British snipers killed Afghans in pointless 'turkey shoot' and boosted support for the Taliban, says major who revealed how troops died due to lack of equipment



British soldiers pointlessly killed hundreds of armed villagers in Afghanistan who posed no imminent threat, a former officer has claimed.


In a sensational new book, Major Richard Streatfeild condemns the ‘turkey shoot’ tactics that led to the ‘repetitive slaughter’ of people that UK troops were supposed to protect.

Soldiers based in Helmand from 2006 to 2009 were permitted to open fire on anyone approaching their bases while carrying a weapon.

But Major Streatfeild, who commanded a company of riflemen fighting the Taliban, said many of those shot and killed as a result posed no risk to British forces, in what amounted to ‘a turkey shoot masquerading as professional soldiering’.   


While the actions of these British Forces were legal, and met the Rules of Engagement enforced by top brass, the former officer has revealed how the incidents turned locals against British troops and persuaded more Afghans to support the Taliban.


Major Streatfeild, 41, caused outrage last week when the MoS reported his claims that many British troops died in Afghanistan due to a woeful lack of equipment.


The officer, who presented a series of emotional Radio 4 dispatches from the frontline, The Sangin Diaries, admitted misleading the public in his broadcasts by playing down the full scale of the kit crisis affecting troops.

These men, who lived in the villages surrounding our bases, did not want to fight us. Instead, they were forced by the enemy to join the battle, over issues such as their failure to pay a tax demanded by the Taliban.


Sadly, there were many occasions when these men approached our bases and, as they were carrying a weapon, they were shot dead.


‘But the truth was they posed very little threat to us, in particular if no British patrols were out on the ground at the time.



Major Richard Streatfeild before he gave evidence in the inquest into the death of Lance corporal Michael Pritchard, which he claims was caused by a lack of proper equipment and training

+8
Major Richard Streatfeild before he gave evidence in the inquest into the death of Lance corporal Michael Pritchard, which he claims was caused by a lack of proper equipment and training

‘These men were not hard-core or “Tier One” Taliban and they should have been spared.


'By killing them, we made enemies of the local communities because they were honour-bound by their cultural codes of behaviour, to avenge the deaths.


'We also handed the Taliban a propaganda victory; the insurgents were able to say to the locals “look, this is how the British treat you, come with us”.’


Horrified by the damage done by the ‘turkey shoot’ tactics, Streatfeild, of A Company, 4th Battalion, the Rifles (4 Rifles), ordered his riflemen only to take aim at Afghans carrying weapons in situations when those gunman posed a definite threat to British troops or local civilians.

Streatfeild, who served in Sangin district, Helmand Province, in 2009-2010, urged his riflemen to fire warning shots when they saw Afghans carrying weapons or preparing Improvised Explosive Devices (IED).

But while community leaders thanked Streatfeild for the restraint displayed by his troops, his approach fell foul of top brass from the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) based in Kabul.


He said: ‘In March 2010, after I had seen the benefits of warning shots in order to de-esculate a potentially fatal situation, an order was passed down from ISAF banning their use.

‘Apparently the inaccurate firing of warning shots by international troops had caused civilian casualties in other parts of Afghanistan.

'While the ISAF dictat was well intentioned, removing the option of warning shots forced soldiers to either shoot to kill or not intervene at all.’


Streatfeild told last night how, after the ISAF dictat, one of his riflemen spotted a child laying an IED on the 611 highway, a main road through Helmand Province used by British troops.


The soldier could not bring himself to shoot dead the child.

Where is your link to this rubbish ?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2014 at 9:15pm:

Where is your link to this rubbish ?

Rubbish people eh, Andrei?

Just shoot them.

Afghanistan will go back to the nice little craphole it was before and the radical Islamists will be unhappy for evermore.

Sparky wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 11:11am:

Afghanistan will go back to the nice little craphole it was before and the radical Islamists will be unhappy for evermore.

Exactly. We tried killing them off, and look at all the good it did.

These people just won't listen.

Sparky wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 11:11am:

Afghanistan will go back to the nice little craphole it was before and the radical Islamists will be unhappy for evermore.

Your right, afghanistan will never get better, even with the promise of democracy.

Its still no reason to slaughter them.

This is an article from The Mail and was included in a book written by an Officer in The Rifles Regiment now retired. It should be taken with a pinch of salt as the person is using it to sell his book. The soldiers shot insurgents carrying guns and he has admitted that they at first were firing warning shots but when senior officers found out they were ordered to stop the practice and shoot anybody approaching them who was armed. Sounds like a sensible thing to do under the circumstances.

