UK military killed north of 50 prisoners, unarmed men in Afghanistan, examination finds
In excess of 50 prisoners and unarmed men were killed by British soldiers in Afghanistan, as per recently acquired military reports and an examination by the BBC, Anadolu Agency detailed.
BBC Panorama program, which is to be circulated on Tuesday night, investigated records of tasks by the Special Air Service (SAS) — a British world-class unit utilized in unique tasks — and found they incorporate “reports covering in excess of twelve ‘kill or catch strikes completed by one SAS group in Helmand in 2010/11.”
People who presented with the SAS group on that sending conversed with the program and said they saw the SAS agents “eliminate unarmed individuals during night strikes,” as per a BBC News report.
As per the previous warriors’ record, a singular homicide was legitimate by establishing an AK-47 rifle attack on the scene and a few people inside the power “were rivaling each other to get the most kills.”
The United Arab Emirates set to run Kabul Airport in manage Taliban, sources say
The report likewise charges that “inward messages show that officials at the most elevated levels of Special Forces knew there was worry over conceivable unlawful killings however neglected to report the doubts to military police notwithstanding a lawful commitment to do as such.”
The examination by the BBC recommends that “one unit might have unlawfully killed 54 individuals in a single half-year visit.”
General Sir Mark Carleton-Smith, the previous head of UK Special Forces, was “informed about the supposed unlawful killings yet didn’t give the proof to the Royal Military Police, even after the RMP started a homicide examination concerning the SAS group.”
The Defense Ministry said the Panorama program “rushes to make ridiculous judgment calls.” That has previously been completely explored,” adding that the examination concerning occurrences affirmed in the program didn’t track down adequate proof to arraign.
The service likewise said it “stands open to considering any new proof, there would be no block.”