Mapp who said the raid was - quote - "disastrous". A "fiasco",
he said.
Surely his opinion and position on this is important. Something isn't
sitting comfortably on his shoulders. And we know - and the Government
has confirmed this - civilians died in that raid.
There should be an inquiry. I don't think it should be public, but it
should be independent.
I don't understand why, when there are so many questions to answer, we
won't budge on this.
Is it because they're Afghanis? Is it because they're people from a
failed state on the other side of the world who we don't identify
with? Is that why we find this easy to dismiss?
Is it because the Government is relying on the wrath of right-wingers
to discredit Hit & Run authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson?
Again, we're playing the man and not the ball on this.
You cannot discredit Mapp's concerns. He was the Minister. He says
there should be an inquiry.
And what I would point out is this.
Right now we're in the midst of a two-month inquiry into why we shot a
dog at Auckland Airport.
A dog that was running amok, and held up 16 flights.
We're investigating a dog's death.
Come on, New Zealand.
Should we not be investigating how a 3-year-old girl was shot dead
while in her mother's arms in a small village in Afghanistan?
What does that say about us? About you and me? Why are we horrified by
shooting dead a dog, but not the killing of an Afghani toddler?
Answer that question for me, and tell me again that we shouldn't have
an inquiry.
It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in its
attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry on the
death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap piece of
journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should be an
inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent - there is
precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself is
meaningless and a waste of time.
Hager and Stepenson are real journalists
They are nothing of the sort. A "real journalist" would have looked at both sides of the story, and in particular asked NZDF for their version. Then they would have reported the facts dispassionately. They would have fact checked.
Of course they did. They had comments from an SAS soldier who was
there! We do know that they did not provide a copy to the DNDF before
the launch, but that does not mean that they did not seek comment from
the Defence force on relvant issues. As it is there are no significant
differences between the statements in the book and those of Keating on
behalf of the NZDF - as Wayne Mapp says:
"We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.