Slaughtering innocents is incorrect, they were armed, the thread title gives the wrong impression.

wally1 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 12:13pm:

Sparky wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 11:11am: Afghanistan will go back to the nice little craphole it was before and the radical Islamists will be unhappy for evermore. Your right, afghanistan will never get better, even with the promise of democracy. Its still no reason to slaughter them.

Why not? If we don't do it over there, they'll end up here.

You be careful, Wally 1. You could be found guilty of spineless apologetics, you know.

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 12:24pm:

This is an article from The Mail and was included in a book written by an Officer in The Rifles Regiment now retired. It should be taken with a pinch of salt as the person is using it to sell his book. The soldiers shot insurgents carrying guns and he has admitted that they at first were firing warning shots but when senior officers found out they were ordered to stop the practice and shoot anybody approaching them who was armed. Sounds like a sensible thing to do under the circumstances. Slaughtering innocents is incorrect, they were armed, the thread title gives the wrong impression.

Odd how on one level you are trying to discredit it as a flawed source, yet are perfectly illing to jump to the conclusion that being armed makes someone guilty by default, even if they are clearly no threat to them, as was stated.

Stratos wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 12:57pm:

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 12:24pm: This is an article from The Mail and was included in a book written by an Officer in The Rifles Regiment now retired. It should be taken with a pinch of salt as the person is using it to sell his book. The soldiers shot insurgents carrying guns and he has admitted that they at first were firing warning shots but when senior officers found out they were ordered to stop the practice and shoot anybody approaching them who was armed. Sounds like a sensible thing to do under the circumstances. Slaughtering innocents is incorrect, they were armed, the thread title gives the wrong impression. Odd how on one level you are trying to discredit it as a flawed source, yet are perfectly illing to jump to the conclusion that being armed makes someone guilty by default, even if they are clearly no threat to them, as was stated.

I would say that being armed in a country like Afghanistan unless you are in uniform, especially Helmand, is generally a good indication that you are more likely than not an insurgent, or a fool, therefore I would have to say that if I were a soldier I would treat you as the enemy and shoot you. Not odd, quite logical if you want to stay in one piece.

Also I consider an ex officer who uses the term "Turkey Shoot" in regards to his men is less than a reliable source, and he discredits himself by using that term whilst trying to make money out of a book he just happened to write.

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 1:10pm:

Stratos wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 12:57pm: Rhet-Oracle wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 12:24pm: This is an article from The Mail and was included in a book written by an Officer in The Rifles Regiment now retired. It should be taken with a pinch of salt as the person is using it to sell his book. The soldiers shot insurgents carrying guns and he has admitted that they at first were firing warning shots but when senior officers found out they were ordered to stop the practice and shoot anybody approaching them who was armed. Sounds like a sensible thing to do under the circumstances. Slaughtering innocents is incorrect, they were armed, the thread title gives the wrong impression. Odd how on one level you are trying to discredit it as a flawed source, yet are perfectly illing to jump to the conclusion that being armed makes someone guilty by default, even if they are clearly no threat to them, as was stated. I would say that being armed in a country like Afghanistan unless you are in uniform, especially Helmand, is generally a good indication that you are more likely than not an insurgent, or a fool, therefore I would have to say that if I were a soldier I would treat you as the enemy and shoot you. Not odd, quite logical if you want to stay in one piece. Also I consider an ex officer who uses the term "Turkey Shoot" in regards to his men is less than a reliable source, and he discredits himself by using that term whilst trying to make money out of a book he just happened to write.

If the major had written a book about the evil Taliban and how they hate our western style, he will still sell books.

So to say the major is dealing with lies to sell his book is a pretty low act.

He is just coming out with the truth.

wally1 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 2:05pm:

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 1:10pm: Stratos wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 12:57pm: Rhet-Oracle wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 12:24pm: This is an article from The Mail and was included in a book written by an Officer in The Rifles Regiment now retired. It should be taken with a pinch of salt as the person is using it to sell his book. The soldiers shot insurgents carrying guns and he has admitted that they at first were firing warning shots but when senior officers found out they were ordered to stop the practice and shoot anybody approaching them who was armed. Sounds like a sensible thing to do under the circumstances. Slaughtering innocents is incorrect, they were armed, the thread title gives the wrong impression. Odd how on one level you are trying to discredit it as a flawed source, yet are perfectly illing to jump to the conclusion that being armed makes someone guilty by default, even if they are clearly no threat to them, as was stated. I would say that being armed in a country like Afghanistan unless you are in uniform, especially Helmand, is generally a good indication that you are more likely than not an insurgent, or a fool, therefore I would have to say that if I were a soldier I would treat you as the enemy and shoot you. Not odd, quite logical if you want to stay in one piece. Also I consider an ex officer who uses the term "Turkey Shoot" in regards to his men is less than a reliable source, and he discredits himself by using that term whilst trying to make money out of a book he just happened to write. If the major had written a book about the evil Taliban and how they hate our western style, he will still sell books. So to say the major is dealing with lies to sell his book is a pretty low act. He is just coming out with the truth.

