original casualties were blamed on US rotary support, however post event analysis claims some victims were felled by rounds only used by NZ snipers
I'd wait a few days for it to settle before trying to analyse it. too much noise at the moment
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
I'd wait a few days for it to settle before trying to analyse it. too much noise at the moment
kiwi in exile
Active Member
agreed. People need time to come to grips with what the book says before dismissing its content outright. If it turns out to be BS, that will come out soon enough. Regardless of what you think of Hager etc (and many here would likely accuse him of Left wing conspiracy if he claimed 2+2=4), in independant NZ inquirey would clear things up. And hopefully restore the NZSASs reputation. And hopefully clear them of war crimes.
I don't know the journo's, so am agnostic to a point (I cringe at the competency of defence sector journalism in general)
Aust is going through their own version of this ATM with SOCOMD/SASR
Ocean1Curse
Member
For me it's not about reputation even though every one has there patch to protect whether journo's reputaion, SAS reputation ect. Only a handful recognise that this is a crises of democracy. First of all the provincial reconstruction team should be in quotation marks because there can not possibly be a provincial reconstruction team, it's impossible. The reason is the war on terror is lead by the US who was accused by the world court as the number one terrorist state in the world, the UN security council accepted this and the US vetoed the resolution so we can not even talk about this with out self ridicule.
There has been a war on terror but we put another label on it and call it provincial reconstruction. When it began there's been one device to deal with it, a sledge hammer, smash em up. Don't find out whats happening just smash em bro. 10 years ago it was said our participation would be confined to a tinny area of Afghanistan, now terrorism is all over the world so every time you send in a reconstruction team you expand things and our spy agencies budgets have expanded many many times over. Every single time we send in a provincial reconstruction team, I mean can we learn something from this? We say ok lets smash em bro because they all want to kill us, thats one reaction.
Another reaction is the same reaction that you do hear from people like well known middle east expert William Polk and he has experience in the US government. You have to deal with this rationally first of all if you want to be human but even if you are concerned with your own security. So this is a crises of democracy.
This is leaning right on the edge of being off topic and political - I'd suggest that it's not continued on in this vein
Last edited by a moderator:
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/statese...cations/majorprojects/pdfs/int-mppr-nov16.pdf
Following the spectacular failure of some expensive government projects (mostly in the IT field) over the past decade, NZ Treasury initiated a formal programme to monitor large high-risk projects. By default, this captures a number of defence acquisitions.
A link to the latest publicly available report is above. Whule a fair bit of material has been withheld under national security grounds, there is still some interesting information availabe. A few points that struck me are noted below.
Frigate Systems Upgrade
This has the highest risk ranking of any project in the report, and declined from Amber/Red to Red since the previous report. It is noted the schedule has slipped 8 months, and also
Exactly what these problems are is not detailed, nor is the nature of any expected reduction in benefits. I strongly suspect costs have come in higher than expected, and they are looking to cut capability to make savings.
Future Air Surveillance Capability
The comment in it's entirety reads:
Future Air Mobility Capability
Following the spectacular failure of some expensive government projects (mostly in the IT field) over the past decade, NZ Treasury initiated a formal programme to monitor large high-risk projects. By default, this captures a number of defence acquisitions.
A link to the latest publicly available report is above. Whule a fair bit of material has been withheld under national security grounds, there is still some interesting information availabe. A few points that struck me are noted below.
Frigate Systems Upgrade
This has the highest risk ranking of any project in the report, and declined from Amber/Red to Red since the previous report. It is noted the schedule has slipped 8 months, and also
.
Exactly what these problems are is not detailed, nor is the nature of any expected reduction in benefits. I strongly suspect costs have come in higher than expected, and they are looking to cut capability to make savings.
Future Air Surveillance Capability
The comment in it's entirety reads:
One likely reason the decision has been brought forward is to avoid a repeat of the C-17 shambles, where the desired aircraft went out of production while NZ was trying to make up its mind.
Future Air Mobility Capability
Synergies between the surveillance and airlift projects are obviously still being looked at.
Last edited:
Six questions we can answer about the SAS incident, and three we can't | Stuff.co.nz
Interesting read very telling that there were Taliban constantly living in the village some of them had their own houses they just weren't there on the night they had taken to the hills after the IED attack.
