0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
2,640 $

“Brereton Report” Discovers Evidence Of Murders And War Crimes In Afghanistan By Australian Special Forces

Support SouthFront

"Brereton Report" Discovers Evidence Of Murders And War Crimes In Afghanistan By Australian Special Forces

Click to see full-size image

In Australia, an inquiry discovered “credible evidence” that special forces personnel had carried out murder and willful cover-up of war crimes in Afghanistan.

The report can be found here. [pdf]

This also frequently took place with complicity of their patrol commanders.

One of the Special Air Service subunits involved will be disbanded by the Chief of Army.

Released on November 18th, the Brereton report made some interesting revelations, but also absolved the high leadership of Australian defense of any knowledge.

The report revealed that 39 Afghans were allegedly murdered by Australian special forces in 23 incidents. Two more were cruelly treated.

The practice also facilitated the “blooding” of new members, an initiation exercise in which they take their first kill. The investigation also found a further two people were cruelly treated.

Major General Paul Brereton’s investigation took a four-year inquiry.

The timeline of the killings dated from 2006 to 2013. Brereton identified several reasons why it took so long for the reports to come to light.

The commanders trusted their subordinates in the field and were protective of them during investigations.

This was exploited by patrols to keep information to themselves. The troops complied because their patrol commanders were “demi-gods” who can make or break their careers, and the prospect of being a “lemon” was a devastating one.

Brereton said that the circumstances of each, were they to be eventually accepted by a jury, would constitute the war crime of murder.

In all cases, the report finds it “was or should have been plain that the person killed was a non-combatant”. The chief of the defence force, Angus Campbell, said that in each case, the intent cannot be in dispute.

“None were alleged to have occurred in circumstances in which the intent of the perpetrator was unclear, confused or mistaken,” he said. “And every person spoken to by the inquiry thoroughly understood the law of armed conflict and the rules of engagement under which they operated.”

There was also a culture of covering up these actions.

Patrols would compartmentalize from their leaders and from one another, hiding their actions on the battlefield from all, it said.

Operational reports were allegedly “sanitized” to make it appear as though special forces were complying with the laws of engagement.

“Operation summaries and other reports frequently did not truly and accurately report the facts of engagements, even where they were innocent and lawful, but were routinely embellished, often using ‘boilerplate’ language, in order proactively to demonstrate apparent compliance with rules of engagement, and to minimize the risk of attracting the interest of higher headquarters,” the report said.

The Defense Force Chief General Angus Campbell offered an apology to the Afghanistan people.

He described the alleged conduct as “shameful”, “deeply disturbing” and “appalling”. Brereton, the inquiry head, described it as “disgraceful and a profound betrayal” of all the Australian Defence Force stood for.

When asked what he would say to the families of the dead, Campbell said:

“I am sincerely sorry for their loss and I can imagine the pain, the suffering and the uncertainty that that loss has caused, both at the time and that continued uncertainty of how this happened,” he said. “My sincere apologies to them and a desire to find a way to make recompense.”

Not one person interviewed as part of the investigation was unaware or unclear that the behaviour in these incidents was unlawful.

“History teaches that the failure to comprehensively deal with allegations and indicators of breaches of Law of Armed Conflict as they begin to emerge and circulate is corrosive,” Brereton wrote.

“It gives spurious allegations life, and serious allegations a degree of impunity.

“The consequences of not addressing such allegations as and when they eventually arise are measured in decades.”

The inquiry was not always able to determine who was responsible for the killing, but a “code of silence” meant all present were complicit.


Support SouthFront


Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
In Exile

Our Army is an embarrassment now, poofs, gays, disabled, midgets, transgenders yes all welcome now. The SAS is one of the units still with high standards. As far as I’m concerned if anyone should be prosecuted should be the lying Politicians for sending our boys into wars which did not concern us.

Alekai Mordechai

Your boys should be prosecuted in Hague for committing war crimes.

It goes both ways pandeho!

In Exile

Why they are doing what all soldiers do the only problem they are killing the wrong people. The Hague? … the Hague is run by Globalists. I wouldn’t want my worst enemy being dragged before the Hague which is impossible in a way as the people running the Hague are my worst enemy. Also I wouldn’t believe a lot of what the Australian Media says it is completely dominated by Jews even the ABC and SBS which intrigues me as they are Government owned and funded. How did those snakes take control?


Your boys are racist trash cowards.

In Exile

Nothing wrong with being racist it is natural for all races to prefer their own or you have a problem with that. Doesn’t mean you have to hate others, I have no problem with Aboriginals but wouldn’t want my daughter marrying one. What is your beef exactly are you a fool or a Jew only two options available kind sir. Unless you are both?

