Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"actually impossible that the story is wrong"
9 views
Skip to first unread message
JohnO
Mar 29, 2017, 4:15:31 PM3/29/17
to
So said Saint Nicky on Sunday.
But yesterday:
"We have checked the NZDF maps shown at the press conference and it appears the location of the raid and the villages is indeed slightly different to what our local sources told us"
"Told us"? Did they not verify any basic fact before going to print?
"Slightly different"? A different village, 2km away, separated by rugged and road-less terrain is "slightly different"?
One should not believe anything Hagar says. His sources are anonymous and unverifiable. He pushes an agenda without looking at both sides of the story, and he times his stories with the intention of executing a hit job in an election year.
But yesterday:
"We have checked the NZDF maps shown at the press conference and it appears the location of the raid and the villages is indeed slightly different to what our local sources told us"
"Told us"? Did they not verify any basic fact before going to print?
"Slightly different"? A different village, 2km away, separated by rugged and road-less terrain is "slightly different"?
One should not believe anything Hagar says. His sources are anonymous and unverifiable. He pushes an agenda without looking at both sides of the story, and he times his stories with the intention of executing a hit job in an election year.
JohnO
Mar 29, 2017, 5:23:33 PM3/29/17
to
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/90926475/rosemary-mcleod-the-drive-to-humiliate-the-young--and-those-who-go-to-war
"Some books are released to media in advance of publication, giving the opportunity to follow up allegations. This book was not, a guarantee that it would receive saturation coverage, while anyone who doubted its claims would look as if they were trying to hide something. Hager knows how to play the media, which laps up his every utterance.
The accusation at the heart of the book is that a war crime was committed at a particular village in Afghanistan. For an event to be judged a war crime, civilians would need to have been deliberately targeted. We are invited to believe this of our SAS, though I balk at accepting any of our elite soldiers would deliberately murder a three-year-old girl, who was taken up as the centrepiece of the accusation.
So many years later I wonder how the truth can be arrived at either way, yet accusations can swiftly become established truth in an internet age. The fact that the authors got the village wrong, as the Defence chief tells us, doesn't matter, according to Hager. Really? What else might be wrong?
The identities of his informants are concealed. The authors say some are connected to the SAS, but why are they hiding if they are confident of the facts?
Meanwhile they tarnish the reputations of those they accuse."
Rich80105
Mar 29, 2017, 6:56:44 PM3/29/17
to
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:23:32 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I don't think Rosemary McLeod has necessarily got the law quite right
there - and it may be that Wayne Mapp has not got it quite right
either in this article:
http://pundit.co.nz/content/operation-burnham
- see the first comment (there may be more by now.
Importantly, the man that called the operation a "fiasco" accepts that
there is further information to be obtained / confirmed.
So far there is a mnor detail that it appears Stephenson got slightly
wrong (whch they immediately chaecked and acknowledgeed, while the
Defence also made a similar mistake (thinking the towns were names
after the valley, which is not true either. The Defence force have not
addressed some of the more important issues arising from the
Stephenson / Hager book.
I suspect there will be an enquiry going on behind closed doors right
now to review everything, including the report that Defence lost
relating to management of operations; but whether we learn the results
may depend on whether they offer adequate responses to the book.
In the meantime, Wayne Mapp again shows that it is possible to engage
meangingfully - unlike the government which appeared to just go into a
"bunker" mentality . . .
wrote:
there - and it may be that Wayne Mapp has not got it quite right
either in this article:
http://pundit.co.nz/content/operation-burnham
- see the first comment (there may be more by now.
Importantly, the man that called the operation a "fiasco" accepts that
there is further information to be obtained / confirmed.
So far there is a mnor detail that it appears Stephenson got slightly
wrong (whch they immediately chaecked and acknowledgeed, while the
Defence also made a similar mistake (thinking the towns were names
after the valley, which is not true either. The Defence force have not
addressed some of the more important issues arising from the
Stephenson / Hager book.
I suspect there will be an enquiry going on behind closed doors right
now to review everything, including the report that Defence lost
relating to management of operations; but whether we learn the results
may depend on whether they offer adequate responses to the book.
In the meantime, Wayne Mapp again shows that it is possible to engage
meangingfully - unlike the government which appeared to just go into a
"bunker" mentality . . .
JohnO
Mar 29, 2017, 7:11:44 PM3/29/17
to
Hager didn't even ask the NZDF for their story before writing his book.
https://utopiayouarestandinginit.com/2017/03/29/response-to-my-oia-on-hitandrunnz/
Yep, didn't even bother.
Sums it up right there.