On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred."
Post by JohnO
They are activists. They only look at the one side of the story that supports their agenda and they presented it emotively. They never fact checked.
What rubbish - show any evidence of this unwarranted slur.
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
- I gather Stephenson is back
in Afghanistan at present; possibly investigating for another story.
The book presented real evidence in much the same way as the 2014
documentary provided credible evidence - they led to others concluding
that there is a real possibility of actions contrary to legal
requirements.Isn;t that how journalists are supposed to work?
As for a comparson with a different issue, we accept that sort of
comparison quite often with issues such as sentencing for different
crimes, salaries for different jobs - why not for the expense and
"The law of armed conflict accepts that civilian casualties might
occur in military operations, and in many cases there is no legal
liability for them, particularly if they were accidental.
But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?
For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.
This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.
We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.
New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.
Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."
Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.
It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, not just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Tony
Indeed, it certainly is time :
http://pundit.co.nz/content/hit-run-why-doesnt-nzdf-start-by-answering-this-question
and
Loading Image...
JohnO
2017-04-05 22:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/04/gordon-campbell-on-shifty-bills-last-stand/
"Clearly, a political decision has been made by the English government
that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few people
will read the book and (c) the sort of people who read books written
by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are never going to vote for National
anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with respect
to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that it
is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone who
thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead they’re
insurgents and if they believe Hager, they’re dead to us. QED."
So do people not really care? It certainly hasn't disappeared from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831300
Rachel Smalley: Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a
dead child?
It's no surprise there will be no inquiry into allegations about the
SAS raids in Afghanistan.
The process by which we've got to this decision is flawed.
The Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister have looked at
video footage taken from aircraft that were involved in the 2010 raid
in Baghlan, and have said there's no case to answer.
Bill English says he didn't see all of the footage, but of what he saw
he's confident that troops involved in the raids met the "benchmark"
of acting within the rules of engagement.
The advice from defence head Tim Keating is there is no need for an
independent inquiry.
Neither Lieutenant General Keating nor the Prime Minister were in
their respective roles at the time of the raid.
Neither were involved in the decision-making process that led to the
raid.
Neither would have been involved in the aftermath.
The footage is from aircraft. Our troops were on the ground, and from
what we've been told, none of the SAS soldiers involved in the raid
have been spoken to about the allegations in the book Hit and Run.
Again, this is not a criticism of our Defence Force. Our Defence Force
have - and continue to do - remarkable work all over the world.
But you have to take heed of Wayne Mapp's comments. He was the
Government's Defence Minister at the time. A very capable and
well-respected Cabinet Minister. And he himself served as an infantry
major in the Territorials, specialising in military intelligence.
It was Mapp who said the raid was - quote - "disastrous". A "fiasco",
he said.
Surely his opinion and position on this is important. Something isn't
sitting comfortably on his shoulders. And we know - and the Government
has confirmed this - civilians died in that raid.
There should be an inquiry. I don't think it should be public, but it
should be independent.
I don't understand why, when there are so many questions to answer, we
won't budge on this.
Is it because they're Afghanis? Is it because they're people from a
failed state on the other side of the world who we don't identify
with? Is that why we find this easy to dismiss?
Is it because the Government is relying on the wrath of right-wingers
to discredit Hit & Run authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson?
Again, we're playing the man and not the ball on this.
You cannot discredit Mapp's concerns. He was the Minister. He says
there should be an inquiry.
And what I would point out is this.
Right now we're in the midst of a two-month inquiry into why we shot a
dog at Auckland Airport.
A dog that was running amok, and held up 16 flights.
We're investigating a dog's death.
Come on, New Zealand.
Should we not be investigating how a 3-year-old girl was shot dead
while in her mother's arms in a small village in Afghanistan?
What does that say about us? About you and me? Why are we horrified by
shooting dead a dog, but not the killing of an Afghani toddler?
Answer that question for me, and tell me again that we shouldn't have
an inquiry.
It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in its
attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry on the
death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap piece of
journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should be an
inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent - there is
precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself is
meaningless and a waste of time.
Hager and Stepenson are real journalists
They are nothing of the sort. A "real journalist" would have looked at both sides of the story, and in particular asked NZDF for their version. Then they would have reported the facts dispassionately. They would have fact checked.
Of course they did. They had comments from an SAS soldier who was
Hearsay, and unattributed. Worthless.
Post by Rich80105
there! We do know that they did not provide a copy to the DNDF before
the launch, but that does not mean that they did not seek comment from
the Defence force on relvant issues.
Stop bullshitting. It has been shown that they didn't ask the NZDF at all. I have cited the OIA request previously.
Post by Rich80105
As it is there are no significant
differences between the statements in the book and those of Keating on
"We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred."
Post by JohnO
They are activists. They only look at the one side of the story that supports their agenda and they presented it emotively. They never fact checked.
What rubbish - show any evidence of this unwarranted slur.
Already shown you fucking dimwit. OIA previously cited: The NZDF received no request for information.
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
- I gather Stephenson is back
in Afghanistan at present; possibly investigating for another story.
The book presented real evidence in much the same way as the 2014
documentary provided credible evidence - they led to others concluding
that there is a real possibility of actions contrary to legal
requirements.Isn;t that how journalists are supposed to work?
As for a comparson with a different issue, we accept that sort of
comparison quite often with issues such as sentencing for different
crimes, salaries for different jobs - why not for the expense and
"The law of armed conflict accepts that civilian casualties might
occur in military operations, and in many cases there is no legal
liability for them, particularly if they were accidental.
But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?
For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.
This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.
We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.
New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.
Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."
Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.
It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, not just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Tony
http://pundit.co.nz/content/hit-run-why-doesnt-nzdf-start-by-answering-this-question
and
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8rITobVwAAEQOI.jpg
Rich80105
2017-04-06 01:03:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/04/gordon-campbell-on-shifty-bills-last-stand/
"Clearly, a political decision has been made by the English government
that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few people
will read the book and (c) the sort of people who read books written
by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are never going to vote for National
anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with respect
to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that it
is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone who
thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead they’re
insurgents and if they believe Hager, they’re dead to us. QED."
So do people not really care? It certainly hasn't disappeared from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831300
Rachel Smalley: Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a
dead child?
It's no surprise there will be no inquiry into allegations about the
SAS raids in Afghanistan.
The process by which we've got to this decision is flawed.
The Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister have looked at
video footage taken from aircraft that were involved in the 2010 raid
in Baghlan, and have said there's no case to answer.
Bill English says he didn't see all of the footage, but of what he saw
he's confident that troops involved in the raids met the "benchmark"
of acting within the rules of engagement.
The advice from defence head Tim Keating is there is no need for an
independent inquiry.
Neither Lieutenant General Keating nor the Prime Minister were in
their respective roles at the time of the raid.
Neither were involved in the decision-making process that led to the
raid.
Neither would have been involved in the aftermath.
The footage is from aircraft. Our troops were on the ground, and from
what we've been told, none of the SAS soldiers involved in the raid
have been spoken to about the allegations in the book Hit and Run.
Again, this is not a criticism of our Defence Force. Our Defence Force
have - and continue to do - remarkable work all over the world.
But you have to take heed of Wayne Mapp's comments. He was the
Government's Defence Minister at the time. A very capable and
well-respected Cabinet Minister. And he himself served as an infantry
major in the Territorials, specialising in military intelligence.
It was Mapp who said the raid was - quote - "disastrous". A "fiasco",
he said.
Surely his opinion and position on this is important. Something isn't
sitting comfortably on his shoulders. And we know - and the Government
has confirmed this - civilians died in that raid.
There should be an inquiry. I don't think it should be public, but it
should be independent.
I don't understand why, when there are so many questions to answer, we
won't budge on this.
Is it because they're Afghanis? Is it because they're people from a
failed state on the other side of the world who we don't identify
with? Is that why we find this easy to dismiss?
Is it because the Government is relying on the wrath of right-wingers
to discredit Hit & Run authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson?
Again, we're playing the man and not the ball on this.
You cannot discredit Mapp's concerns. He was the Minister. He says
there should be an inquiry.
And what I would point out is this.
Right now we're in the midst of a two-month inquiry into why we shot a
dog at Auckland Airport.
A dog that was running amok, and held up 16 flights.
We're investigating a dog's death.
Come on, New Zealand.
Should we not be investigating how a 3-year-old girl was shot dead
while in her mother's arms in a small village in Afghanistan?
What does that say about us? About you and me? Why are we horrified by
shooting dead a dog, but not the killing of an Afghani toddler?
Answer that question for me, and tell me again that we shouldn't have
an inquiry.
It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in its
attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry on the
death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap piece of
journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should be an
inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent - there is
precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself is
meaningless and a waste of time.
Hager and Stepenson are real journalists
They are nothing of the sort. A "real journalist" would have looked at both sides of the story, and in particular asked NZDF for their version. Then they would have reported the facts dispassionately. They would have fact checked.
Of course they did. They had comments from an SAS soldier who was
Hearsay, and unattributed. Worthless.
If that is hearsay then so is much of the NZDF testimony!
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
there! We do know that they did not provide a copy to the DNDF before
the launch, but that does not mean that they did not seek comment from
the Defence force on relvant issues.
Stop bullshitting. It has been shown that they didn't ask the NZDF at all. I have cited the OIA request previously.
They did not need it - they had corrobarating evidence from both
residents of the villages in Afghanistan and from an SAS Soldier - and
The Herald had similar evidence.
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
As it is there are no significant
differences between the statements in the book and those of Keating on
"We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred."
Post by JohnO
They are activists. They only look at the one side of the story that supports their agenda and they presented it emotively. They never fact checked.
What rubbish - show any evidence of this unwarranted slur.
Already shown you fucking dimwit. OIA previously cited: The NZDF received no request for information.
See above. They also had the story from both the victims and an SAS
Soldier, and the NZDF do not dispute the facts of the mission - indeed
it is the NZDF that have changed their story - see the links at the
bottom of this post. There is now substantial agreement on the facts
of the raid - as confirmed by Wayne Mapp - do you regard him as in
league with Hager and Stephenson?
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
- I gather Stephenson is back
in Afghanistan at present; possibly investigating for another story.
The book presented real evidence in much the same way as the 2014
documentary provided credible evidence - they led to others concluding
that there is a real possibility of actions contrary to legal
requirements.Isn;t that how journalists are supposed to work?
As for a comparson with a different issue, we accept that sort of
comparison quite often with issues such as sentencing for different
crimes, salaries for different jobs - why not for the expense and
"The law of armed conflict accepts that civilian casualties might
occur in military operations, and in many cases there is no legal
liability for them, particularly if they were accidental.
But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?
For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.
This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.
We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.
New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.
Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."
Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.
It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, not just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Tony
http://pundit.co.nz/content/hit-run-why-doesnt-nzdf-start-by-answering-this-question
and
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8rITobVwAAEQOI.jpg
So John O - put up or shut up - if you have any evidence that the book
is wrong except in the trivial detail acknowledged, then tell us what
it is . . .
JohnO
2017-04-06 01:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/04/gordon-campbell-on-shifty-bills-last-stand/
"Clearly, a political decision has been made by the English government
that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few people
will read the book and (c) the sort of people who read books written
by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are never going to vote for National
anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with respect
to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that it
is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone who
thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead they’re
insurgents and if they believe Hager, they’re dead to us. QED."
So do people not really care? It certainly hasn't disappeared from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831300
Rachel Smalley: Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a
dead child?
It's no surprise there will be no inquiry into allegations about the
SAS raids in Afghanistan.
The process by which we've got to this decision is flawed.
The Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister have looked at
video footage taken from aircraft that were involved in the 2010 raid
in Baghlan, and have said there's no case to answer.
Bill English says he didn't see all of the footage, but of what he saw
he's confident that troops involved in the raids met the "benchmark"
of acting within the rules of engagement.
The advice from defence head Tim Keating is there is no need for an
independent inquiry.
Neither Lieutenant General Keating nor the Prime Minister were in
their respective roles at the time of the raid.
Neither were involved in the decision-making process that led to the
raid.
Neither would have been involved in the aftermath.
The footage is from aircraft. Our troops were on the ground, and from
what we've been told, none of the SAS soldiers involved in the raid
have been spoken to about the allegations in the book Hit and Run.
Again, this is not a criticism of our Defence Force. Our Defence Force
have - and continue to do - remarkable work all over the world.
But you have to take heed of Wayne Mapp's comments. He was the
Government's Defence Minister at the time. A very capable and
well-respected Cabinet Minister. And he himself served as an infantry
major in the Territorials, specialising in military intelligence.
It was Mapp who said the raid was - quote - "disastrous". A "fiasco",
he said.
Surely his opinion and position on this is important. Something isn't
sitting comfortably on his shoulders. And we know - and the Government
has confirmed this - civilians died in that raid.
There should be an inquiry. I don't think it should be public, but it
should be independent.
I don't understand why, when there are so many questions to answer, we
won't budge on this.
Is it because they're Afghanis? Is it because they're people from a
failed state on the other side of the world who we don't identify
with? Is that why we find this easy to dismiss?
Is it because the Government is relying on the wrath of right-wingers
to discredit Hit & Run authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson?
Again, we're playing the man and not the ball on this.
You cannot discredit Mapp's concerns. He was the Minister. He says
there should be an inquiry.
And what I would point out is this.
Right now we're in the midst of a two-month inquiry into why we shot a
dog at Auckland Airport.
A dog that was running amok, and held up 16 flights.
We're investigating a dog's death.
Come on, New Zealand.
Should we not be investigating how a 3-year-old girl was shot dead
while in her mother's arms in a small village in Afghanistan?
What does that say about us? About you and me? Why are we horrified by
shooting dead a dog, but not the killing of an Afghani toddler?
Answer that question for me, and tell me again that we shouldn't have
an inquiry.
It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in its
attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry on the
death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap piece of
journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should be an
inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent - there is
precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself is
meaningless and a waste of time.
Hager and Stepenson are real journalists
They are nothing of the sort. A "real journalist" would have looked at both sides of the story, and in particular asked NZDF for their version. Then they would have reported the facts dispassionately. They would have fact checked.
Of course they did. They had comments from an SAS soldier who was
Hearsay, and unattributed. Worthless.
If that is hearsay then so is much of the NZDF testimony!
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
there! We do know that they did not provide a copy to the DNDF before
the launch, but that does not mean that they did not seek comment from
the Defence force on relvant issues.
Stop bullshitting. It has been shown that they didn't ask the NZDF at all. I have cited the OIA request previously.
They did not need it - they had corrobarating evidence from both
residents of the villages in Afghanistan and from an SAS Soldier - and
The Herald had similar evidence.
So you clearly admit that they only took one side of the story. You lose.
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
As it is there are no significant
differences between the statements in the book and those of Keating on
"We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred."
Post by JohnO
They are activists. They only look at the one side of the story that supports their agenda and they presented it emotively. They never fact checked.
What rubbish - show any evidence of this unwarranted slur.
Already shown you fucking dimwit. OIA previously cited: The NZDF received no request for information.
See above. They also had the story from both the victims and an SAS
Soldier, and the NZDF do not dispute the facts of the mission
Hearsay and unattributed, and the NZDF do dispute the facts of the mission you fucking liar.
Post by Rich80105
- indeed
it is the NZDF that have changed their story - see the links at the
bottom of this post. There is now substantial agreement on the facts
of the raid - as confirmed by Wayne Mapp - do you regard him as in
league with Hager and Stephenson?
Of course they don't disagree on every single claim - that is not the point. The point is what they disagree on. Like the location.
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
- I gather Stephenson is back
in Afghanistan at present; possibly investigating for another story.
The book presented real evidence in much the same way as the 2014
documentary provided credible evidence - they led to others concluding
that there is a real possibility of actions contrary to legal
requirements.Isn;t that how journalists are supposed to work?
As for a comparson with a different issue, we accept that sort of
comparison quite often with issues such as sentencing for different
crimes, salaries for different jobs - why not for the expense and
"The law of armed conflict accepts that civilian casualties might
occur in military operations, and in many cases there is no legal
liability for them, particularly if they were accidental.
But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?
For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.
This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.
We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.
New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.
Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."
Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.
It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, not just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Tony
http://pundit.co.nz/content/hit-run-why-doesnt-nzdf-start-by-answering-this-question
and
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8rITobVwAAEQOI.jpg
So John O - put up or shut up - if you have any evidence that the book
is wrong except in the trivial detail acknowledged, then tell us what
it is . . .
It is not trivial to get the details wrong. It is not trivial to get the number of insurgents killed wrong and it is not trivial that the number of civilians is disputed.