Veritas Vincit

In addition to contempt for laws of war displayed by members of Australian Special Forces, Australia is also guilty of broader war crimes of aggression (against successive nations as part of a US led coalition). It is well known by analysts the Taliban were threatened with a US-led invasion of Afghanistan mid 2001 (before Sept 11) if it did not capitulate to US demands regarding the TAPI pipeline. Al-Qaeda monitored these negotiations and the events of Sept 11, 2001 occurred shortly after:

– “It was at the July meeting…. [Ambassador] Tom Simons suggested that Afghanistan could face an open-ended military operation….. if it didn’t accede to U.S. demands. “Ambassador Simons stated that if the Taliban wouldn’t agree with the plan [relating to the proposed strategic Trans-Afghanistan pipeline], and if Pakistan was unable to persuade them, the United States might use an overt action against Afghanistan….. The words used by Simons were “a military operation”…. Another participant reportedly said the Taliban’s choice was clear: either accept a “carpet of gold” riches from the pipeline or “a carpet of bombs,” meaning a military strike…. [Ambassador Tom Simons] confirms that only a few weeks before Sept. 11, American diplomats warned of military action against Afghanistan if its leaders did not meet U.S. economic and political demands.” (Al-Qaida monitored U.S. negotiations with Taliban over oil pipeline, A memo by military chief Mohammed Atef raises new questions about whether failed U.S. efforts to reform Afghanistan’s radical regime — and build the pipeline — set the stage for Sept. 11., 05/06/2002)

Veritas Vincit

p2. – “In June 2001, an announcement was made by US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, that the US would give the Taliban government of Afghanistan a gift of $43 million, “which made the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban.” In 1997, Halliburton, with Dick Cheney as its CEO, secured a contract in Turkmenistan for exploration and drilling in the Caspian Sea basin…. In the summer of 2001, the Taliban were leaked information from top secret meetings that the Bush regime was planning to launch a military operation against the Taliban in July to replace the government. A US military contingency plan existed on paper to attack Afghanistan from the north by the end of the summer…….

……A former Pakistani diplomat told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban before the 9/11 attacks. Niaz Naik, former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, “was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.” Conclusion: The war on Afghanistan was launched on October 7, 2001. An operation of this size could not be planned and executed within three weeks, as we are led to believe. The plans and preparations were in place in the year leading up to the invasion….. The result of this war on Afghanistan is that Afghanistan’s new President is Hamid Karzai, a former Unocal adviser, opium production reaches record level every single year, and as of April 2008, a US-sponsored pipeline agreement was signed with Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, and may have Canadian forces in Afghanistan guarding the pipeline route. Mission Accomplished. (Origins of Afghan War, Andrew G. Marshall, Geopoliticalmonitor, September 14, 2008)

Veritas Vincit

p3. – “The NSPD [National Security Presidential Directive] called on the Secretary of Defense to plan for military options against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics. [It was presented for decision by principals on September 4, 2001, 7 days before September 11th.] (NSPD-9: Combating Terrorism, October 25, 2001)

– “Just as the Bosnian conflict was part of an effort to secure the Balkan states for an oil and gas pipeline to the European energy market, so the US is seeking secure passage for a pipeline through Afghanistan to feed the Asian energy markets and the US itself.” (The Bush Administration’s Afghan Carpet, Players on a rigged grand chessboard: Bridas, Unocal and the Afghanistan pipeline, Online Journal, 10 March 2002), etc…….

The invasion and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan relates to resources/resource distribution routes (commercial objectives), establishing a permanent military presence (strategic objectives) and efforts to install a client regime (political engineering). The criminality of the US and involved nations (‘coalition of the willing’ to violate International law, including Australia) is globally expanding. But this was a stated objective:

– “If the war does not significantly change the world’s political map, the U.S. will not achieve its aim” [D. Rumsfeld on the GWOT]

Note: In addition to involvement in sequential allied (US-NATO-Israel-allied bloc) wars of aggression, Australian military forces are integrated into US operational plans for war scenarios particularly against China, the DPRK and Russia (in a covert format as detailed in various reports). In the context of patterns of behaviour involving expanding aggressive militarism being repeated (this time in a nuclear era), it is likely in time Australia will directly experience the horrors of war it has inflicted on other nations when the many active wars and approaching conflicts become recognised as one.

Lone Ranger



What did you expect from racist cowardly degenerate US puppets?

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x