So said Saint Nicky on Sunday.the location of the raid and the villages is indeed slightly different to what our local sources told us"
But yesterday:
"We have checked the NZDF maps shown at the press conference and it appears
"Told us"? Did they not verify any basic fact before going to print?road-less terrain is "slightly different"?
"Slightly different"? A different village, 2km away, separated by rugged and
One should not believe anything Hagar says. His sources are anonymous andunverifiable. He pushes an agenda without looking at both sides of the story, and he times his stories with the intention of executing a hit job in an election year.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:23:32 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>appears the location of the raid and the villages is indeed slightly different to what our local sources told us"
wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 09:15:31 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
So said Saint Nicky on Sunday.
But yesterday:
"We have checked the NZDF maps shown at the press conference and it
and road-less terrain is "slightly different"?
"Told us"? Did they not verify any basic fact before going to print?
"Slightly different"? A different village, 2km away, separated by rugged
unverifiable. He pushes an agenda without looking at both sides of the story, and he times his stories with the intention of executing a hit job in an election year.
One should not believe anything Hagar says. His sources are anonymous and
opportunity to follow up allegations. This book was not, a guarantee that it would receive saturation coverage, while anyone who doubted its claims would look as if they wereRoesmary McLeod, of all people in the media, gets it.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/90926475/rosemary-mcleod-the-drive-to-humiliate-the-young--and-those-who-go-to-war
"Some books are released to media in advance of publication, giving the
a particular village in Afghanistan. For an event to be judged a war crime, civilians would need to have been deliberately targeted. We are invited to believe this of our SAS,The accusation at the heart of the book is that a war crime was committed at
accusations can swiftly become established truth in an internet age. The fact that the authors got the village wrong, as the Defence chief tells us, doesn't matter, accordingSo many years later I wonder how the truth can be arrived at either way, yet
connected to the SAS, but why are they hiding if they are confident of the facts?The identities of his informants are concealed. The authors say some are
Meanwhile they tarnish the reputations of those they accuse."
I don't think Rosemary McLeod has necessarily got the law quite right
there - and it may be that Wayne Mapp has not got it quite right
either in this article:
http://pundit.co.nz/content/operation-burnham
- see the first comment (there may be more by now.
Importantly, the man that called the operation a "fiasco" accepts that
there is further information to be obtained / confirmed.
So far there is a mnor detail that it appears Stephenson got slightly
wrong (whch they immediately chaecked and acknowledgeed, while the
Defence also made a similar mistake (thinking the towns were names
after the valley, which is not true either. The Defence force have not addressed some of the more important issues arising from the
Stephenson / Hager book.
I suspect there will be an enquiry going on behind closed doors right
now to review everything, including the report that Defence lost
relating to management of operations; but whether we learn the results
may depend on whether they offer adequate responses to the book.
In the meantime, Wayne Mapp again shows that it is possible to engage meangingfully - unlike the government which appeared to just go into a "bunker" mentality . . .
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 09:15:31 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:road-less terrain is "slightly different"?
So said Saint Nicky on Sunday.
But yesterday:
"We have checked the NZDF maps shown at the press conference and it appears the location of the raid and the villages is indeed slightly different to what our local sources told us"
"Told us"? Did they not verify any basic fact before going to print?
"Slightly different"? A different village, 2km away, separated by rugged and
to hide something. Hager knows how to play the media, which laps up his every utterance.
One should not believe anything Hagar says. His sources are anonymous and unverifiable. He pushes an agenda without looking at both sides of the story, and he times his stories with the intention of executing a hit job in an election year.
Roesmary McLeod, of all people in the media, gets it.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/90926475/rosemary-mcleod-the-drive-to-humiliate-the-young--and-those-who-go-to-war
"Some books are released to media in advance of publication, giving the opportunity to follow up allegations. This book was not, a guarantee that it would receive saturation coverage, while anyone who doubted its claims would look as if they were trying
The accusation at the heart of the book is that a war crime was committed at aparticular village in Afghanistan. For an event to be judged a war crime, civilians would need to have been deliberately targeted. We are invited to believe this of our SAS,
So many years later I wonder how the truth can be arrived at either way, yet accusations can swiftly become established truth in an internet age. The fact that the authors got the village wrong, as the Defence chief tells us, doesn't matter, accordingto Hager. Really? What else might be wrong?