You are hopeless. When presented with an argument you simply lie and obfuscate. No wonder your political ilk can't get voted in. Pack of liars.
Rich80105
2017-04-06 02:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/04/gordon-campbell-on-shifty-bills-last-stand/
"Clearly, a political decision has been made by the English government
that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few people
will read the book and (c) the sort of people who read books written
by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are never going to vote for National
anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with respect
to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that it
is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone who
thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead they’re
insurgents and if they believe Hager, they’re dead to us. QED."
So do people not really care? It certainly hasn't disappeared from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831300
Rachel Smalley: Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a
dead child?
It's no surprise there will be no inquiry into allegations about the
SAS raids in Afghanistan.
The process by which we've got to this decision is flawed.
The Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister have looked at
video footage taken from aircraft that were involved in the 2010 raid
in Baghlan, and have said there's no case to answer.
Bill English says he didn't see all of the footage, but of what he saw
he's confident that troops involved in the raids met the "benchmark"
of acting within the rules of engagement.
The advice from defence head Tim Keating is there is no need for an
independent inquiry.
Neither Lieutenant General Keating nor the Prime Minister were in
their respective roles at the time of the raid.
Neither were involved in the decision-making process that led to the
raid.
Neither would have been involved in the aftermath.
The footage is from aircraft. Our troops were on the ground, and from
what we've been told, none of the SAS soldiers involved in the raid
have been spoken to about the allegations in the book Hit and Run.
Again, this is not a criticism of our Defence Force. Our Defence Force
have - and continue to do - remarkable work all over the world.
But you have to take heed of Wayne Mapp's comments. He was the
Government's Defence Minister at the time. A very capable and
well-respected Cabinet Minister. And he himself served as an infantry
major in the Territorials, specialising in military intelligence.
It was Mapp who said the raid was - quote - "disastrous". A "fiasco",
he said.
Surely his opinion and position on this is important. Something isn't
sitting comfortably on his shoulders. And we know - and the Government
has confirmed this - civilians died in that raid.
There should be an inquiry. I don't think it should be public, but it
should be independent.
I don't understand why, when there are so many questions to answer, we
won't budge on this.
Is it because they're Afghanis? Is it because they're people from a
failed state on the other side of the world who we don't identify
with? Is that why we find this easy to dismiss?
Is it because the Government is relying on the wrath of right-wingers
to discredit Hit & Run authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson?
Again, we're playing the man and not the ball on this.
You cannot discredit Mapp's concerns. He was the Minister. He says
there should be an inquiry.
And what I would point out is this.
Right now we're in the midst of a two-month inquiry into why we shot a
dog at Auckland Airport.
A dog that was running amok, and held up 16 flights.
We're investigating a dog's death.
Come on, New Zealand.
Should we not be investigating how a 3-year-old girl was shot dead
while in her mother's arms in a small village in Afghanistan?
What does that say about us? About you and me? Why are we horrified by
shooting dead a dog, but not the killing of an Afghani toddler?
Answer that question for me, and tell me again that we shouldn't have
an inquiry.
It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in its
attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry on the
death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap piece of
journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should be an
inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent - there is
precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself is
meaningless and a waste of time.
Hager and Stepenson are real journalists
They are nothing of the sort. A "real journalist" would have looked at both sides of the story, and in particular asked NZDF for their version. Then they would have reported the facts dispassionately. They would have fact checked.
Of course they did. They had comments from an SAS soldier who was
Hearsay, and unattributed. Worthless.
If that is hearsay then so is much of the NZDF testimony!
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
there! We do know that they did not provide a copy to the DNDF before
the launch, but that does not mean that they did not seek comment from
the Defence force on relvant issues.
Stop bullshitting. It has been shown that they didn't ask the NZDF at all. I have cited the OIA request previously.
They did not need it - they had corrobarating evidence from both
residents of the villages in Afghanistan and from an SAS Soldier - and
The Herald had similar evidence.
So you clearly admit that they only took one side of the story. You lose.
No, they took details from those attacking the village and those in
the village. Who else did you want comment from? John Key or Bill
English?
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
As it is there are no significant
differences between the statements in the book and those of Keating on
"We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred."
Post by JohnO
They are activists. They only look at the one side of the story that supports their agenda and they presented it emotively. They never fact checked.
What rubbish - show any evidence of this unwarranted slur.
Already shown you fucking dimwit. OIA previously cited: The NZDF received no request for information.
See above. They also had the story from both the victims and an SAS
Soldier, and the NZDF do not dispute the facts of the mission
Hearsay and unattributed, and the NZDF do dispute the facts of the mission you fucking liar.
Really? Apart from the location of the villages, what do they disagree
with?
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
- indeed
it is the NZDF that have changed their story - see the links at the
bottom of this post. There is now substantial agreement on the facts
of the raid - as confirmed by Wayne Mapp - do you regard him as in
league with Hager and Stephenson?
Of course they don't disagree on every single claim - that is not the point. The point is what they disagree on. Like the location.
Keating named the attack village in Operation Burnham wrongly. The
book had a mapping area wrong but all the rest was claimed to be
correct. The two villages were the ones that were attacked. The
authors have conceded that their coordinates were 2km out, NZDF have
not commented on their calling the two villages by the wrong name.

Otherwise what were the areas of disagreement?
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
- I gather Stephenson is back
in Afghanistan at present; possibly investigating for another story.
The book presented real evidence in much the same way as the 2014
documentary provided credible evidence - they led to others concluding
that there is a real possibility of actions contrary to legal
requirements.Isn;t that how journalists are supposed to work?
As for a comparson with a different issue, we accept that sort of
comparison quite often with issues such as sentencing for different
crimes, salaries for different jobs - why not for the expense and
"The law of armed conflict accepts that civilian casualties might
occur in military operations, and in many cases there is no legal
liability for them, particularly if they were accidental.
But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?
For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.
This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.
We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.
New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.
Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."
Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.
It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, not just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Tony
http://pundit.co.nz/content/hit-run-why-doesnt-nzdf-start-by-answering-this-question
and
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8rITobVwAAEQOI.jpg
So John O - put up or shut up - if you have any evidence that the book
is wrong except in the trivial detail acknowledged, then tell us what
it is . . .
It is not trivial to get the details wrong. It is not trivial to get the number of insurgents killed wrong and it is not trivial that the number of civilians is disputed.
Keating named the attack village in Operation Burnham wrongly. The
book had a mapping area wrong but all the rest was claimed to be
correct. The two villages were the ones that were attacked. The
authors have conceded that their coordinates were 2km out, NZDF have
not commented on their calling the two villages by the wrong name.

