Page 5 of 5 First ... 2345
Results 101 to 116 of 116

  1. Post
    sas operatives seem to be a bit talkative

  2. Post
    lol.


    will be interesting to hear the hager camp's reaction.

  3. Post
    4wd wrote:
    lol.


    will be interesting to hear the hager camp's reaction.
    Their reaction is in the article :/

    Nicky_Hager wrote:
    We are shocked that the NZDF believes this is a legitimate reply
    to the serious and tragic revelations in the book. It looks like nothing
    more than people trying to evade responsibility and reinforces the need
    for a full and independent inquiry.

  4. Post
    no, that's hager's reaction.

    the hager camp is the anti-establishment fanbois around here. the ones who blame national for everything they don't agree with.

  5. Post
    Can't take Hager seriously when this vital information he provides only comes in purchasable book format.

  6. Post
    yeah im gonna buy a book to keep not caring, ha!

  7. Post
    Tormenta wrote:
    This ISAF didn't even mention NZ in its reporting so they're not exactly filling me with confidence.
    ...and the penny drops.

  8. Post
    Groowee wrote:
    sas operatives seem to be a bit talkative
    I've got a friend who was in 22 SAS in the late 70's - early 90's and he never shuts up about the stuff they did. I think it was just such a big part of his life that he doesn't really know what else to make conversation about now.

  9. Post
    theradio wrote:
    I've got a friend who was in 22 SAS in the late 70's - early 90's and he never shuts up about the stuff they did. I think it was just such a big part of his life that he doesn't really know what else to make conversation about now.
    My old mans friend was SAS in Vietnam. Only thing I ever heard him say about it was that 5.56 rifles were crap and the americans were always jealous of the kiwis SLRs for 'tree penetration'.

  10. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    Sounds a bit odd, serving SAS don't usually talk. Same goes with non-serving.
    Maybe they don't make public statements but it's not a big deal for serving members to talk about it if someone is interested. A friend of mine's husband is in an operational SAS squadron and he's not bothered about it. He's not an officer though so his access to grand national intelligence is probably limited. He probably wouldn't talk about something if he was specifically told not to but it's not a complete blanket of secrecy.

    What would he even say that could cause a problem?

  11. Post
    Hager is not so definite now after the news conference, he has dropped the war crimes allegation and now it seems he is back tracking on the location

    "Even if they were right that the location of the attack was a couple of kilometres from where we wrote [it was] - which I think they are wrong about - it's not the central premise of the book. All the important parts, about the people that were hurt, the motives of going there and the blowing up of buildings...all completely stand. This feels to me very much like a diversion."

  12. Post
    Toolman wrote:
    Hager is not so definite now after the news conference, he has dropped the war crimes allegation and now it seems he is back tracking on the location

    "Even if they were right that the location of the attack was a couple of kilometres from where we wrote [it was] - which I think they are wrong about - it's not the central premise of the book. All the important parts, about the people that were hurt, the motives of going there and the blowing up of buildings...all completely stand. This feels to me very much like a diversion."
    That's a very unusual way to read that quote, let alone the interview in context.

  13. Post
    Faraday wrote:
    That's a very unusual way to read that quote, let alone the interview in context.
    not really if you had read what he was saying before the conference , he was so definite the defense force was lying and were just trying to cover it up , now he is saying it doesnt matter if he got the villages wrong the rest of what he said stands

  14. Post
    Necro'd this because --- Oops --- https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/...s-on-key-claim
    One of the authors of Hit & Run has backtracked from a key claim in the book, revealing he now believes armed insurgents were in a village attacked by New Zealand elite soldiers.
    I never really thought the NZ Defence force were really bad. This new information may prove that.

  15. Post
    Yeah rest that in stuff. Two insurgents confirmed they were in the village that night. Contrary to the civilians accounts.

  16. Post
    Explains why the villagers and their scumbag lawyers took their ball home earlier in the week.