The identities of his informants are concealed. The authors say some are connected to the SAS, but why are they hiding if they are confident of the facts?
Meanwhile they tarnish the reputations of those they accuse."
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 11:56:44 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:unverifiable. He pushes an agenda without looking at both sides of the story, and he times his stories with the intention of executing a hit job in an election year.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:23:32 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 09:15:31 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
So said Saint Nicky on Sunday.
But yesterday:
"We have checked the NZDF maps shown at the press conference and it appears the location of the raid and the villages is indeed slightly different to what our local sources told us"
"Told us"? Did they not verify any basic fact before going to print?
"Slightly different"? A different village, 2km away, separated by rugged and road-less terrain is "slightly different"?
One should not believe anything Hagar says. His sources are anonymous and
trying to hide something. Hager knows how to play the media, which laps up his every utterance.
Roesmary McLeod, of all people in the media, gets it.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/90926475/rosemary-mcleod-the-drive-to-humiliate-the-young--and-those-who-go-to-war
"Some books are released to media in advance of publication, giving the opportunity to follow up allegations. This book was not, a guarantee that it would receive saturation coverage, while anyone who doubted its claims would look as if they were
SAS, though I balk at accepting any of our elite soldiers would deliberately murder a three-year-old girl, who was taken up as the centrepiece of the accusation.
The accusation at the heart of the book is that a war crime was committed at a particular village in Afghanistan. For an event to be judged a war crime, civilians would need to have been deliberately targeted. We are invited to believe this of our
according to Hager. Really? What else might be wrong?
So many years later I wonder how the truth can be arrived at either way, yet accusations can swiftly become established truth in an internet age. The fact that the authors got the village wrong, as the Defence chief tells us, doesn't matter,
The identities of his informants are concealed. The authors say some are connected to the SAS, but why are they hiding if they are confident of the facts?
Meanwhile they tarnish the reputations of those they accuse."
I don't think Rosemary McLeod has necessarily got the law quite right
there - and it may be that Wayne Mapp has not got it quite right
either in this article:
http://pundit.co.nz/content/operation-burnham
- see the first comment (there may be more by now.
Importantly, the man that called the operation a "fiasco" accepts that
there is further information to be obtained / confirmed.
So far there is a mnor detail that it appears Stephenson got slightly
wrong (whch they immediately chaecked and acknowledgeed, while the
Defence also made a similar mistake (thinking the towns were names
after the valley, which is not true either. The Defence force have not
addressed some of the more important issues arising from the
Stephenson / Hager book.
I suspect there will be an enquiry going on behind closed doors right
now to review everything, including the report that Defence lost
relating to management of operations; but whether we learn the results
may depend on whether they offer adequate responses to the book.
In the meantime, Wayne Mapp again shows that it is possible to engage
meangingfully - unlike the government which appeared to just go into a
"bunker" mentality . . .
... meanwhile, back in the real world...
Hager didn't even ask the NZDF for their story before writing his book.
https://utopiayouarestandinginit.com/2017/03/29/response-to-my-oia-on-hitandrunnz/
Yep, didn't even bother.
Sums it up right there.
That's pathetic.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:11:42 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>appears the location of the raid and the villages is indeed slightly different to what our local sources told us"
wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 11:56:44 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:23:32 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 09:15:31 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
So said Saint Nicky on Sunday.
But yesterday:
"We have checked the NZDF maps shown at the press conference and it
rugged and road-less terrain is "slightly different"?
"Told us"? Did they not verify any basic fact before going to print?
"Slightly different"? A different village, 2km away, separated by
and unverifiable. He pushes an agenda without looking at both sides of the story, and he times his stories with the intention of executing a hit job in an
One should not believe anything Hagar says. His sources are anonymous
opportunity to follow up allegations. This book was not, a guarantee that it would receive saturation coverage, while anyone who doubted its claims would look as if they were
Roesmary McLeod, of all people in the media, gets it.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/90926475/rosemary-mcleod-the-drive-to-humiliate-the-young--and-those-who-go-to-war
"Some books are released to media in advance of publication, giving the
at a particular village in Afghanistan. For an event to be judged a war crime, civilians would need to have been deliberately targeted. We are invited to believe this of our
The accusation at the heart of the book is that a war crime was committed
yet accusations can swiftly become established truth in an internet age. The fact that the authors got the village wrong, as the Defence chief tells us, doesn't matter,
So many years later I wonder how the truth can be arrived at either way,
connected to the SAS, but why are they hiding if they are confident of the facts?