Otherwise what were the areas of disagreement? Were there any other
details which were wrong in the book?
Post by JohnO
You are hopeless. When presented with an argument you simply lie and obfuscate. No wonder your political ilk can't get voted in. Pack of liars.
Its easy to call someone a liar - much harder to point out a lie . . .
As someone else said, time to put up or shut up, JohnO.
Pooh
2017-04-06 04:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/04/gordon-campbell-on-shifty-bills-last-stand/
"Clearly, a political decision has been made by the English government
that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few people
will read the book and (c) the sort of people who read books written
by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are never going to vote for National
anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with respect
to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that it
is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone who
thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead they’re
insurgents and if they believe Hager, they’re dead to us. QED."
So do people not really care? It certainly hasn't disappeared from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831300
Rachel Smalley: Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a
dead child?
It's no surprise there will be no inquiry into allegations about the
SAS raids in Afghanistan.
The process by which we've got to this decision is flawed.
The Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister have looked at
video footage taken from aircraft that were involved in the 2010 raid
in Baghlan, and have said there's no case to answer.
Bill English says he didn't see all of the footage, but of what he saw
he's confident that troops involved in the raids met the "benchmark"
of acting within the rules of engagement.
The advice from defence head Tim Keating is there is no need for an
independent inquiry.
Neither Lieutenant General Keating nor the Prime Minister were in
their respective roles at the time of the raid.
Neither were involved in the decision-making process that led to the
raid.
Neither would have been involved in the aftermath.
The footage is from aircraft. Our troops were on the ground, and from
what we've been told, none of the SAS soldiers involved in the raid
have been spoken to about the allegations in the book Hit and Run.
Again, this is not a criticism of our Defence Force. Our Defence Force
have - and continue to do - remarkable work all over the world.
But you have to take heed of Wayne Mapp's comments. He was the
Government's Defence Minister at the time. A very capable and
well-respected Cabinet Minister. And he himself served as an infantry
major in the Territorials, specialising in military intelligence.
It was Mapp who said the raid was - quote - "disastrous". A "fiasco",
he said.
Surely his opinion and position on this is important. Something isn't
sitting comfortably on his shoulders. And we know - and the Government
has confirmed this - civilians died in that raid.
There should be an inquiry. I don't think it should be public, but it
should be independent.
I don't understand why, when there are so many questions to answer, we
won't budge on this.
Is it because they're Afghanis? Is it because they're people from a
failed state on the other side of the world who we don't identify
with? Is that why we find this easy to dismiss?
Is it because the Government is relying on the wrath of right-wingers
to discredit Hit & Run authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson?
Again, we're playing the man and not the ball on this.
You cannot discredit Mapp's concerns. He was the Minister. He says
there should be an inquiry.
And what I would point out is this.
Right now we're in the midst of a two-month inquiry into why we shot a
dog at Auckland Airport.
A dog that was running amok, and held up 16 flights.
We're investigating a dog's death.
Come on, New Zealand.
Should we not be investigating how a 3-year-old girl was shot dead
while in her mother's arms in a small village in Afghanistan?
What does that say about us? About you and me? Why are we horrified by
shooting dead a dog, but not the killing of an Afghani toddler?
Answer that question for me, and tell me again that we shouldn't have
an inquiry.
It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in its
attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry on the
death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap piece of
journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should be an
inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent - there is
precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself is
meaningless and a waste of time.
Hager and Stepenson are real journalists
They are nothing of the sort. A "real journalist" would have looked at both sides of the story, and in particular asked NZDF for their version. Then they would have reported the facts dispassionately. They would have fact checked.
Of course they did. They had comments from an SAS soldier who was
Hearsay, and unattributed. Worthless.
If that is hearsay then so is much of the NZDF testimony!
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
there! We do know that they did not provide a copy to the DNDF before
the launch, but that does not mean that they did not seek comment from
the Defence force on relvant issues.
Stop bullshitting. It has been shown that they didn't ask the NZDF at all. I have cited the OIA request previously.
They did not need it - they had corrobarating evidence from both
residents of the villages in Afghanistan and from an SAS Soldier - and
The Herald had similar evidence.
So you clearly admit that they only took one side of the story. You lose.
No, they took details from those attacking the village and those in
the village. Who else did you want comment from? John Key or Bill
English?
They supposedly got evidence from someone purporting to be or have been
a member of SAS. The other information came from people purporting to be
from the villages. We've had perfectly good information from Key and
English. People are just bloody suspicious of the comments from Hager,
Stephenson and you Rich.
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
As it is there are no significant
differences between the statements in the book and those of Keating on
"We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred."
Post by JohnO
They are activists. They only look at the one side of the story that supports their agenda and they presented it emotively. They never fact checked.
What rubbish - show any evidence of this unwarranted slur.
Already shown you fucking dimwit. OIA previously cited: The NZDF received no request for information.
See above. They also had the story from both the victims and an SAS
Soldier, and the NZDF do not dispute the facts of the mission
Hearsay and unattributed, and the NZDF do dispute the facts of the mission you fucking liar.
Really? Apart from the location of the villages, what do they disagree
with?
Number of civilians killed and wounded and Hager and co. never mentioned
insurgents.......
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
- indeed
it is the NZDF that have changed their story - see the links at the
bottom of this post. There is now substantial agreement on the facts
of the raid - as confirmed by Wayne Mapp - do you regard him as in
league with Hager and Stephenson?
Of course they don't disagree on every single claim - that is not the point. The point is what they disagree on. Like the location.
Keating named the attack village in Operation Burnham wrongly. The
book had a mapping area wrong but all the rest was claimed to be
correct. The two villages were the ones that were attacked. The
authors have conceded that their coordinates were 2km out, NZDF have
not commented on their calling the two villages by the wrong name.
FFS troll! Only one village was attacked! You saying Hager and
Stephenson's map as right? Those two useless bastards haven't been
within thousands of miles of the village! But guess as per usual you're
to stupid to realise your trolling has failed as per usual.
Post by Rich80105
Otherwise what were the areas of disagreement?
Mainly that rather than SAS carrying out a revenge raid on innocent
villagers it's Hager and Stephenson who're out for revenge on NZDef.
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
- I gather Stephenson is back
in Afghanistan at present; possibly investigating for another story.
The book presented real evidence in much the same way as the 2014
documentary provided credible evidence - they led to others concluding
that there is a real possibility of actions contrary to legal
requirements.Isn;t that how journalists are supposed to work?
As for a comparson with a different issue, we accept that sort of
comparison quite often with issues such as sentencing for different
crimes, salaries for different jobs - why not for the expense and
"The law of armed conflict accepts that civilian casualties might
occur in military operations, and in many cases there is no legal
liability for them, particularly if they were accidental.
But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?
For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.
This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.
We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.
New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.
Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."
Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.
It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, not just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Tony
http://pundit.co.nz/content/hit-run-why-doesnt-nzdf-start-by-answering-this-question
and
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8rITobVwAAEQOI.jpg
So John O - put up or shut up - if you have any evidence that the book
is wrong except in the trivial detail acknowledged, then tell us what
it is . . .
It is not trivial to get the details wrong. It is not trivial to get the number of insurgents killed wrong and it is not trivial that the number of civilians is disputed.
Keating named the attack village in Operation Burnham wrongly. The
book had a mapping area wrong but all the rest was claimed to be
correct. The two villages were the ones that were attacked. The
authors have conceded that their coordinates were 2km out, NZDF have
not commented on their calling the two villages by the wrong name.
WRONG! Hager and Stephenson didn't try and verify any of the information
they used in the book. Just like the vengeful and stupid conspiracy
theorists they are.
Post by Rich80105
Otherwise what were the areas of disagreement? Were there any other
details which were wrong in the book?
Post by JohnO
You are hopeless. When presented with an argument you simply lie and obfuscate. No wonder your political ilk can't get voted in. Pack of liars.
Its easy to call someone a liar - much harder to point out a lie . . .
As someone else said, time to put up or shut up, JohnO.
Even harder to get someone as stupid as you Rich to even understand that
they are liars Rich. Even when they're lying trolls as stupid as you Rich.

Pooh
Pooh
2017-04-06 03:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/04/gordon-campbell-on-shifty-bills-last-stand/
"Clearly, a political decision has been made by the English government
that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few people
will read the book and (c) the sort of people who read books written
by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are never going to vote for National
anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with respect
to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that it
is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone who
thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead they’re
insurgents and if they believe Hager, they’re dead to us. QED."
So do people not really care? It certainly hasn't disappeared from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831300
Rachel Smalley: Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a
dead child?
It's no surprise there will be no inquiry into allegations about the
SAS raids in Afghanistan.
The process by which we've got to this decision is flawed.
The Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister have looked at
video footage taken from aircraft that were involved in the 2010 raid
in Baghlan, and have said there's no case to answer.
Bill English says he didn't see all of the footage, but of what he saw
he's confident that troops involved in the raids met the "benchmark"
of acting within the rules of engagement.
The advice from defence head Tim Keating is there is no need for an
independent inquiry.
Neither Lieutenant General Keating nor the Prime Minister were in
their respective roles at the time of the raid.
Neither were involved in the decision-making process that led to the
raid.
Neither would have been involved in the aftermath.
The footage is from aircraft. Our troops were on the ground, and from
what we've been told, none of the SAS soldiers involved in the raid
have been spoken to about the allegations in the book Hit and Run.
Again, this is not a criticism of our Defence Force. Our Defence Force
have - and continue to do - remarkable work all over the world.
But you have to take heed of Wayne Mapp's comments. He was the
Government's Defence Minister at the time. A very capable and
well-respected Cabinet Minister. And he himself served as an infantry
major in the Territorials, specialising in military intelligence.
It was Mapp who said the raid was - quote - "disastrous". A "fiasco",
he said.
Surely his opinion and position on this is important. Something isn't
sitting comfortably on his shoulders. And we know - and the Government
has confirmed this - civilians died in that raid.
There should be an inquiry. I don't think it should be public, but it
should be independent.
I don't understand why, when there are so many questions to answer, we
won't budge on this.
Is it because they're Afghanis? Is it because they're people from a
failed state on the other side of the world who we don't identify
with? Is that why we find this easy to dismiss?
Is it because the Government is relying on the wrath of right-wingers
to discredit Hit & Run authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson?
Again, we're playing the man and not the ball on this.
You cannot discredit Mapp's concerns. He was the Minister. He says
there should be an inquiry.
And what I would point out is this.
Right now we're in the midst of a two-month inquiry into why we shot a
dog at Auckland Airport.
A dog that was running amok, and held up 16 flights.
We're investigating a dog's death.
Come on, New Zealand.
Should we not be investigating how a 3-year-old girl was shot dead
while in her mother's arms in a small village in Afghanistan?
What does that say about us? About you and me? Why are we horrified by
shooting dead a dog, but not the killing of an Afghani toddler?
Answer that question for me, and tell me again that we shouldn't have
an inquiry.
It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in its
attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry on the
death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap piece of
journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should be an
inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent - there is
precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself is
meaningless and a waste of time.
Hager and Stepenson are real journalists
They are nothing of the sort. A "real journalist" would have looked at both sides of the story, and in particular asked NZDF for their version. Then they would have reported the facts dispassionately. They would have fact checked.
Of course they did. They had comments from an SAS soldier who was
Hearsay, and unattributed. Worthless.
If that is hearsay then so is much of the NZDF testimony!
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
there! We do know that they did not provide a copy to the DNDF before
the launch, but that does not mean that they did not seek comment from
the Defence force on relvant issues.
Stop bullshitting. It has been shown that they didn't ask the NZDF at all. I have cited the OIA request previously.
They did not need it - they had corrobarating evidence from both
residents of the villages in Afghanistan and from an SAS Soldier - and
The Herald had similar evidence.
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
As it is there are no significant
differences between the statements in the book and those of Keating on
"We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred."
Post by JohnO
They are activists. They only look at the one side of the story that supports their agenda and they presented it emotively. They never fact checked.
What rubbish - show any evidence of this unwarranted slur.
Already shown you fucking dimwit. OIA previously cited: The NZDF received no request for information.
See above. They also had the story from both the victims and an SAS
Soldier, and the NZDF do not dispute the facts of the mission - indeed
it is the NZDF that have changed their story - see the links at the
bottom of this post. There is now substantial agreement on the facts
of the raid - as confirmed by Wayne Mapp - do you regard him as in
league with Hager and Stephenson?
The story from the alleged 'victims' came from contacts in the village
you dumb troll! Haven't you been following what came out in the press
conferences? Or just displaying your usual lack of comprehension Rich.
YES Mapp is in league with Hager and Stephenson! He's admitted to
providing information to the useless activists! Rich I didn't believe
you could get any stupider than you were. Thanks for displaying new
depths of stupidity :)
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
- I gather Stephenson is back
in Afghanistan at present; possibly investigating for another story.
The book presented real evidence in much the same way as the 2014
documentary provided credible evidence - they led to others concluding
that there is a real possibility of actions contrary to legal
requirements.Isn;t that how journalists are supposed to work?
As for a comparson with a different issue, we accept that sort of
comparison quite often with issues such as sentencing for different
crimes, salaries for different jobs - why not for the expense and
"The law of armed conflict accepts that civilian casualties might
occur in military operations, and in many cases there is no legal
liability for them, particularly if they were accidental.
But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?
For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.
This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.
We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.
New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.
Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."
Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.
It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, not just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Tony
http://pundit.co.nz/content/hit-run-why-doesnt-nzdf-start-by-answering-this-question
and
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8rITobVwAAEQOI.jpg
So John O - put up or shut up - if you have any evidence that the book
is wrong except in the trivial detail acknowledged, then tell us what
it is . . .
Trivial detail? They got the number of dead wrong. They got the village
name wrong. Hell the only thing they got right was the date and exercise
name and that probably came from Mapp! On top of that the useless
buggers have relied on information from people that may be nothing more
than Taliban disinformation team. After all the village is in Taliban
controlled territory!

