Good old tradition of racism

lastmuffininbrussels

lastmuffininbrussels

Joined
3 Sep 2008
Messages
6,657
Reaction score
844
Location
Stroud
Country
United Kingdom
www.bbc.co.uk

Special forces blocked UK resettlement applications from elite Afghan troops

Leaked documents show that UK Special Forces had veto power over applications from Afghan counterparts.
www.bbc.co.uk

IMG_6143.png
 
so what bit of it is racist have you read why they think they have been excluded those reasons have nothing to do with race colour or creed but what they may have witnessed which has no bearing on race
 
lastmuffininbrussels said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Special forces blocked UK resettlement applications from elite Afghan troops

Leaked documents show that UK Special Forces had veto power over applications from Afghan counterparts.
www.bbc.co.uk

View attachment 333518
Click to expand...


I think this is shocking if these men served along side our men.
Yet we let murderers and Rapist remain in this country.

I did read the article but couldn't find the reason as to why they were rejected!.

Can you post the relevant excuses please.
 
Bod ... said:
I think this is shocking if these men served along side our men.
Yet we let murderers and Rapist remain in this country.

I did read the article but couldn't find the reason as to why they were rejected!.

Can you post the relevant excuses please.
Click to expand...
It's a difficult 1 to have an overall view on yet. But its mostly around allowing or denying people access who might be able to incriminate some. Right or wrong is for individuals to decide. This out.lines it a bit

The veto gave special forces decision-making power over applications at a time when a public inquiry in the UK was investigating allegations that SAS soldiers had committed war crimes on operations in Afghanistan where the Triples units were present.
The public inquiry has the power to compel witnesses who are in the UK, but not non-UK nationals who are overseas. If the Afghan Special Forces members were in the UK they could be asked to provide potentially significant evidence.
"It's a clear conflict of interest," said one former UK Special Forces officer.
 
carmanmemoranda said:
It's a difficult 1 to have an overall view on yet. But its mostly around allowing or denying people access who might be able to incriminate some. Right or wrong is for individuals to decide. This out.lines it a bit

The veto gave special forces decision-making power over applications at a time when a public inquiry in the UK was investigating allegations that SAS soldiers had committed war crimes on operations in Afghanistan where the Triples units were present.
The public inquiry has the power to compel witnesses who are in the UK, but not non-UK nationals who are overseas. If the Afghan Special Forces members were in the UK they could be asked to provide potentially significant evidence.
"It's a clear conflict of interest," said one former UK Special Forces officer.
Click to expand...

It is a conflict of interest and a decision that should be made by those where there is no conflict. However from what you have described its not racism, as brushless sprout said.
 
Bod ... said:
It is a conflict of interest and a decision that should be made by those where there is no conflict. However from what you have described its not racism, as brushless sprout said.
Click to expand...
You're pretty close I think.

But I haven't ruled out racism yet. If it was definitely self preservation, that's 1 thing (right or wrong), but if it was "say no to all of them" then there may be a case.

What does seem to need answering is what certain troops are told, led to believe, and be able to do on operations seems different to what the law allows
 
I can't wait until we get ourselves some of those battle-hardened, shell-shocked ex Afghan soldiers on these shores. I'm sure they will make a valuable contribution to The UK, not be a drain on our resources and retrain to become the professionals, nurses, etc, etc that we are crying out for. Come one, come all!

:rolleyes:

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 
It's an actual military 'thing'.The ones they didn't veto didn't get the nod 'cos our boys thought they were 'good guys'. They got the nod because they could be trusted to have the team's back in combat.
 
carmanmemoranda said:
You're pretty close I think.

But I haven't ruled out racism yet. If it was definitely self preservation, that's 1 thing (right or wrong), but if it was "say no to all of them" then there may be a case.

What does seem to need answering is what certain troops are told, led to believe, and be able to do on operations seems different to what the law allows
Click to expand...
That’s right traitor back stabbing British military personnel. I smell a rat as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top