The identities of his informants are concealed. The authors say some are
Meanwhile they tarnish the reputations of those they accuse."
I don't think Rosemary McLeod has necessarily got the law quite right
there - and it may be that Wayne Mapp has not got it quite right
either in this article:
http://pundit.co.nz/content/operation-burnham
- see the first comment (there may be more by now.
Importantly, the man that called the operation a "fiasco" accepts that
there is further information to be obtained / confirmed.
So far there is a mnor detail that it appears Stephenson got slightly
wrong (whch they immediately chaecked and acknowledgeed, while the
Defence also made a similar mistake (thinking the towns were names
after the valley, which is not true either. The Defence force have not
addressed some of the more important issues arising from the
Stephenson / Hager book.
I suspect there will be an enquiry going on behind closed doors right
now to review everything, including the report that Defence lost
relating to management of operations; but whether we learn the results
may depend on whether they offer adequate responses to the book.
In the meantime, Wayne Mapp again shows that it is possible to engage
meangingfully - unlike the government which appeared to just go into a
"bunker" mentality . . .
... meanwhile, back in the real world...
Hager didn't even ask the NZDF for their story before writing his book.
https://utopiayouarestandinginit.com/2017/03/29/response-to-my-oia-on-hitandrunnz/
Yep, didn't even bother.
Sums it up right there.
Its certainly worth asking Hager and Stephenson why they didn't. It
hasn't however been a significant issue
- the only item that they got
wrong was immaterial, and also wrongly stated in a similar way by
Defence. Perhaps the court case that Stephenson had about Defence
statements had something to do with it - we do not know the agreements between the authors regarding engagement with Defence.
On 3/30/2017 12:26 PM, JohnO wrote:
That's pathetic.
At a time like this I regret the fact that we live in a country where we
have freedom of speech that allows wankers to do this without much fear
of retribution
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:11:42 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>in an
wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 11:56:44 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:23:32 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 09:15:31 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
So said Saint Nicky on Sunday.
But yesterday:
"We have checked the NZDF maps shown at the press conference and it
appears the location of the raid and the villages is indeed slightly different
to what our local sources told us"
"Told us"? Did they not verify any basic fact before going to print?
"Slightly different"? A different village, 2km away, separated by rugged >>> >>and road-less terrain is "slightly different"?
One should not believe anything Hagar says. His sources are anonymous >>> >>and unverifiable. He pushes an agenda without looking at both sides of the
story, and he times his stories with the intention of executing a hit job
That you continue to defend assholes like this is no surprise but nevertheless disappointing. I thought you might find a tiney amount of fairness within yourself, but no!election year.
Roesmary McLeod, of all people in the media, gets it.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/90926475/rosemary-mcleod-the-drive-to-humiliate-the-young--and-those-who-go-to-war
"Some books are released to media in advance of publication, giving the >>> >opportunity to follow up allegations. This book was not, a guarantee that it
would receive saturation coverage, while anyone who doubted its claims would
look as if they were trying to hide something. Hager knows how to play the >>> >media, which laps up his every utterance.
The accusation at the heart of the book is that a war crime was committed >>> >at a particular village in Afghanistan. For an event to be judged a war crime,
civilians would need to have been deliberately targeted. We are invited to >>> >believe this of our SAS, though I balk at accepting any of our elite soldiers
would deliberately murder a three-year-old girl, who was taken up as the >>> >centrepiece of the accusation.
So many years later I wonder how the truth can be arrived at either way, >>> >yet accusations can swiftly become established truth in an internet age. The
fact that the authors got the village wrong, as the Defence chief tells us,
doesn't matter, according to Hager. Really? What else might be wrong?
The identities of his informants are concealed. The authors say some are >>> >connected to the SAS, but why are they hiding if they are confident of the >>> >facts?