Pooh
Pooh
2017-04-06 03:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/04/gordon-campbell-on-shifty-bills-last-stand/
"Clearly, a political decision has been made by the English government
that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few people
will read the book and (c) the sort of people who read books written
by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are never going to vote for National
anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with respect
to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that it
is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone who
thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead they’re
insurgents and if they believe Hager, they’re dead to us. QED."
So do people not really care? It certainly hasn't disappeared from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831300
Rachel Smalley: Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a
dead child?
It's no surprise there will be no inquiry into allegations about the
SAS raids in Afghanistan.
The process by which we've got to this decision is flawed.
The Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister have looked at
video footage taken from aircraft that were involved in the 2010 raid
in Baghlan, and have said there's no case to answer.
Bill English says he didn't see all of the footage, but of what he saw
he's confident that troops involved in the raids met the "benchmark"
of acting within the rules of engagement.
The advice from defence head Tim Keating is there is no need for an
independent inquiry.
Neither Lieutenant General Keating nor the Prime Minister were in
their respective roles at the time of the raid.
Neither were involved in the decision-making process that led to the
raid.
Neither would have been involved in the aftermath.
The footage is from aircraft. Our troops were on the ground, and from
what we've been told, none of the SAS soldiers involved in the raid
have been spoken to about the allegations in the book Hit and Run.
Again, this is not a criticism of our Defence Force. Our Defence Force
have - and continue to do - remarkable work all over the world.
But you have to take heed of Wayne Mapp's comments. He was the
Government's Defence Minister at the time. A very capable and
well-respected Cabinet Minister. And he himself served as an infantry
major in the Territorials, specialising in military intelligence.
It was Mapp who said the raid was - quote - "disastrous". A "fiasco",
he said.
Surely his opinion and position on this is important. Something isn't
sitting comfortably on his shoulders. And we know - and the Government
has confirmed this - civilians died in that raid.
There should be an inquiry. I don't think it should be public, but it
should be independent.
I don't understand why, when there are so many questions to answer, we
won't budge on this.
Is it because they're Afghanis? Is it because they're people from a
failed state on the other side of the world who we don't identify
with? Is that why we find this easy to dismiss?
Is it because the Government is relying on the wrath of right-wingers
to discredit Hit & Run authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson?
Again, we're playing the man and not the ball on this.
You cannot discredit Mapp's concerns. He was the Minister. He says
there should be an inquiry.
And what I would point out is this.
Right now we're in the midst of a two-month inquiry into why we shot a
dog at Auckland Airport.
A dog that was running amok, and held up 16 flights.
We're investigating a dog's death.
Come on, New Zealand.
Should we not be investigating how a 3-year-old girl was shot dead
while in her mother's arms in a small village in Afghanistan?
What does that say about us? About you and me? Why are we horrified by
shooting dead a dog, but not the killing of an Afghani toddler?
Answer that question for me, and tell me again that we shouldn't have
an inquiry.
It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in its
attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry on the
death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap piece of
journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should be an
inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent - there is
precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself is
meaningless and a waste of time.
Hager and Stepenson are real journalists - I gather Stephenson is back
in Afghanistan at present; possibly investigating for another story.
The book presented real evidence in much the same way as the 2014
documentary provided credible evidence - they led to others concluding
that there is a real possibility of actions contrary to legal
requirements.Isn;t that how journalists are supposed to work?
As for a comparson with a different issue, we accept that sort of
comparison quite often with issues such as sentencing for different
crimes, salaries for different jobs - why not for the expense and
"The law of armed conflict accepts that civilian casualties might
occur in military operations, and in many cases there is no legal
liability for them, particularly if they were accidental.
But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?
For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.
This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.
We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.
New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.
Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."
Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.
It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, noit just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Tony
Hager and Stephenson are vindictive bastards making shit up in an
attempt to get back at NZDef because NZDef have no illusions about the
useless bastards. Hell in some NZDef (unofficial) facebook pages they've
been called traitors :)

Pooh
Tony
2017-04-07 22:37:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/04/gordon-campbell-on-shifty-bills-last-stand/
"Clearly, a political decision has been made by the English government
that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few people
will read the book and (c) the sort of people who read books written
by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are never going to vote for National
anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with respect
to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that it
is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone who
thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead they’re
insurgents and if they believe Hager, they’re dead to us. QED."
So do people not really care? It certainly hasn't disappeared from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831300
Rachel Smalley: Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a
dead child?
It's no surprise there will be no inquiry into allegations about the
SAS raids in Afghanistan.
The process by which we've got to this decision is flawed.
The Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister have looked at
video footage taken from aircraft that were involved in the 2010 raid
in Baghlan, and have said there's no case to answer.
Bill English says he didn't see all of the footage, but of what he saw
he's confident that troops involved in the raids met the "benchmark"
of acting within the rules of engagement.
The advice from defence head Tim Keating is there is no need for an
independent inquiry.
Neither Lieutenant General Keating nor the Prime Minister were in
their respective roles at the time of the raid.
Neither were involved in the decision-making process that led to the
raid.
Neither would have been involved in the aftermath.
The footage is from aircraft. Our troops were on the ground, and from
what we've been told, none of the SAS soldiers involved in the raid
have been spoken to about the allegations in the book Hit and Run.
Again, this is not a criticism of our Defence Force. Our Defence Force
have - and continue to do - remarkable work all over the world.
But you have to take heed of Wayne Mapp's comments. He was the
Government's Defence Minister at the time. A very capable and
well-respected Cabinet Minister. And he himself served as an infantry
major in the Territorials, specialising in military intelligence.
It was Mapp who said the raid was - quote - "disastrous". A "fiasco",
he said.
Surely his opinion and position on this is important. Something isn't
sitting comfortably on his shoulders. And we know - and the Government
has confirmed this - civilians died in that raid.
There should be an inquiry. I don't think it should be public, but it
should be independent.
I don't understand why, when there are so many questions to answer, we
won't budge on this.
Is it because they're Afghanis? Is it because they're people from a
failed state on the other side of the world who we don't identify
with? Is that why we find this easy to dismiss?
Is it because the Government is relying on the wrath of right-wingers
to discredit Hit & Run authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson?
Again, we're playing the man and not the ball on this.
You cannot discredit Mapp's concerns. He was the Minister. He says
there should be an inquiry.
And what I would point out is this.
Right now we're in the midst of a two-month inquiry into why we shot a
dog at Auckland Airport.
A dog that was running amok, and held up 16 flights.
We're investigating a dog's death.
Come on, New Zealand.
Should we not be investigating how a 3-year-old girl was shot dead
while in her mother's arms in a small village in Afghanistan?
What does that say about us? About you and me? Why are we horrified by
shooting dead a dog, but not the killing of an Afghani toddler?
Answer that question for me, and tell me again that we shouldn't have
an inquiry.
It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in its
attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry on the
death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap piece of
journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should be an
inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent - there is
precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself is
meaningless and a waste of time.
Hager and Stepenson are real journalists - I gather Stephenson is back
in Afghanistan at present; possibly investigating for another story.
The book presented real evidence in much the same way as the 2014
documentary provided credible evidence - they led to others concluding
that there is a real possibility of actions contrary to legal
requirements.Isn;t that how journalists are supposed to work?
As for a comparson with a different issue, we accept that sort of
comparison quite often with issues such as sentencing for different
crimes, salaries for different jobs - why not for the expense and
"The law of armed conflict accepts that civilian casualties might
occur in military operations, and in many cases there is no legal
liability for them, particularly if they were accidental.
But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?
For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.
This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.
We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.
New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.
Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."
Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.
It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, noit just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Hager and his crony are in no way real journalists, they are political
activists in the guise (very badly done) of journalists.
That fact delimits your entire post, what a waste of bandwidth.

