SAS soldier quits Army in disgust at 'illegal' American tactics in Iraq

I don't know what this guys intentions are by making these very public claims and statements.

I did have the honor and privilege to serve (very briefly) with some SAS fellows overseas for a short operation. They were exceptionally professional, sharp, and above all....low key. Unlike the SEALs who were a bit smug and too self-assured, the SAS guys were quiet and serious, while on the job.

I question the intentions and motives of any SAS member who comes out in a manner like this, which seems self-promoting. It goes against everything I have personally witnessed regarding these men, and the fraternal way in which they conducted themselves. Going "public" would seem to go against their own internal code, it seems to me.

Originally posted by Last soldier of liberty
If this man was in the SAS then it would be serious. These people are dedicated soldiers known for professionalism who are trusted to carry out politically sensitive operations with discretion.
However they are naturally secretive and reticent in talking about certain operational matters.
And they are targets themselves so I find his disclosure of details about himself to be at odds with that.
I would need to see positive confirmation about him before accepting it.

Like chris Ryan suggesting that Bravo 2 zero ( a highly trained 8 man team of SAS soldiers) did not need sleeping bags even though it was in the middle of the iraqi winter nor the need for transport despite being 200 miles from the nearest friendly forces. Yeah sure, I see this guy as another wannabe hero making his money.

Originally posted by yanchek
Why dont you read an article carefully for a change?

Snotty

He can have a great service record right up until he disobeys
orders and goes AWOL while making outrageous claims and
having no proof to back them up.

I still say he got scared, ran, and is using the alleged 'illegal stuff'
as an excuse while enjoying his 15 minutes of fame and perhaps
some extra $$$ to boot.


[edit on 3/13/2006 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Well im still missing this proof of this shoot first policy you said to look for in your links.

You can quote it and put it in bold and everything if you know where it is.

Or are you just speculating on what happened?

Let's use some common sense.

Here are our possibilities:

A) The soldiers did find out whether or not the ambulance contained hostiles, and then loaded it up anyway.

B) The soldiers did not find out whether or not the ambulance contained hostiles, and loaded it up anyway.

It's obvious from the article that the men were in need of medical help beforehand and were being transported to a medical facility for treatment.

So out of A or B, which is it?

Originally posted by FlyersFan

I still say he got scared, ran, and is using the alleged 'illegal stuff'
as an excuse while enjoying his 15 minutes of fame and perhaps
some extra $$$ to boot.


[edit on 3/13/2006 by FlyersFan]

You're obviously VERY ignorant of what type of branch the SAS is.
Read something on the SAS and then come back. Snotty

Originally posted by bsbray11


Let's use some common sense.

Here are our possibilities:

A) The soldiers did find out whether or not the ambulance contained hostiles, and then loaded it up anyway.

B) The soldiers did not find out whether or not the ambulance contained hostiles, and loaded it up anyway.

It's obvious from the article that the men were in need of medical help beforehand and were being transported to a medical facility for treatment.

So out of A or B, which is it?

Or

C) The ambulance indeed contained hostiles

or

D) someone brandished what looked like a weapon

or any other of number other possibilities

But I guess we should take your word on went down from a few "alleged"
pictures of a event you were on the other side of the world during. Clearly you have already made up your mind without possibly knowning all the facts of the event.






[edit on 13-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

Can you prove these werent fired on by accident if they really have civilians in them? Its pretty clear they were using ambulances to fight from so they could have seen these as a threat if they came speeding towards them.

Ok so what's your point then? What are you trying to get at here? Do you think that this is just one isolated incident? No matter which angle you look at this situation, it is still wrong.

Two wounded patients who were being transferred to an other hospital, when their ambulance allegedly came under attack from U.S. tanks.

If this is indeed the case, then I am just so much more disguisted with the actions of these troops. They were in TANKS, meaning they were at least to a certain degree well protected. This speaks volumes, if not for you, at least for me.

[edit on 13-3-2006 by Liquidus]

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
You're obviously VERY ignorant of what type of branch the SAS is.
Read something on the SAS and then come back. Snotty

Chris ryan?
Andy McNab?
Those two didnt set a good picture for the regiment now did they?
Nor am I inclined to think that they are in anyway looked on as "heros" at hereford.

Originally posted by Liquidus


If this is indeed the case, then I am just so much more disguisted with the actions of these troops. They were in TANKS, meaning they were at least to a certain degree well protected. This speaks volumes, if not for you, at least for me.

Hardly theres some evidence that Ambulances have been used as bombs as well and a MBT aint too well protected from a truck bomb.

At least two of the morning rush-hour explosions appeared to have been suicide bombings, one apparently using a vehicle marked as an Iraqi ambulance.

The first blast went off about 8.30am at the Red Cross building. "I saw an ambulance coming very fast towards the barrier and it exploded," a guard said.

