16 questions NZDF must answer over war crime allegations
Defence Force needs to front up with proof of its claims
The Hit and Run authors say the defence force leadership is trying to confuse the public and government to reduce pressure for an independent inquiry into the revelations in the book.
“The NZDF and SAS were involved in some very bad things and then covered it up for years. It is sadly not surprising that they are trying to bluff their way out of taking responsibility. Indeed, the Chief of Defence Force is really fighting for his job.”
“But if they want to be taken seriously today they have to front up with real information. Here are some of the questions that the chief of defence force Tim Keating needs to answer:
1. Does he accept a large SAS contingent went to the Tirgiran valley in two Chinook transport helicopters on 22 August 2010?
2. Does he deny that the two helicopters and the SAS troops went to two different small villages that night?
3. Does he deny that they found none of the insurgents they were looking for in either village?
4. Does he confirm that nine insurgents were killed in Operation Burnham (refer NZDF Media Release 20 April 2011, page 136 Hit and Run?)?
5. If NZDF confirms that nine insurgents were killed in Operation Burnham, what were their names?
6. Did SAS snipers shoot people that night?
7. Does he deny that the SAS members and their allies destroyed a dozen houses that night?
8. Does he deny that the NZDF received a video from an informer just days after the raid showing all the insurgents alive at the funerals on the day following the raid?
9. Does he deny the six civilian deaths reported by UNAMA, New York Times and local Afghan media followingwere part of Operation Burnham?
10. Does he deny that the book’s sources had revealed the SAS raid was called Operation Burnham and that this name was recorded in the book, before the NZDF confirmed that name in its statement last night?
11. Does he expect New Zealanders to believe that there were two different raids called Operation Burnham to the same valley on the same night, one that killed civilians and one that did not?
12. Is he claiming Khak Khuday Dad villagers, including 3 year old Fatima did not die as part of Operation Burnham?
13. Does he deny that the SAS went back to the valley for a second raid about ten days later?
14. Why has Tim Keating said nothing about other revelations in the book, such as the beating and torture of a prisoner?
15. Does he deny that the SAS captured the prisoner Qari Miraj and transferred him to the secret police where he was tortured?
16. Is he prepared to resign if it is confirmed that civilians died in the SAS-led raid in Baghlan province on 22 August 2010?
“In other words, is Keating seriously denying everything in the book, or just trying to spread doubt by questioning the names of the villages in question?
“Our book contains hundreds of carefully researched facts, compiled during two years of meetings with New Zealand defence sources and the Afghan villagers. If Tim Keating believes some of that is wrong, he needs to front up with proof, not confusing diversions.
We call on him to justify his claims by releasing uncensored versions of the main operational documents from the 22 August 2010 raid. In particular, he should immediately release:
1. All the SAS operation plans and documents for the 22 August 2010 raid
2. The SAS post-activity reports (which, we were told, refer to civilian deaths)
3. The SAS Battle Damage Assessment from the 22 August 2010 operation recording who was killed and who killed them.
They are old documents and there are no operational security excuses for withholding them. If he is not prepared to release this information, his self-serving claims cannot be taken seriously.
I heartily agree with this challenge , Nicky & John- on behalf of the people of NZ whom NZDF are charged to represent our honest and dignity in a “conflict” of which we sent them as “Peace-makers” not “active combatants” as they now appear to be behind our backs.
If they refuse send a request to the war crimes commission and use Graeme Mc Cready with any other legal mind to instigate a truly independent enquiry. Use the Canadian Justice from David Bain’s Murder enquiry to represent at the commission also.
“They are old documents and there are no operational security excuses for withholding them. If he is not prepared to release this information, his self-serving claims cannot be taken seriously.”
The N.Z.D.F. claim it was another village?
Really?
Maybe it was another country known also , by coincidence, as Afghanistan.
This will not wash. We are not fools. The N.Z.D.F. are taking the proverbial with their lies.
#prosecutenzdf
Perhaps those asserting would like to now offer proof?