Tony
Rich80105
2017-04-07 23:42:22 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:37:59 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/04/gordon-campbell-on-shifty-bills-last-stand/
"Clearly, a political decision has been made by the English government
that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few people
will read the book and (c) the sort of people who read books written
by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are never going to vote for National
anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with respect
to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that it
is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone who
thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead they’re
insurgents and if they believe Hager, they’re dead to us. QED."
So do people not really care? It certainly hasn't disappeared from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831300
Rachel Smalley: Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a
dead child?
It's no surprise there will be no inquiry into allegations about the
SAS raids in Afghanistan.
The process by which we've got to this decision is flawed.
The Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister have looked at
video footage taken from aircraft that were involved in the 2010 raid
in Baghlan, and have said there's no case to answer.
Bill English says he didn't see all of the footage, but of what he saw
he's confident that troops involved in the raids met the "benchmark"
of acting within the rules of engagement.
The advice from defence head Tim Keating is there is no need for an
independent inquiry.
Neither Lieutenant General Keating nor the Prime Minister were in
their respective roles at the time of the raid.
Neither were involved in the decision-making process that led to the
raid.
Neither would have been involved in the aftermath.
The footage is from aircraft. Our troops were on the ground, and from
what we've been told, none of the SAS soldiers involved in the raid
have been spoken to about the allegations in the book Hit and Run.
Again, this is not a criticism of our Defence Force. Our Defence Force
have - and continue to do - remarkable work all over the world.
But you have to take heed of Wayne Mapp's comments. He was the
Government's Defence Minister at the time. A very capable and
well-respected Cabinet Minister. And he himself served as an infantry
major in the Territorials, specialising in military intelligence.
It was Mapp who said the raid was - quote - "disastrous". A "fiasco",
he said.
Surely his opinion and position on this is important. Something isn't
sitting comfortably on his shoulders. And we know - and the Government
has confirmed this - civilians died in that raid.
There should be an inquiry. I don't think it should be public, but it
should be independent.
I don't understand why, when there are so many questions to answer, we
won't budge on this.
Is it because they're Afghanis? Is it because they're people from a
failed state on the other side of the world who we don't identify
with? Is that why we find this easy to dismiss?
Is it because the Government is relying on the wrath of right-wingers
to discredit Hit & Run authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson?
Again, we're playing the man and not the ball on this.
You cannot discredit Mapp's concerns. He was the Minister. He says
there should be an inquiry.
And what I would point out is this.
Right now we're in the midst of a two-month inquiry into why we shot a
dog at Auckland Airport.
A dog that was running amok, and held up 16 flights.
We're investigating a dog's death.
Come on, New Zealand.
Should we not be investigating how a 3-year-old girl was shot dead
while in her mother's arms in a small village in Afghanistan?
What does that say about us? About you and me? Why are we horrified by
shooting dead a dog, but not the killing of an Afghani toddler?
Answer that question for me, and tell me again that we shouldn't have
an inquiry.
It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in its
attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry on the
death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap piece of
journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should be an
inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent - there is
precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself is
meaningless and a waste of time.
Hager and Stepenson are real journalists - I gather Stephenson is back
in Afghanistan at present; possibly investigating for another story.
The book presented real evidence in much the same way as the 2014
documentary provided credible evidence - they led to others concluding
that there is a real possibility of actions contrary to legal
requirements.Isn;t that how journalists are supposed to work?
As for a comparson with a different issue, we accept that sort of
comparison quite often with issues such as sentencing for different
crimes, salaries for different jobs - why not for the expense and
"The law of armed conflict accepts that civilian casualties might
occur in military operations, and in many cases there is no legal
liability for them, particularly if they were accidental.
But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?
For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.
This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.
We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.
New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.
Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."
Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.
It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, noit just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Hager and his crony are in no way real journalists, they are political
activists in the guise (very badly done) of journalists.
That fact delimits your entire post, what a waste of bandwidth.
Tony
It would be helpful if you could identify "That fact" from your
previous sentence - it looks to me like pure opinion on your part.

In contrast, Stephenson has identified a lot of facts in his many
trips to Afghanistan, and the book by Hager and Stephenson has
identified sufficient facts (many independently confirmed by The
Herald and by Wayne Mapp). There has been enough disclosed to New
Zealanders to warrant an independent investigation. The reaction of
our Prime Minister is disappointing.

But if opinion is all you need:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11834009
Tony
2017-04-08 06:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:37:59 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/04/gordon-campbell-on-shifty-bills-last-stand/
"Clearly, a political decision has been made by the English government
that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few people
will read the book and (c) the sort of people who read books written
by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are never going to vote for National
anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with respect
to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that it
is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone who
thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead they’re
insurgents and if they believe Hager, they’re dead to us. QED."
So do people not really care? It certainly hasn't disappeared from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831300
Rachel Smalley: Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a
dead child?
It's no surprise there will be no inquiry into allegations about the
SAS raids in Afghanistan.
The process by which we've got to this decision is flawed.
The Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister have looked at
video footage taken from aircraft that were involved in the 2010 raid
in Baghlan, and have said there's no case to answer.
Bill English says he didn't see all of the footage, but of what he saw
he's confident that troops involved in the raids met the "benchmark"
of acting within the rules of engagement.
The advice from defence head Tim Keating is there is no need for an
independent inquiry.
Neither Lieutenant General Keating nor the Prime Minister were in
their respective roles at the time of the raid.
Neither were involved in the decision-making process that led to the
raid.
Neither would have been involved in the aftermath.
The footage is from aircraft. Our troops were on the ground, and from
what we've been told, none of the SAS soldiers involved in the raid
have been spoken to about the allegations in the book Hit and Run.
Again, this is not a criticism of our Defence Force. Our Defence Force
have - and continue to do - remarkable work all over the world.
But you have to take heed of Wayne Mapp's comments. He was the
Government's Defence Minister at the time. A very capable and
well-respected Cabinet Minister. And he himself served as an infantry
major in the Territorials, specialising in military intelligence.
It was Mapp who said the raid was - quote - "disastrous". A "fiasco",
he said.
Surely his opinion and position on this is important. Something isn't
sitting comfortably on his shoulders. And we know - and the Government
has confirmed this - civilians died in that raid.
There should be an inquiry. I don't think it should be public, but it
should be independent.
I don't understand why, when there are so many questions to answer, we
won't budge on this.
Is it because they're Afghanis? Is it because they're people from a
failed state on the other side of the world who we don't identify
with? Is that why we find this easy to dismiss?
Is it because the Government is relying on the wrath of right-wingers
to discredit Hit & Run authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson?
Again, we're playing the man and not the ball on this.
You cannot discredit Mapp's concerns. He was the Minister. He says
there should be an inquiry.
And what I would point out is this.
Right now we're in the midst of a two-month inquiry into why we shot a
dog at Auckland Airport.
A dog that was running amok, and held up 16 flights.
We're investigating a dog's death.
Come on, New Zealand.
Should we not be investigating how a 3-year-old girl was shot dead
while in her mother's arms in a small village in Afghanistan?
What does that say about us? About you and me? Why are we horrified by
shooting dead a dog, but not the killing of an Afghani toddler?
Answer that question for me, and tell me again that we shouldn't have
an inquiry.
It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in its
attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry on the
death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap
piece
of
journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should be an
inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent - there is
precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself is
meaningless and a waste of time.
Hager and Stepenson are real journalists - I gather Stephenson is back
in Afghanistan at present; possibly investigating for another story.
The book presented real evidence in much the same way as the 2014
documentary provided credible evidence - they led to others concluding
that there is a real possibility of actions contrary to legal
requirements.Isn;t that how journalists are supposed to work?
As for a comparson with a different issue, we accept that sort of
comparison quite often with issues such as sentencing for different
crimes, salaries for different jobs - why not for the expense and
"The law of armed conflict accepts that civilian casualties might
occur in military operations, and in many cases there is no legal
liability for them, particularly if they were accidental.
But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?
For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.
This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.
We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.
New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.
Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."
Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.
It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, noit just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Hager and his crony are in no way real journalists, they are political
activists in the guise (very badly done) of journalists.
That fact delimits your entire post, what a waste of bandwidth.
Tony
It would be helpful if you could identify "That fact" from your
previous sentence - it looks to me like pure opinion on your part.
The fact is they are not journalists, they are political activists - people
that can never claim to have the independence that a real journalist must have.
Post by Rich80105
In contrast, Stephenson has identified a lot of facts in his many
trips to Afghanistan, and the book by Hager and Stephenson has
identified sufficient facts (many independently confirmed by The
Herald and by Wayne Mapp). There has been enough disclosed to New
Zealanders to warrant an independent investigation. The reaction of
our Prime Minister is disappointing.
Bullshit - you continue to provide evidence that you hope that the SAS did
something wrong - shame on you.
Post by Rich80105
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11834009
Drivel!