Meanwhile they tarnish the reputations of those they accuse."
I don't think Rosemary McLeod has necessarily got the law quite right
there - and it may be that Wayne Mapp has not got it quite right
either in this article:
http://pundit.co.nz/content/operation-burnham
- see the first comment (there may be more by now.
Importantly, the man that called the operation a "fiasco" accepts that
there is further information to be obtained / confirmed.
So far there is a mnor detail that it appears Stephenson got slightly
wrong (whch they immediately chaecked and acknowledgeed, while the
Defence also made a similar mistake (thinking the towns were names
after the valley, which is not true either. The Defence force have not
addressed some of the more important issues arising from the
Stephenson / Hager book.
I suspect there will be an enquiry going on behind closed doors right
now to review everything, including the report that Defence lost
relating to management of operations; but whether we learn the results
may depend on whether they offer adequate responses to the book.
In the meantime, Wayne Mapp again shows that it is possible to engage
meangingfully - unlike the government which appeared to just go into a
"bunker" mentality . . .
... meanwhile, back in the real world...
Hager didn't even ask the NZDF for their story before writing his book.
https://utopiayouarestandinginit.com/2017/03/29/response-to-my-oia-on-hitandrunnz/
Yep, didn't even bother.
Sums it up right there.
Its certainly worth asking Hager and Stephenson why they didn't. It
hasn't however been a significant issue - the only item that they got
wrong was immaterial, and also wrongly stated in a similar way by
Defence. Perhaps the court case that Stephenson had about Defence
statements had something to do with it - we do not know the agreements >between the authors regarding engagement with Defence.
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 12:55:33 UTC+13, george wrote:general realise that he's a disingenuous wanker and to be neither believed nor trusted in any way.
On 3/30/2017 12:26 PM, JohnO wrote:
That's pathetic.At a time like this I regret the fact that we live in a country where we
have freedom of speech that allows wankers to do this without much fear
of retribution
I don't care about retribution; it is sufficient for me that people in
Not sure if you were talking about Hager or Dickbot, but equally applicableto both.
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 12:20:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:election year.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:11:42 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 11:56:44 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:23:32 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 09:15:31 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
So said Saint Nicky on Sunday.
But yesterday:
"We have checked the NZDF maps shown at the press conference and it appears the location of the raid and the villages is indeed slightly different to what our local sources told us"
"Told us"? Did they not verify any basic fact before going to print? >> >> >>
"Slightly different"? A different village, 2km away, separated by rugged and road-less terrain is "slightly different"?
One should not believe anything Hagar says. His sources are anonymous and unverifiable. He pushes an agenda without looking at both sides of the story, and he times his stories with the intention of executing a hit job in an
trying to hide something. Hager knows how to play the media, which laps up his every utterance.
Roesmary McLeod, of all people in the media, gets it.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/90926475/rosemary-mcleod-the-drive-to-humiliate-the-young--and-those-who-go-to-war
"Some books are released to media in advance of publication, giving the opportunity to follow up allegations. This book was not, a guarantee that it would receive saturation coverage, while anyone who doubted its claims would look as if they were
SAS, though I balk at accepting any of our elite soldiers would deliberately murder a three-year-old girl, who was taken up as the centrepiece of the accusation.
The accusation at the heart of the book is that a war crime was committed at a particular village in Afghanistan. For an event to be judged a war crime, civilians would need to have been deliberately targeted. We are invited to believe this of our
yet accusations can swiftly become established truth in an internet age. The fact that the authors got the village wrong, as the Defence chief tells us, doesn't matter,
So many years later I wonder how the truth can be arrived at either way,
connected to the SAS, but why are they hiding if they are confident of the facts?
The identities of his informants are concealed. The authors say some are
their story first, and it is not a significant issue???
Meanwhile they tarnish the reputations of those they accuse."
I don't think Rosemary McLeod has necessarily got the law quite right
there - and it may be that Wayne Mapp has not got it quite right
either in this article:
http://pundit.co.nz/content/operation-burnham
- see the first comment (there may be more by now.
Importantly, the man that called the operation a "fiasco" accepts that
there is further information to be obtained / confirmed.
