Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >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.

It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in

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

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

He's just throwing dung at our bravest soldiers. Best to ignore him.

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>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.

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

On 4/5/2017 11:39 AM, JohnO wrote:

Snipped for the readers sake

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

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>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.

It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish in

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

journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should be

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.

Put up or shut up I say!
Tony

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 05:25:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

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.

- 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, not just when we are forced to by others.

Put up or shut up I say!
Tony

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:50:14 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 05:25:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

It might make sense if it wasn't rabidly political. It is also childish

attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry on

death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap

journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there should

inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent - there

precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself

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

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."

They are activists. They only look at the one side of the story that

What rubbish - show any evidence of this unwarranted slur.

- 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, not just when we are forced to by others.

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
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8rITobVwAAEQOI.jpg

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 10:24:38 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:50:14 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 05:25:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

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

precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself

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

Of course they did. They had comments from an SAS soldier who was

Hearsay, and unattributed. Worthless.

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.

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."

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.

- 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, not just when we are forced to by others.

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
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8rITobVwAAEQOI.jpg

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:51:34 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 10:24:38 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:50:14 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 05:25:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >> >> dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

that (a) very few people care about this issue and (b) very few

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

anyway. In 2014, the government pursued the same strategy with

to Hager’s last book Dirty Politics. That is, claim repeatedly that

is fake news, rely heavily on public indifference and treat anyone

thinks otherwise as politically expendable. If they’re dead

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

attempt to play on the emotions.
The two are not mutually exclusive and a decision to have an enquiry

death of a dog has nothing to do with the Hager nonsense. What a cheap

journalism - where have the real journalists gone? Whether there

inquiry into the accusations made by Hager and co is independent -

precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in

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

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!

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

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.

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."

They are activists. They only look at the one side of the story that

What rubbish - show any evidence of this unwarranted slur.

Already shown you fucking dimwit. OIA previously cited: The NZDF received no

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?

- 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, not just when we are forced to by others.

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
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 . . .

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 13:03:47 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:51:34 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 10:24:38 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:50:14 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 05:25:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >> >> >> dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

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

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!

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.

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."

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

- 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.

- 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, not just when we are forced to by others.

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
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.

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:15:20 +1200, george152 <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:

On 4/5/2017 11:39 AM, JohnO wrote:


Snipped for the readers sake

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?

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

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

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.

Put up or shut up I say!
Tony

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 18:45:42 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 13:03:47 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:51:34 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 10:24:38 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:50:14 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 05:25:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>> dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

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

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!

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.

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?

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."

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?

- 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.

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?

- 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, not just when we are forced to by others.

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
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?

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.

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:51:34 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 10:24:38 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:50:14 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Thursday, 6 April 2017 05:25:29 UTC+12, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 18:35:12 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>> dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

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

precious littlle evidence presented - just an accusation which in itself

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!

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

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.

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."

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

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?

- 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, not just when we are forced to by others.

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
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 . . .