Tony
Rich80105
2017-04-08 08:44:12 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 01:24:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:37:59 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/04/gordon-campbell-on-shifty-bills-last-stand/
"Clearly, a political decision has been made by the English government
that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few people
will read the book and (c) the sort of people who read books written
by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are never going to vote for National
anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with respect
to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that it
is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone who
thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead they’re
insurgents and if they believe Hager, they’re dead to us. QED."
So do people not really care? It certainly hasn't disappeared from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831300
Rachel Smalley: Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a
dead child?
It's no surprise there will be no inquiry into allegations about the
SAS raids in Afghanistan.
The process by which we've got to this decision is flawed.
The Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister have looked at
video footage taken from aircraft that were involved in the 2010 raid
in Baghlan, and have said there's no case to answer.
Bill English says he didn't see all of the footage, but of what he saw
he's confident that troops involved in the raids met the "benchmark"
of acting within the rules of engagement.
The advice from defence head Tim Keating is there is no need for an
independent inquiry.
Neither Lieutenant General Keating nor the Prime Minister were in
their respective roles at the time of the raid.
Neither were involved in the decision-making process that led to the
raid.
Neither would have been involved in the aftermath.
The footage is from aircraft. Our troops were on the ground, and from
what we've been told, none of the SAS soldiers involved in the raid
have been spoken to about the allegations in the book Hit and Run.
Again, this is not a criticism of our Defence Force. Our Defence Force
have - and continue to do - remarkable work all over the world.
But you have to take heed of Wayne Mapp's comments. He was the
Government's Defence Minister at the time. A very capable and
well-respected Cabinet Minister. And he himself served as an infantry
major in the Territorials, specialising in military intelligence.
It was Mapp who said the raid was - quote - "disastrous". A "fiasco",
he said.
Surely his opinion and position on this is important. Something isn't
sitting comfortably on his shoulders. And we know - and the Government
has confirmed this - civilians died in that raid.
There should be an inquiry. I don't think it should be public, but it
should be independent.
I don't understand why, when there are so many questions to answer, we
won't budge on this.
Is it because they're Afghanis? Is it because they're people from a
failed state on the other side of the world who we don't identify
with? Is that why we find this easy to dismiss?
Is it because the Government is relying on the wrath of right-wingers
to discredit Hit & Run authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson?
Again, we're playing the man and not the ball on this.
You cannot discredit Mapp's concerns. He was the Minister. He says
there should be an inquiry.
And what I would point out is this.
Right now we're in the midst of a two-month inquiry into why we shot a
dog at Auckland Airport.
A dog that was running amok, and held up 16 flights.
We're investigating a dog's death.
Come on, New Zealand.
Should we not be investigating how a 3-year-old girl was shot dead
while in her mother's arms in a small village in Afghanistan?
What does that say about us? About you and me? Why are we horrified by
shooting dead a dog, but not the killing of an Afghani toddler?
Answer that question for me, and tell me again that we shouldn't have
an inquiry.
It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in its
attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry on the
death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap
piece
of
journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should be an
inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent - there is
precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself is
meaningless and a waste of time.
Hager and Stepenson are real journalists - I gather Stephenson is back
in Afghanistan at present; possibly investigating for another story.
The book presented real evidence in much the same way as the 2014
documentary provided credible evidence - they led to others concluding
that there is a real possibility of actions contrary to legal
requirements.Isn;t that how journalists are supposed to work?
As for a comparson with a different issue, we accept that sort of
comparison quite often with issues such as sentencing for different
crimes, salaries for different jobs - why not for the expense and
"The law of armed conflict accepts that civilian casualties might
occur in military operations, and in many cases there is no legal
liability for them, particularly if they were accidental.
But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?
For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.
This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.
We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.
New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.
Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."
Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.
It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, noit just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Hager and his crony are in no way real journalists, they are political
activists in the guise (very badly done) of journalists.
That fact delimits your entire post, what a waste of bandwidth.
Tony
It would be helpful if you could identify "That fact" from your
previous sentence - it looks to me like pure opinion on your part.
The fact is they are not journalists, they are political activists - people
that can never claim to have the independence that a real journalist must have.
That is not a fact - that is your opinion. Try again.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
In contrast, Stephenson has identified a lot of facts in his many
trips to Afghanistan, and the book by Hager and Stephenson has
identified sufficient facts (many independently confirmed by The
Herald and by Wayne Mapp). There has been enough disclosed to New
Zealanders to warrant an independent investigation. The reaction of
our Prime Minister is disappointing.
Bullshit - you continue to provide evidence that you hope that the SAS did
something wrong - shame on you.
So you were claiming that there is no evidence and now you claim that
I am providing evidence - you do seem confused, Tony
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11834009
Drivel!
Tony
Tony
2017-04-09 04:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 01:24:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
<Snipped for brevity>
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?
For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.
This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.
We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.
New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.
Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."
Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.
It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, noit just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Hager and his crony are in no way real journalists, they are political
activists in the guise (very badly done) of journalists.
That fact delimits your entire post, what a waste of bandwidth.
Tony
It would be helpful if you could identify "That fact" from your
previous sentence - it looks to me like pure opinion on your part.
The fact is they are not journalists, they are political activists - people
that can never claim to have the independence that a real journalist must have.
That is not a fact - that is your opinion. Try again.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
In contrast, Stephenson has identified a lot of facts in his many
trips to Afghanistan, and the book by Hager and Stephenson has
identified sufficient facts (many independently confirmed by The
Herald and by Wayne Mapp). There has been enough disclosed to New
Zealanders to warrant an independent investigation. The reaction of
Post by Rich80105
our Prime Minister is disappointing.
Bullshit - you continue to provide evidence that you hope that the SAS did
something wrong - shame on you.
So you were claiming that there is no evidence and now you claim that
I am providing evidence - you do seem confused, Tony
What a shame that you fail to comprehend English or is that another piece of
sarcasm by you (Yes I think it may be).
The evidence that you have provided is that you appear to hope that the SAS has
done something wrong, do you understand that far from subtle distinction? I
doubt it! As I said - shame on you!
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11834009
Drivel!
Tony
Rich80105
2017-04-09 06:49:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 23:22:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 01:24:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
<Snipped for brevity>
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?
For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.
This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.
We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.
New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.
Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."
Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.
It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, noit just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Hager and his crony are in no way real journalists, they are political
activists in the guise (very badly done) of journalists.
That fact delimits your entire post, what a waste of bandwidth.
Tony
It would be helpful if you could identify "That fact" from your
previous sentence - it looks to me like pure opinion on your part.
The fact is they are not journalists, they are political activists - people
that can never claim to have the independence that a real journalist must have.
That is not a fact - that is your opinion. Try again.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
In contrast, Stephenson has identified a lot of facts in his many
trips to Afghanistan, and the book by Hager and Stephenson has
identified sufficient facts (many independently confirmed by The
Herald and by Wayne Mapp). There has been enough disclosed to New
Zealanders to warrant an independent investigation. The reaction of
Post by Rich80105
our Prime Minister is disappointing.
Bullshit - you continue to provide evidence that you hope that the SAS did
something wrong - shame on you.
So you were claiming that there is no evidence and now you claim that
I am providing evidence - you do seem confused, Tony
What a shame that you fail to comprehend English or is that another piece of
sarcasm by you (Yes I think it may be).
The evidence that you have provided is that you appear to hope that the SAS has
done something wrong, do you understand that far from subtle distinction? I
doubt it! As I said - shame on you!
You deceitful bugger! I have consistently said that there are
questions that need answering, and accusations that need to be
investigated, and I hav quite a few times agreed with QWayne Mapp who
has called for an enquiry. As it is the reputation of the SAS has been
slurred - whether rightly or wrongly - and an investigation is needed
to determine which it is. The police have an independent body to
investigate complaints against the police; but apparently that example
is not persuasive to Bill English - he seems happy to take the words
(or words) of the NZDF who have changed their story, both to Ministers
(Wayne Mapp again) and to the public about whether any civilians were
killed. As Mapp says, if civilians were killed, whether or not
military actions have been in accordance with international and New
Zealand laws, we should be considering our response. Our rep[utation
for a strong anti-torture is also in jeopardy from claims in the
book, but there has been no satisfactry answer to those claims.

The issue of an inquiry has merely changed to a call for answerts to
questions - in practicve there is little difference, but the issue is
important to people - whether you want New Zealanders exonerated or
are convinced that something wrong has been done - see for example:
http://pundit.co.nz/content/hit-run-why-doesnt-nzdf-start-by-answering-this-question

I do think there has not been consistent and complete advice to
Ministers - and that does not reflect well on those who commanded the
defence force at various times - and it calls into question wheteher
there is sufficient control from Ministers. The defence force exists
to serve the government of the day and New Zealand - not the other way
around.