So far there is a mnor detail that it appears Stephenson got slightly
wrong (whch they immediately chaecked and acknowledgeed, while the
Defence also made a similar mistake (thinking the towns were names
after the valley, which is not true either. The Defence force have not
addressed some of the more important issues arising from the
Stephenson / Hager book.
I suspect there will be an enquiry going on behind closed doors right
now to review everything, including the report that Defence lost
relating to management of operations; but whether we learn the results
may depend on whether they offer adequate responses to the book.
In the meantime, Wayne Mapp again shows that it is possible to engage
meangingfully - unlike the government which appeared to just go into a
"bunker" mentality . . .
... meanwhile, back in the real world...
Hager didn't even ask the NZDF for their story before writing his book.
https://utopiayouarestandinginit.com/2017/03/29/response-to-my-oia-on-hitandrunnz/
Yep, didn't even bother.
Sums it up right there.
Its certainly worth asking Hager and Stephenson why they didn't. It
hasn't however been a significant issue
Say what? He has impugned the character of our finest soldiers, without asking
- the only item that they got
wrong was immaterial, and also wrongly stated in a similar way by
How do you know that is the only item they got wrong? We only have their word and hearsay for the rest of the dreadful allegations they have thrown at our brave soldiers.
Defence. Perhaps the court case that Stephenson had about Defence
statements had something to do with it - we do not know the agreements
between the authors regarding engagement with Defence.
That's pathetic.
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 12:20:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:and road-less terrain is "slightly different"?
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:11:42 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 11:56:44 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:23:32 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 09:15:31 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
So said Saint Nicky on Sunday.
But yesterday:
"We have checked the NZDF maps shown at the press conference and it appears the location of the raid and the villages is indeed slightly different to what our local sources told us"
"Told us"? Did they not verify any basic fact before going to print? >>>>>>
"Slightly different"? A different village, 2km away, separated by rugged
election year.
One should not believe anything Hagar says. His sources are anonymous and unverifiable. He pushes an agenda without looking at both sides of the story, and he times his stories with the intention of executing a hit job in an
trying to hide something. Hager knows how to play the media, which laps up his every utterance.
Roesmary McLeod, of all people in the media, gets it.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/90926475/rosemary-mcleod-the-drive-to-humiliate-the-young--and-those-who-go-to-war
"Some books are released to media in advance of publication, giving the opportunity to follow up allegations. This book was not, a guarantee that it would receive saturation coverage, while anyone who doubted its claims would look as if they were
at a particular village in Afghanistan. For an event to be judged a war crime, civilians would need to have been deliberately targeted. We are invited to believe this of our
The accusation at the heart of the book is that a war crime was committed
according to Hager. Really? What else might be wrong?
So many years later I wonder how the truth can be arrived at either way, yet accusations can swiftly become established truth in an internet age. The fact that the authors got the village wrong, as the Defence chief tells us, doesn't matter,
asking their story first, and it is not a significant issue???
The identities of his informants are concealed. The authors say some are connected to the SAS, but why are they hiding if they are confident of the facts?
Meanwhile they tarnish the reputations of those they accuse."
I don't think Rosemary McLeod has necessarily got the law quite right
there - and it may be that Wayne Mapp has not got it quite right
either in this article:
http://pundit.co.nz/content/operation-burnham
- see the first comment (there may be more by now.
Importantly, the man that called the operation a "fiasco" accepts that >>>> there is further information to be obtained / confirmed.
So far there is a mnor detail that it appears Stephenson got slightly
wrong (whch they immediately chaecked and acknowledgeed, while the
Defence also made a similar mistake (thinking the towns were names
after the valley, which is not true either. The Defence force have not >>>> addressed some of the more important issues arising from the
Stephenson / Hager book.
I suspect there will be an enquiry going on behind closed doors right
now to review everything, including the report that Defence lost
relating to management of operations; but whether we learn the results >>>> may depend on whether they offer adequate responses to the book.
In the meantime, Wayne Mapp again shows that it is possible to engage
meangingfully - unlike the government which appeared to just go into a >>>> "bunker" mentality . . .
... meanwhile, back in the real world...
Hager didn't even ask the NZDF for their story before writing his book.
https://utopiayouarestandinginit.com/2017/03/29/response-to-my-oia-on-hitandrunnz/
Yep, didn't even bother.