Iraqi police said explosives may have been packed inside an ambulance or a vehicle made to look like an ambulance.

link

link

In the eyes of this SAS soldier, this must be a "Splendid little war".

War has no rules, get a grip people, War is hell, war is everything that we don't want. Especially this war. All wars are inhumane, and things that are inhumane WILL happen, it's not a cup-of-tea.

Get a grip people, just because it's an SAS soldier saying it, doesn't make it any more special than if you're everyday army grunt said it.

This only shows that this Soldier expects war to be perfect, that wars should be fought by rules, well look at the enemy, the enemy isn't playing by the rules, and they're winning, they're freaking winning. Everyday men get torn up, shot at, and killed because the enemy isn't playing by the rules, why should we?

War was not meant to be played by the rules, it's whether you chose to or not.

And I for one, chose to when it's an option.

Also, what "illegal" acts have been committed? Interesting how he says this is going on yet hasn't told us WHAT has been going on exactly.

Shattered OUT...

I'll bet it's more than the white phosphorus (dual use--all the better to get away with its use). No, war has rules and we'd better play be them; ask John McCain. Deja vue VietNam.
Remember, this "war" was asymetrical--way asymetrical! And elective. So mixed messages abound. Peacekeepers or soldiers?
Also, most recruits need to be trained to kill, as killing is against human nature. One way to break down this barrier to killing for the soldier is to classify the enemy as less than you. Hence, all the names we give our enemy (no matter what war)
Deja vue again. This is turning into a civil war, and look what they're resorting to--wounding the enemy with ieds, not killing but wounding, like the homemade landmines and traps of VietNam.
Hey, George did say "Bring it on!"

This guy is not the first to make this point and won't be the last.

Senior UK generals have criticised the US attitude and tactics, Col Collins has described 'strange' US attitudes being voiced even before the invasion started.

There was a USMC colonel on BBC R4 about 6 months after the invasion who admitted that being trained by the IDF and sucking up their 'fire-first' approach had been very wrong and would contribute to many more problems in the future.

etc etc

Trooper Griffin is very brave (and correct) to speak out - interestingly they don't confirm which SAS Regt he was in but either way he's a trained soldier with extensive combat experience.

We all know what he's saying is true, whether it's operational incompetence or a gung-ho unrealistic attitude passed down from on high, we've seen the US army shelling hotels, shooting at ambulances, sniping at cameramen etc etc.

Such tactics can only alienate an invaded population and while they may produce bodycount headlines they make not positive contribution to achieving the aims of the operation.

Vietnam Part II ??

Same result likely ??

One things for certain the British Army as a whole is now much less willing to fight with the US and Labour's stated aim of us working increasingly with the US is now in serious doubt.

Originally posted by Strangerous
This guy is not the first to make this point and won't be the last.

Senior UK generals have criticised the US attitude and tactics, Col Collins has described 'strange' US attitudes being voiced even before the invasion started.

O I guess the British can do a far better job eh? If I remember correctly, a couple a nice British soldiers were beating up a couple of kids. That sure tells us Americans how to win the hearts and minds the British way.

Greetings Fellow Believers,

Comparing this "war on terrorism" to Vietnam? I think it best to get the opinions of Vietnam veterans and post them on ATS. Otherwise this "Vietnam revisited" theme will bring bile up to the back of my throat.


Soldiers who view the enemy as "less than them" are not only poor soldiers, but possible candidates for the annual Darwin Awards. Lose respect for the cleverness of the enemy will get soldiers killed.

Many of these terrorists lurking in districts patrolled by soldiers are desperate zealots willing to do ANYTHING to hurt the soldiers. Never underestimate an enemy.

Not the same thing and you know it.

You'll notice British troops breaking the rules get prosecuted unlike USAF, USANG, US Army who've killed hundreds of friendlies/innocents and been rotated away from any legal process / never had to answer for their mistakes.

No-one's perfect, bad things happen but AFAIK we don't shoot our allies, regard all Iraqis as insurgents or have a fundamentalist christian element within our forces.

I appreciate you guys are starved of objective views / subject to a biased and partisan media environment but you really should be starting to question what's being done in your name.

[edit on 14-3-2006 by Strangerous]

Originally posted by Strangerous
Not the same thing and you know it.

Not the same thing? O really?

You'll notice British troops breaking the rules get prosecuted unlike USAF, USANG, US Army who've killed hundreds of friendlies/innocents and been rotated away from any legal process / never had to answer for their mistakes.

Do you need to be inform of American servicemen and women who are being tried for the atrocities being committed? I can bring up a list you know.

No-one's perfect, bad things happen but AFAIK we don't shoot our allies, regard all Iraqis as insurgents or have a fundamentalist christian element within our forces.

No ones perfect. Well it seems to me that you are finally reaching an understanding of America's point of view how we fight and that we should not be so criticized.

Originally posted by deltaboy
O I guess the British can do a far better job eh? If I remember correctly, a couple a nice British soldiers were beating up a couple of kids. That sure tells us Americans how to win the hearts and minds the British way.