Rich80105
Mar 29, 2017, 7:20:21 PM3/29/17
to
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:11:42 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
Its certainly worth asking Hager and Stephenson why they didn't. It
hasn't however been a significant issue - the only item that they got
wrong was immaterial, and also wrongly stated in a similar way by
Defence. Perhaps the court case that Stephenson had about Defence
statements had something to do with it - we do not know the agreements
between the authors regarding engagement with Defence.
hasn't however been a significant issue - the only item that they got
wrong was immaterial, and also wrongly stated in a similar way by
Defence. Perhaps the court case that Stephenson had about Defence
statements had something to do with it - we do not know the agreements
between the authors regarding engagement with Defence.
JohnO
Mar 29, 2017, 7:27:00 PM3/29/17
to
> - the only item that they got
> wrong was immaterial, and also wrongly stated in a similar way by
> Defence. Perhaps the court case that Stephenson had about Defence
> statements had something to do with it - we do not know the agreements
> between the authors regarding engagement with Defence.
george152
Mar 29, 2017, 7:55:33 PM3/29/17
to
On 3/30/2017 12:26 PM, JohnO wrote:
> That's pathetic.
>
At a time like this I regret the fact that we live in a country where we
have freedom of speech that allows wankers to do this without much fear
of retribution
> That's pathetic.
>
At a time like this I regret the fact that we live in a country where we
have freedom of speech that allows wankers to do this without much fear
of retribution
JohnO
Mar 29, 2017, 7:59:31 PM3/29/17
to
Not sure if you were talking about Hager or Dickbot, but equally applicable to both.
Unknown
Mar 29, 2017, 9:04:11 PM3/29/17
to
disappointing. I thought you might find a tiney amount of fairness within
yourself, but no!
How can you really believe that Hager and co had a valid reason to not take it
to NZDF prior to publication. They pretend to be journalists and/or authors of
fact, but are patently neither of those and are playing a political game and
don't give a damn about damaging the reputation of a fine fighting force,
respected worldwide, with information from sources they will not name. The only
thing more disgraceful is your defence of them.
Tony
george152
Mar 29, 2017, 9:31:27 PM3/29/17
to
Rich80105
Mar 30, 2017, 12:49:29 AM3/30/17
to
On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:26:59 -0700 (PDT), JohnO <john...@gmail.com>
I do think Hager and Stephenson should be asked why they didn't seek
comment from Defence before publication - what more can be done at
this stage?
>
>> - the only item that they got
>> wrong was immaterial, and also wrongly stated in a similar way by
>
>How do you know that is the only item they got wrong? We only have their word and hearsay for the rest of the dreadful allegations they have thrown at our brave soldiers.
Nobody has found anything - including Defence, who have now had the
book for long enough
>> Defence. Perhaps the court case that Stephenson had about Defence
>> statements had something to do with it - we do not know the agreements
>> between the authors regarding engagement with Defence.
>
>That's pathetic.
Trust is an issue that once lost does affect relationships - what is
pathetic is your not understanding that.
comment from Defence before publication - what more can be done at
this stage?
>
>> - the only item that they got
>> wrong was immaterial, and also wrongly stated in a similar way by
>
>How do you know that is the only item they got wrong? We only have their word and hearsay for the rest of the dreadful allegations they have thrown at our brave soldiers.
book for long enough
>> Defence. Perhaps the court case that Stephenson had about Defence
>> statements had something to do with it - we do not know the agreements
>> between the authors regarding engagement with Defence.
>
>That's pathetic.
pathetic is your not understanding that.
Pooh
Mar 30, 2017, 3:54:15 AM3/30/17
to
regular fiction posts in this ng :)
Pooh
Pooh
Mar 30, 2017, 3:59:53 AM3/30/17
to
wrongdoing when the whole story turns to shit in your hands. Your
desperate defence of Hager is only further proof of just how much of a
troll you are. Give up and go back to cowering under your bridge.
Hell I'm wondering if it'll be you or Hager who'll be the biggest basket
case by September and Labours inevitable hammering by National.
Pooh
Pooh
Mar 30, 2017, 4:02:26 AM3/30/17
to
they've only ever caused NZDef grief like the dirty political muppets
they are.
Pooh
Pooh
Mar 30, 2017, 4:07:35 AM3/30/17
to
>>
>>> - the only item that they got
>>> wrong was immaterial, and also wrongly stated in a similar way by
>>
>> How do you know that is the only item they got wrong? We only have their word and hearsay for the rest of the dreadful allegations they have thrown at our brave soldiers.
>
> Nobody has found anything - including Defence, who have now had the
> book for long enough
>
injured in the raid Rich. But why let an inconvenient fact destroy a
good story for you Rich. You never have in the past!
>>> Defence. Perhaps the court case that Stephenson had about Defence
>>> statements had something to do with it - we do not know the agreements
>>> between the authors regarding engagement with Defence.
>>
>> That's pathetic.
>
> Trust is an issue that once lost does affect relationships - what is
> pathetic is your not understanding that.
>
most in this ng. Why is it you keep seeing your own failings in others
Rich. Stupidity or are you just a typical marxist moron lacking any
comprehension skills?
Pooh
0 new messages