The ball is firmly back in their court. If they can’t do so, then it is likely game over and the NZDF win.
L0L ! – not at all !!!
The saying ‘ it aint over til the fat lady sings ‘ ,… comes to mind…
That’s what inquiry’s are all about.
Not games of he said / she said.
Wrong villages, note the NZDF.
Oh dear.
If so, looks like some commentators owe the defence forces and their families a public apology?
We killed a little girl
Speak for yourself, mate.
She’s just a girl
BigRickyStyles,
THE PROOF IS IN, THEY ARLEADY HAVE ADMITTING THEY HAVE ACTUALLY KILLED BEFORE SO WAS YOU NOT THERE THEN?
YOU SEEM TO NOT WISH AN ENQUIRY- WHY IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE?
I SERVED IN THE NZDF AS A NATIONAL SERVICE CONSCRIPT AND BEING TRAINED FOR THAT WAR DURING THE EARLY DAYS VIETNAM DAYS.
WE WERE TOLD WHILE INVOLVED IN A SCPUTING PATROL NOW TO FIRE ON THE ENEMY BUT WE FIRED UPON GO TO GROUND AND THEN ADVANCE TOWARD THE ENEMY FIRING.
WE WERE TRAINED ALONGSIDE THE SAS AND WERE FAMILIAR WITH THEIR HIGH SKILLS AND ENDURANCE TAUGHT THEM & AND THEIR PROWESS
WHAT WE LEARNED WAS THAT THEY WERE NEVER A COMBAT BRIGADE BUT MORE OF A LONE WOLF AND SERCET ACTION SWIFT EXECUCTION STYLE UNIT LIKE, THE GURKHA WERE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha
OUR SAS WERE SENT AS “PEACEKEEPS AND MAKERS NOT AS AUTOMATIC WEAPON ACTION Sylvester Stallone RAMBO TYPE’S MAN SO WAKE UP.
All I require is evidence.
There appears to be a fog. Who to believe?
Just get a critical mind @rickytickytavvystyles.
It doesn’t pay to learn rote, as in polly wanna cracker.
Your immediate stance in all of this has been to accept the spoon fed, and dismiss the challenger.
All good…but when shit hits fan PLEASE don’t blubber and play victim
Not accepting either side without evidence.
That is the reasonable position.
NZDF state a different village was involved, so the ball appears to bounce back across the net, yes?
Not according to the Afghan commandos, the SAS soldiers and the villagers who provided information to Hager and Stephenson
The NZDF has all the reasons in the world to lie their arses off, Hager and Stephenson, who have never been prosecuted for defamation or libel or dishonesty?Come on !
The SAS soldiers , the Afghan commandos, the villagers?All engaging in a conspiracy to tarnish the NZDF?
Give me a break
@BigRickyStyles Can you help me out and point me to which of the NZDF statements is the right one, oh yes, and Wayne Mapp’s too.
The NZDF said this: “The villages are named in the book as Naik and Khak Khuday Dad, but the NZDF can confirm that NZDF personnel have never operated in these villages.”
So who is right? I don’t know. The facts look a little he said/she said at this point.
Perhaps an inquiry will be inevitable.
We killed a girl. Amazing!
It is the NZDF that is providing no evidence here – just bombastic official-sounding statements. Can they name the villages where the SAS were operating (according to them) and give evidence that 2 different operations called Burnham took place simultaneously? The stench of bovine excrement is rather pervasive.
got to wonder what else has been covered up. Attacking/occupying foreign countries with a SAS crack force is always going to be a can of worms
School building !
That’s why we train a SAS force.
They get to build schools after they bomb the S%@#T out of them.
The NZDF wants us to believe that SAS members, Afgan Commandos, and villages got together to construct a convenient lie to cover up the death of little Fatima and that those villages destroyed their own houses etc, just so seven years later a couple of journalists in New Zealand would have something to write a book about?
Really?
The saddest part of all this is there will be New Zealanders that believe just that.