Interesting that the Taliban can blow up our vehicles killing our soldiers but our SAS can't blow up an insurgents house preventing it from being rebuilt.
Gives some perspective to the situation and makes it hard to believe that the villagers lived in the angelic state that hager wants people to believe.
Interesting read very telling that there were Taliban constantly living in the village some of them had their own houses they just weren't there on the night they had taken to the hills after the IED attack.
Interesting that the Taliban can blow up our vehicles killing our soldiers but our SAS can't blow up an insurgents house preventing it from being rebuilt.
Gives some perspective to the situation and makes it hard to believe that the villagers lived in the angelic state that hager wants people to believe.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Not sure I agree. Sound like quite a few houses were destroyed. While the insurgents had used them, its not clear that they were the insurgensts houses. If the taliban want to use your house I'm not sure you get a choice. Pretty sure that its illegal to destroy relatives houses as punishment- which it sounds like this is what happened.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/appl...6403003fb8c5/72728b6de56c7a68c12563cd0051bc40
Though it sounds like this was fault of the airsupport.
It seems more NZSAS are speaking out:
Exclusive interview: NZSAS says civilians were killed in fatal raid, including two by Kiwi sniper fire - National - NZ Herald News
More background:
Native Affairs - Collateral Damage | MÄori Television
Last edited:
It stated in the article it was the insurgents house and the people in the village were related to the Taliban they were up to there necks in it supporting them i am not buying any of Hagers BS that they were so innocent.
Interesting it was stated that the fires were started by flash bang grenades which also goes against what Hager has been saying.
My whole point is his book has been written to make the SAS out to be a bunch of renegades who went on a rampage of revenge killing and it is BS in my opinion.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
I remember a while back people on this forum talking of utu.
Still havn't read the book but you are probably right about the Hagar angle. My guess is that most of the work was done by Stephenson and Hagar has been tied in becuse his 'brand' will get press/sales. Angles aside, fact is seems like the NZDF/NZG has been misleading us about these events as far back as 2011.
Dunno how a 3 year old girl can be 'up their neck in it.' Guess its easier to tar them all with the same brush. If you are a simple villager/farmer and the taliban wants to use a house in your village for something, what are you going to do, tell them to piss off? If I have a gang member neighbor dealing P does that mean im a crim too?
Well stating the obvious the 3 year old wasn't up to her neck in it but the rest of them were there were Taliban living in that village and they were related to people in the village don't be so naive to buy the angle from hager that they were all so innocent.
When the US Navy SEAL was found by the villagers in Lone Survivor yes they told the Taliban to piss off and as for gang members being in your neighborhood and you know they are dealing P and you do nothing about it you allow them to operate with impunity you don't contact law enforcement you are part of the problem.
Hager is trying to portray the village living in an angelic state and the awful NZSAS went rogue and out of revenge went in there on a rampage he has called into question the honor of the unit and tried to smear it's reputation like when he alleged that the NZSAS burnt down houses on purpose when in fact they were set alight by flash bang grenades that were thrown in before houses were entered.
There is no doubt with what is coming out the raid was launched on bad intel and there were civilian casualties but Hager has done a nice job trying to present facts to suit his agenda which is to try and make the NZSAS look as bad as possible.
I hope they do have a public inquiry because i don't want Hager and Stevenson getting the last word and controlling the narrative i wouldn't trust them as far as i could throw them.
Yes we talked of utu but it is utu in its fullest form, not the narrow definition that most non Maori take it to be. It's about restitution rather than straight out vengeance by the aggrieved party themselves. There are also no time limits on achieving it. Remember also that NZDF abide by the rules or war, international and NZ law and the Geneva Convention, whereas the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Daesh and their like don't. The ROE in Afghan were reasonably restrictive so they would not have knowingly stepped outside of them.