With respect delta that was uncalled for, as many if not all brits on this board agree this guy is talking out of his stern.

I for one dont want to drag out skeletons, do you?

Originally posted by Strangerous
No-one's perfect, bad things happen but AFAIK we don't shoot our allies, regard all Iraqis as insurgents or have a fundamentalist christian element within our forces.
[edit on 14-3-2006 by Strangerous]

Bringing up B on B? How about talking about british RAF jets accidentally hitting crowds in GW1?

Or the only challanger tank to taken out....

Are we obsessed with dragging skeletons?

Col Collins also held the majority of americans in good spirits, he had a bad incident with a unit of US marines but if you read on it the 2IC of the american unit was actually helpful only the CO was the arse. Also about this SAS soldier speaking out , if the situation is so bad then why is he not doing anything to stop it? He is within his rights to as a military soldier and ambassador of her majesty.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

'We' refers to us - not you!

We have a perfect understanding of how America fights wars and its blase attitude to civilians and other targets.

US jets kill skiers in Italy (while trying to fly under cable car cables)

US jets kill civilians in Kosovo (mistake a tractor for an AFV and blame issued amphetamines)

US jets kill UK troops in GW1

US jets attack press convoy in Kurd area in GW2

US troops kill Bulgarian troops in clearly-marked vehicles in GW2

US troops kill farmers in field with Apache in GW2

Civilians in 'free-fire zones' in Vietnam used for target practice

etc etc etc

Trooper Griffin is just the latest in a long line of people who have been disgusted by the way you treat civilians with contempt and allow your troops to shoot at anything and everything on the off-chance it's hostile - rather than do some proper soldiering and try to improve the situation.

Random firepower is rarely the answer - given the amount of wars you fight the US really should have learnt this by now

DV I know what you're saying - I was refering to his comments on Parky. The US forces were talking about 'wasting' Iraqis etc whereas Collins was under the impression we were going there to liberate them.

On the blue-on-blue yes mistakes do happen but the US military has a long record of inappropriate application of firepower against low/non threat targets. IMO it's indicative of a disregard for anyone in the way and comes from senior levels in their forces/political heirachy.

Ultimately it's the average grunt who suffers, he follows orders and either dies for nothing (Vietnam) or ends up doing things that will (or should) haunt him for the rest of his life.

Originally posted by Strangerous
'We' refers to us - not you!

We have a perfect understanding of how America fights wars and its blase attitude to civilians and other targets.

Oh do "we"?

US jets kill civilians in Kosovo (mistake a tractor for an AFV and blame issued amphetamines)

UK jets drop 1000 pound on iraqi civilians in gulf war 1.

US jets kill UK troops in GW1

UK SAS soldiers fire on and kill an SBS marine in falkirks due to the SAS operating in the wrong area, later on SBS soldier almost kills an SAS soldier during drinks after both units are placed on the same ship.

US jets attack press convoy in Kurd area in GW2

UK british army tanks open fire and destroy another british army tank.

US troops kill Bulgarian troops in clearly-marked vehicles in GW2

UK troops beat young children after hand grenade is thrown at them. GW2

US troops kill farmers in field with Apache in GW2

UK Troops abuse prisnor in iraq with forklift truck in GW2

Civilians in 'free-fire zones' in Vietnam used for target practice

etc etc etc

Bloody sunday?

Trooper Griffin is just the latest in a long line of people who have been disgusted by the way you treat civilians with contempt and allow your troops to shoot at anything and everything on the off-chance it's hostile - rather than do some proper soldiering and try to improve the situation.

Yet he done nothing to stop it himself?

Random firepower is rarely the answer - given the amount of wars you fight the US really should have learnt this by now

Given the ammount of wars BRITAIN has fought you'd think we would have learned how to keep our troops from breaking the law....

Originally posted by Strangerous
DV I know what you're saying - I was refering to his comments on Parky. The US forces were talking about 'wasting' Iraqis etc whereas Collins was under the impression we were going there to liberate them.

So the entire US task force went there to "waste em" as you put it....over sveral THOUSAND men and women went there specifically to "waste em"...right...

On the blue-on-blue yes mistakes do happen but the US military has a long record of inappropriate application of firepower against low/non threat targets. IMO it's indicative of a disregard for anyone in the way and comes from senior levels in their forces/political heirachy.

And you dont call sending paratroopers against civilians an innapropriate application of firepower?
IMO mistakes happen, I cant tell if someone is an iraqi at 500 yards but if he's carrying a weapon in a place he shouldnt be I would be inclined to be worried about him.

Ultimately it's the average grunt who suffers, he follows orders and either dies for nothing (Vietnam) or ends up doing things that will (or should) haunt him for the rest of his life.

OR he/she could just try and do his/her job in what ever way they think is right, isnt that all that we would expect of them? To do thier job as THEY think they should.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]