Sums it up right there.
Its certainly worth asking Hager and Stephenson why they didn't. It
hasn't however been a significant issue
Say what? He has impugned the character of our finest soldiers, without
and hearsay for the rest of the dreadful allegations they have thrown at our brave soldiers.- the only item that they got
wrong was immaterial, and also wrongly stated in a similar way by
How do you know that is the only item they got wrong? We only have their word
Defence. Perhaps the court case that Stephenson had about Defence
statements had something to do with it - we do not know the agreements
between the authors regarding engagement with Defence.
That's pathetic.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:26:59 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>election year.
wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 12:20:21 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:11:42 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 11:56:44 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:23:32 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 09:15:31 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
So said Saint Nicky on Sunday.
But yesterday:
"We have checked the NZDF maps shown at the press conference and it appears the location of the raid and the villages is indeed slightly different to what our local sources told us"
"Told us"? Did they not verify any basic fact before going to print? >>>>>>>
"Slightly different"? A different village, 2km away, separated by rugged and road-less terrain is "slightly different"?
One should not believe anything Hagar says. His sources are anonymous and unverifiable. He pushes an agenda without looking at both sides of the story, and he times his stories with the intention of executing a hit job in an
trying to hide something. Hager knows how to play the media, which laps up his every utterance.
Roesmary McLeod, of all people in the media, gets it.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/90926475/rosemary-mcleod-the-drive-to-humiliate-the-young--and-those-who-go-to-war
"Some books are released to media in advance of publication, giving the opportunity to follow up allegations. This book was not, a guarantee that it would receive saturation coverage, while anyone who doubted its claims would look as if they were
SAS, though I balk at accepting any of our elite soldiers would deliberately murder a three-year-old girl, who was taken up as the centrepiece of the accusation.
The accusation at the heart of the book is that a war crime was committed at a particular village in Afghanistan. For an event to be judged a war crime, civilians would need to have been deliberately targeted. We are invited to believe this of our
yet accusations can swiftly become established truth in an internet age. The fact that the authors got the village wrong, as the Defence chief tells us, doesn't matter,
So many years later I wonder how the truth can be arrived at either way,
connected to the SAS, but why are they hiding if they are confident of the facts?
The identities of his informants are concealed. The authors say some are
Meanwhile they tarnish the reputations of those they accuse."
I don't think Rosemary McLeod has necessarily got the law quite right >>>>> there - and it may be that Wayne Mapp has not got it quite right
either in this article:
http://pundit.co.nz/content/operation-burnham
- see the first comment (there may be more by now.
Importantly, the man that called the operation a "fiasco" accepts that >>>>> there is further information to be obtained / confirmed.
So far there is a mnor detail that it appears Stephenson got slightly >>>>> wrong (whch they immediately chaecked and acknowledgeed, while the
Defence also made a similar mistake (thinking the towns were names
after the valley, which is not true either. The Defence force have not >>>>> addressed some of the more important issues arising from the
Stephenson / Hager book.
I suspect there will be an enquiry going on behind closed doors right >>>>> now to review everything, including the report that Defence lost
relating to management of operations; but whether we learn the results >>>>> may depend on whether they offer adequate responses to the book.
In the meantime, Wayne Mapp again shows that it is possible to engage >>>>> meangingfully - unlike the government which appeared to just go into a >>>>> "bunker" mentality . . .
... meanwhile, back in the real world...
Hager didn't even ask the NZDF for their story before writing his book. >>>>
https://utopiayouarestandinginit.com/2017/03/29/response-to-my-oia-on-hitandrunnz/
Yep, didn't even bother.
Sums it up right there.
Its certainly worth asking Hager and Stephenson why they didn't. It
hasn't however been a significant issue
Say what? He has impugned the character of our finest soldiers, without asking their story first, and it is not a significant issue???
I do think Hager and Stephenson should be asked why they didn't seek
comment from Defence before publication - what more can be done at
this stage?
- the only item that they got
wrong was immaterial, and also wrongly stated in a similar way by
How do you know that is the only item they got wrong? We only have their word and hearsay for the rest of the dreadful allegations they have thrown at our brave soldiers.