No such thing as a simple villager/farmer in Baglan province, that village was and still is Taliban 100% equating the Taliban to a gang member selling P is bollocks, they are chalk and cheese.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Yea Lone Survivor was a great film:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Survivor#Historical_accuracy
Hit and Run: The six people a new book alleges a NZ SAS raid killed | Stuff.co.nz
It's ok because they're all in on it, the whole village, right. as you said "the rest of them were"
This whole thing seems like a massive F*** up. Most of the destruction seems to be the result of bad intel and trigger happy apache pilots, rather than blood thirsty kiwis. Sound like the SAS sniper team may have been justified in taking the shots they made, but given the result... what a shit situation. If they knowingly left wounded civilians on the ground, that's not good, and doesnt live up to the high standards we ascribe to our service people.
Whether the apparent cover up by NZDF/NZG is a result of ignorance or intentional, an open independant investigation seems like the logical way forward. I know the bad guys dont wear uniforms and war is messy business, but you don't knowingly walk away from a mess you are at least partially responsible for. Or brush it under the carpet.
I mentioned lone Survivor so you knew who i was talking about i don't give a shit about the accuracy of the film.
The villages stood up to the Taliban and wouldn't let them have the SEAL the fact that the Taliban were outnumbered means nothing
Hager is trying to make that village out to be a place of total innocence and the dastardly NZSAS went in there out of control seeking revenge that is his angle looking to make the NZSAS look as bad as he can.
One of the men who lived in the village his son was in the Taliban and the Taliban stayed in the village and they had bomb makers who had been there as well it was an active Taliban village and i don't know why you keep lying to yourself about it.
The NZSAS got bad intel no doubt and the mission went wrong but you can't blame the NZSAS snipers they were told they were going to be going up against enemy combatants and when the two guys started running towards them there was no way anyone could expect the NZSAS personal to let them get to their position not knowing if they had suicide belts or any other weapons and they took them down.
They saw people moving to a higher position and thought they were trying to get a position of advantage over the NZSAS so they called in an airstrike you can't blame them for that either.
Went you are on an operation going in fast and getting out fast which is the name of the game and don't know the people hit are civilians you won't hang around to give medical aid.
As for Hager in his book talking about how the NZSAS intentionally destroyed homes well it has already been stated that when they were house clearing they were using flash bang grenades which is standard practice and that is what set the fires so you can't blame them for that either.
My whole point is Hager has an agenda and that is to trash the reputation of the NZSAS and he has written the story presenting the facts as he wants to see them to suit his agenda of making the NZSAS look like a bunch of renegades who went out for revenge and went on a rampage and the information that is coming out is starting to prove that is bullshit.
As i said i want to see a public inquiry because to not have one is to allow Hager and Stevenson to control the narrative
.
Been arguing the point about that village it certainly wasn't as innocent as Hager has made out.
The Taliban members lived there and had family there and no doubt were using it as a logistical hub for their operations getting shelter ,water,food and as a place to make bombs.
Thankfully most people can see through Hagers book and know what his angle is.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
So just to be clear if the village was a "taliban village", are you saying that the people killed deserved to die?
I'm not trolling here, it's a sincere question.
I'm not trolling here, it's a sincere question.
Play nicely please or Mr Grumpy face might appear.
there's a whole pile of unqualified statements coming out of the book - they are yet to be tested per se
I'd suggest that as this is one of those subjects where its easy to amp up quickly that the 60 second delayed rule apply before posting. ie type, think for 60 seconds and then decide again whether posting will be helpful
until some official responses come out then everyone will be working on assumptions as they don't have privileged access (and neither do the authors for that matter)
Aust SASR have recently been through a similar exercise, so the circumstances may be similar. ie they breached a house, fire then came from a room, they breached that room and then discovered non combatants as well as combatants inside.
I'd suggest that as this is one of those subjects where its easy to amp up quickly that the 60 second delayed rule apply before posting. ie type, think for 60 seconds and then decide again whether posting will be helpful
until some official responses come out then everyone will be working on assumptions as they don't have privileged access (and neither do the authors for that matter)
Aust SASR have recently been through a similar exercise, so the circumstances may be similar. ie they breached a house, fire then came from a room, they breached that room and then discovered non combatants as well as combatants inside.
Did someone call me?
-Preceptor
If they were civilians no they didn't but if you are prepared to let Taliban use your village as part of their operations you are putting yourself in the firing line.