Your opinions clearly vary, but please do not misrepresent the views
of others.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11834009
Drivel!
Tony
Tony
2017-04-09 07:33:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 23:22:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 01:24:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
<Snipped for brevity>
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?
For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.
This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.
We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.
New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.
Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."
Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.
It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, noit just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Hager and his crony are in no way real journalists, they are political
activists in the guise (very badly done) of journalists.
That fact delimits your entire post, what a waste of bandwidth.
Tony
It would be helpful if you could identify "That fact" from your
previous sentence - it looks to me like pure opinion on your part.
The fact is they are not journalists, they are political activists - people
that can never claim to have the independence that a real journalist must have.
That is not a fact - that is your opinion. Try again.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
In contrast, Stephenson has identified a lot of facts in his many
trips to Afghanistan, and the book by Hager and Stephenson has
identified sufficient facts (many independently confirmed by The
Herald and by Wayne Mapp). There has been enough disclosed to New
Zealanders to warrant an independent investigation. The reaction of
Post by Rich80105
our Prime Minister is disappointing.
Bullshit - you continue to provide evidence that you hope that the SAS did
something wrong - shame on you.
So you were claiming that there is no evidence and now you claim that
I am providing evidence - you do seem confused, Tony
What a shame that you fail to comprehend English or is that another piece of
sarcasm by you (Yes I think it may be).
The evidence that you have provided is that you appear to hope that the SAS has
done something wrong, do you understand that far from subtle distinction? I
doubt it! As I said - shame on you!
You deceitful bugger!
Not me, it is you that has been looking for a story whether true or not.
Post by Rich80105
I have consistently said that there are
questions that need answering,
Without any evidence - put up or shut up still applies!
Post by Rich80105
. and accusations that need to be
investigated, and I hav quite a few times agreed with QWayne Mapp who
has called for an enquiry. As it is the reputation of the SAS has been
slurred - whether rightly or wrongly - and an investigation is needed
to determine which it is. The police have an independent body to
investigate complaints against the police; but apparently that example
is not persuasive to Bill English - he seems happy to take the words
(or words) of the NZDF who have changed their story, both to Ministers
(Wayne Mapp again) and to the public about whether any civilians were
killed. As Mapp says, if civilians were killed, whether or not
military actions have been in accordance with international and New
Zealand laws, we should be considering our response. Our rep[utation
for a strong anti-torture is also in jeopardy from claims in the
book, but there has been no satisfactry answer to those claims.
The issue of an inquiry has merely changed to a call for answerts to
questions - in practicve there is little difference, but the issue is
important to people - whether you want New Zealanders exonerated or
http://pundit.co.nz/content/hit-run-why-doesnt-nzdf-start-by-answering-this-question
I do think there has not been consistent and complete advice to
Ministers - and that does not reflect well on those who commanded the
defence force at various times - and it calls into question wheteher
there is sufficient control from Ministers. The defence force exists
to serve the government of the day and New Zealand - not the other way
around.
Your opinions clearly vary,
Not at all, they are consistent
Post by Rich80105
but please do not misrepresent the views
of others.
Like who?
It is you that has been looking for blame, and you that has misrepresented
others.
Give it a rest and let it take its course, if real evidence emerges then so be
it and let there be an investigation but until evidence is provided from real
human beings and people who are not political activists just try to be honest
for once!
For you it is all about political capital - well there is none here so far. Put
up or shut up once more and until real evidence emerges (if it does) leave our
boys alone. Your nasty "I don't care who I hurt so long as my mates get a vote"
has been clear throughout this patently political "debate", in your case devoid
of balance and fairness.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11834009
Drivel!
Tony
Tony
Pooh
2017-04-09 23:50:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 23:22:32 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Sat, 08 Apr 2017 01:24:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
<Snipped for brevity>
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?
For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.
This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.
We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.
New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.
Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."
Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.
It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, noit just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Hager and his crony are in no way real journalists, they are political
activists in the guise (very badly done) of journalists.
That fact delimits your entire post, what a waste of bandwidth.
Tony
It would be helpful if you could identify "That fact" from your
previous sentence - it looks to me like pure opinion on your part.
The fact is they are not journalists, they are political activists - people
that can never claim to have the independence that a real journalist must have.
That is not a fact - that is your opinion. Try again.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
In contrast, Stephenson has identified a lot of facts in his many
trips to Afghanistan, and the book by Hager and Stephenson has
identified sufficient facts (many independently confirmed by The
Herald and by Wayne Mapp). There has been enough disclosed to New
Zealanders to warrant an independent investigation. The reaction of
Post by Rich80105
our Prime Minister is disappointing.
Bullshit - you continue to provide evidence that you hope that the SAS did
something wrong - shame on you.
So you were claiming that there is no evidence and now you claim that
I am providing evidence - you do seem confused, Tony
What a shame that you fail to comprehend English or is that another piece of
sarcasm by you (Yes I think it may be).
The evidence that you have provided is that you appear to hope that the SAS has
done something wrong, do you understand that far from subtle distinction? I
doubt it! As I said - shame on you!
You deceitful bugger!
Not me, it is you that has been looking for a story whether true or not.
Post by Rich80105
I have consistently said that there are
questions that need answering,
Without any evidence - put up or shut up still applies!
Post by Rich80105
. and accusations that need to be
investigated, and I hav quite a few times agreed with QWayne Mapp who
has called for an enquiry. As it is the reputation of the SAS has been
slurred - whether rightly or wrongly - and an investigation is needed
to determine which it is. The police have an independent body to
investigate complaints against the police; but apparently that example
is not persuasive to Bill English - he seems happy to take the words
(or words) of the NZDF who have changed their story, both to Ministers
(Wayne Mapp again) and to the public about whether any civilians were
killed. As Mapp says, if civilians were killed, whether or not
military actions have been in accordance with international and New
Zealand laws, we should be considering our response. Our rep[utation
for a strong anti-torture is also in jeopardy from claims in the
book, but there has been no satisfactry answer to those claims.
The issue of an inquiry has merely changed to a call for answerts to
questions - in practicve there is little difference, but the issue is
important to people - whether you want New Zealanders exonerated or
http://pundit.co.nz/content/hit-run-why-doesnt-nzdf-start-by-answering-this-question
I do think there has not been consistent and complete advice to
Ministers - and that does not reflect well on those who commanded the
defence force at various times - and it calls into question wheteher
there is sufficient control from Ministers. The defence force exists
to serve the government of the day and New Zealand - not the other way
around.
Your opinions clearly vary,
Not at all, they are consistent
Post by Rich80105
but please do not misrepresent the views
of others.
Like who?
It is you that has been looking for blame, and you that has misrepresented
others.
Give it a rest and let it take its course, if real evidence emerges then so be
it and let there be an investigation but until evidence is provided from real
human beings and people who are not political activists just try to be honest
for once!
For you it is all about political capital - well there is none here so far. Put
up or shut up once more and until real evidence emerges (if it does) leave our
boys alone. Your nasty "I don't care who I hurt so long as my mates get a vote"
has been clear throughout this patently political "debate", in your case devoid
of balance and fairness.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11834009
Drivel!
Tony
Tony
Remember Tony, Stevenson is back in Afghanistan to get more 'evidence'
from his Taliban controllers :)

Pooh

Pooh
2017-04-09 23:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:37:59 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
http://werewolf.co.nz/2017/04/gordon-campbell-on-shifty-bills-last-stand/
"Clearly, a political decision has been made by the English government
that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few people
will read the book and (c) the sort of people who read books written
by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson are never going to vote for National
anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with respect
to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that it
is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone who
thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead they’re
insurgents and if they believe Hager, they’re dead to us. QED."
So do people not really care? It certainly hasn't disappeared from
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831300
Rachel Smalley: Why can we have an inquiry about a dead dog, but not a
dead child?
It's no surprise there will be no inquiry into allegations about the
SAS raids in Afghanistan.
The process by which we've got to this decision is flawed.
The Chief of the Defence Force and the Prime Minister have looked at
video footage taken from aircraft that were involved in the 2010 raid
in Baghlan, and have said there's no case to answer.
Bill English says he didn't see all of the footage, but of what he saw
he's confident that troops involved in the raids met the "benchmark"
of acting within the rules of engagement.
The advice from defence head Tim Keating is there is no need for an
independent inquiry.
Neither Lieutenant General Keating nor the Prime Minister were in
their respective roles at the time of the raid.
Neither were involved in the decision-making process that led to the
raid.
Neither would have been involved in the aftermath.
The footage is from aircraft. Our troops were on the ground, and from
what we've been told, none of the SAS soldiers involved in the raid
have been spoken to about the allegations in the book Hit and Run.
Again, this is not a criticism of our Defence Force. Our Defence Force
have - and continue to do - remarkable work all over the world.
But you have to take heed of Wayne Mapp's comments. He was the
Government's Defence Minister at the time. A very capable and
well-respected Cabinet Minister. And he himself served as an infantry
major in the Territorials, specialising in military intelligence.
It was Mapp who said the raid was - quote - "disastrous". A "fiasco",
he said.
Surely his opinion and position on this is important. Something isn't
sitting comfortably on his shoulders. And we know - and the Government
has confirmed this - civilians died in that raid.
There should be an inquiry. I don't think it should be public, but it
should be independent.
I don't understand why, when there are so many questions to answer, we
won't budge on this.
Is it because they're Afghanis? Is it because they're people from a
failed state on the other side of the world who we don't identify
with? Is that why we find this easy to dismiss?
Is it because the Government is relying on the wrath of right-wingers
to discredit Hit & Run authors Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson?
Again, we're playing the man and not the ball on this.
You cannot discredit Mapp's concerns. He was the Minister. He says
there should be an inquiry.
And what I would point out is this.
Right now we're in the midst of a two-month inquiry into why we shot a
dog at Auckland Airport.
A dog that was running amok, and held up 16 flights.
We're investigating a dog's death.
Come on, New Zealand.
Should we not be investigating how a 3-year-old girl was shot dead
while in her mother's arms in a small village in Afghanistan?
What does that say about us? About you and me? Why are we horrified by
shooting dead a dog, but not the killing of an Afghani toddler?
Answer that question for me, and tell me again that we shouldn't have
an inquiry.
It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in its
attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry on the
death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap piece of
journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should be an
inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent - there is
precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself is
meaningless and a waste of time.
Hager and Stepenson are real journalists - I gather Stephenson is back
in Afghanistan at present; possibly investigating for another story.
The book presented real evidence in much the same way as the 2014
documentary provided credible evidence - they led to others concluding
that there is a real possibility of actions contrary to legal
requirements.Isn;t that how journalists are supposed to work?
As for a comparson with a different issue, we accept that sort of
comparison quite often with issues such as sentencing for different
crimes, salaries for different jobs - why not for the expense and
"The law of armed conflict accepts that civilian casualties might
occur in military operations, and in many cases there is no legal
liability for them, particularly if they were accidental.
But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold
ourselves to a higher standard?
For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian
casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the
extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if
they did, to properly acknowledge that.
This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as
lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this
sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan
government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.
We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own
country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of
Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for
fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in
recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather
than determining liability.
On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are
reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have
occurred.
New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its
defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and
respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake
the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held
territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against
attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be
beyond contemplation.
Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened,
particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may
have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the
soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves
to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of
military conflict."
Turning away from an investigation may be convenient, but I suspect it
will be seen to be a mistake, largely for the reasons given by Mapp.
Whether it is a political mistake will be argued with little evidence
for and against, but I do believe the reputation of New Zealand is
worth defending, and that suggests that dismissing the whole issue is
wrong.
It may well be that another body does undertake an investigation - but
it is better for New Zealand is we are seen to do the right thing
ourselves, noit just when we are forced to by others.
Post by Tony
Put up or shut up I say!
Hager and his crony are in no way real journalists, they are political
activists in the guise (very badly done) of journalists.
That fact delimits your entire post, what a waste of bandwidth.
Tony
It would be helpful if you could identify "That fact" from your
previous sentence - it looks to me like pure opinion on your part.
In contrast, Stephenson has identified a lot of facts in his many
trips to Afghanistan, and the book by Hager and Stephenson has
identified sufficient facts (many independently confirmed by The
Herald and by Wayne Mapp). There has been enough disclosed to New
Zealanders to warrant an independent investigation. The reaction of
our Prime Minister is disappointing.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11834009
Yet another comprehension fail from the ng clown. No wonder he worships
idiots like Hager, Stephenson and Little. Poor wee fool doesn't even
demand the sort of evidence from them that he does from the rest of us.
Typical of trolls everywhere.

Pooh

Pooh
Loading...