Nobody has found anything - including Defence, who have now had the
book for long enough
Defence. Perhaps the court case that Stephenson had about Defence
statements had something to do with it - we do not know the agreements
between the authors regarding engagement with Defence.
That's pathetic.
Trust is an issue that once lost does affect relationships - what is
pathetic is your not understanding that.
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:11:42 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>unverifiable. He pushes an agenda without looking at both sides of the story, and he times his stories with the intention of executing a hit job in an election year.
wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 11:56:44 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:23:32 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2017 09:15:31 UTC+13, JohnO wrote:
So said Saint Nicky on Sunday.
But yesterday:
"We have checked the NZDF maps shown at the press conference and it appears the location of the raid and the villages is indeed slightly different to what our local sources told us"
"Told us"? Did they not verify any basic fact before going to print? >>>>>
"Slightly different"? A different village, 2km away, separated by rugged and road-less terrain is "slightly different"?
One should not believe anything Hagar says. His sources are anonymous and
trying to hide something. Hager knows how to play the media, which laps up his every utterance.
Roesmary McLeod, of all people in the media, gets it.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/90926475/rosemary-mcleod-the-drive-to-humiliate-the-young--and-those-who-go-to-war
"Some books are released to media in advance of publication, giving the opportunity to follow up allegations. This book was not, a guarantee that it would receive saturation coverage, while anyone who doubted its claims would look as if they were
SAS, though I balk at accepting any of our elite soldiers would deliberately murder a three-year-old girl, who was taken up as the centrepiece of the accusation.
The accusation at the heart of the book is that a war crime was committed at a particular village in Afghanistan. For an event to be judged a war crime, civilians would need to have been deliberately targeted. We are invited to believe this of our
according to Hager. Really? What else might be wrong?
So many years later I wonder how the truth can be arrived at either way, yet accusations can swiftly become established truth in an internet age. The fact that the authors got the village wrong, as the Defence chief tells us, doesn't matter,
The identities of his informants are concealed. The authors say some are connected to the SAS, but why are they hiding if they are confident of the facts?
Meanwhile they tarnish the reputations of those they accuse."
I don't think Rosemary McLeod has necessarily got the law quite right
there - and it may be that Wayne Mapp has not got it quite right
either in this article:
http://pundit.co.nz/content/operation-burnham
- see the first comment (there may be more by now.
Importantly, the man that called the operation a "fiasco" accepts that
there is further information to be obtained / confirmed.
So far there is a mnor detail that it appears Stephenson got slightly
wrong (whch they immediately chaecked and acknowledgeed, while the
Defence also made a similar mistake (thinking the towns were names
after the valley, which is not true either. The Defence force have not
addressed some of the more important issues arising from the
Stephenson / Hager book.
I suspect there will be an enquiry going on behind closed doors right
now to review everything, including the report that Defence lost
relating to management of operations; but whether we learn the results
may depend on whether they offer adequate responses to the book.
In the meantime, Wayne Mapp again shows that it is possible to engage
meangingfully - unlike the government which appeared to just go into a
"bunker" mentality . . .
... meanwhile, back in the real world...
Hager didn't even ask the NZDF for their story before writing his book.
https://utopiayouarestandinginit.com/2017/03/29/response-to-my-oia-on-hitandrunnz/
Yep, didn't even bother.
Sums it up right there.
Its certainly worth asking Hager and Stephenson why they didn't. It
hasn't however been a significant issue - the only item that they got
wrong was immaterial, and also wrongly stated in a similar way by
Defence. Perhaps the court case that Stephenson had about Defence
statements had something to do with it - we do not know the agreements between the authors regarding engagement with Defence.
So said Saint Nicky on Sunday.the location of the raid and the villages is indeed slightly different to what our local sources told us"
But yesterday:
"We have checked the NZDF maps shown at the press conference and it appears
"Told us"? Did they not verify any basic fact before going to print?road-less terrain is "slightly different"?
"Slightly different"? A different village, 2km away, separated by rugged and
One should not believe anything Hagar says. His sources are anonymous andunverifiable. He pushes an agenda without looking at both sides of the story, and he times his stories with the intention of executing a hit job in an election year.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 17:32:01 |
| Calls: | 2,095 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 11,142 |
| Messages: | 949,473 |