The same evil Taliban that execute people and give people no rights to anything. Especially women.

One and the same, Sparky.

Kill em all, let Gud sort em out.

Karnal wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 2:24pm:

One and the same, Sparky. Kill em all, let Gud sort em out.

War is a dirty business. Personally if I had any sort of power our men would never have been fighting in that mess of a country. But they did and could have made it a better place. So you all win. Happy Taliban Day!!! Strike up another country for the shitehole list.

wally1 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 2:05pm:

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 1:10pm: Stratos wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 12:57pm: Rhet-Oracle wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 12:24pm: This is an article from The Mail and was included in a book written by an Officer in The Rifles Regiment now retired. It should be taken with a pinch of salt as the person is using it to sell his book. The soldiers shot insurgents carrying guns and he has admitted that they at first were firing warning shots but when senior officers found out they were ordered to stop the practice and shoot anybody approaching them who was armed. Sounds like a sensible thing to do under the circumstances. Slaughtering innocents is incorrect, they were armed, the thread title gives the wrong impression. Odd how on one level you are trying to discredit it as a flawed source, yet are perfectly illing to jump to the conclusion that being armed makes someone guilty by default, even if they are clearly no threat to them, as was stated. I would say that being armed in a country like Afghanistan unless you are in uniform, especially Helmand, is generally a good indication that you are more likely than not an insurgent, or a fool, therefore I would have to say that if I were a soldier I would treat you as the enemy and shoot you. Not odd, quite logical if you want to stay in one piece. Also I consider an ex officer who uses the term "Turkey Shoot" in regards to his men is less than a reliable source, and he discredits himself by using that term whilst trying to make money out of a book he just happened to write. If the major had written a book about the evil Taliban and how they hate our western style, he will still sell books. So to say the major is dealing with lies to sell his book is a pretty low act. He is just coming out with the truth.

Yes indeed, "a pretty low act" to infer that your men were complicit in a "Turkey Shoot". And how do you know he is telling the truth?

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 3:05pm:

wally1 wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 2:05pm: Rhet-Oracle wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 1:10pm: Stratos wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 12:57pm: Rhet-Oracle wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 12:24pm: This is an article from The Mail and was included in a book written by an Officer in The Rifles Regiment now retired. It should be taken with a pinch of salt as the person is using it to sell his book. The soldiers shot insurgents carrying guns and he has admitted that they at first were firing warning shots but when senior officers found out they were ordered to stop the practice and shoot anybody approaching them who was armed. Sounds like a sensible thing to do under the circumstances. Slaughtering innocents is incorrect, they were armed, the thread title gives the wrong impression. Odd how on one level you are trying to discredit it as a flawed source, yet are perfectly illing to jump to the conclusion that being armed makes someone guilty by default, even if they are clearly no threat to them, as was stated. I would say that being armed in a country like Afghanistan unless you are in uniform, especially Helmand, is generally a good indication that you are more likely than not an insurgent, or a fool, therefore I would have to say that if I were a soldier I would treat you as the enemy and shoot you. Not odd, quite logical if you want to stay in one piece. Also I consider an ex officer who uses the term "Turkey Shoot" in regards to his men is less than a reliable source, and he discredits himself by using that term whilst trying to make money out of a book he just happened to write. If the major had written a book about the evil Taliban and how they hate our western style, he will still sell books. So to say the major is dealing with lies to sell his book is a pretty low act. He is just coming out with the truth. Yes indeed, "a pretty low act" to infer that your men were complicit in a "Turkey Shoot". And how do you know he is telling the truth?

How could it not be the truth?

It’s a war. As if they’re not going to shoot people. The US carry cash around to pay family members for accidentally shooting them.

If anyone even looks like the Taliban, we’re hardly going to wait for them to show their weapons and identify themselves.

So how come the Afghans never figured out that they should leave their weapons behind when they approach the bases? The first ingredient for a turkey shoot is a rafter.

I can't believe our soldiers have been picking on the Afghans.

Particularly given they are such a lovely, friendly happy-go-lucky peaceful lot.

They have only been at war internally for the 2,000 years before we arrived.....

freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 7:00pm:

So how come the Afghans never figured out that they should leave their weapons behind when they approach the bases? The first ingredient for a turkey shoot is a rafter.

Because its there country and the Brits should piss off.

That doesn't make it hurt any less when you get shot.

wally1 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2014 at 2:05pm:

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 1:10pm: Stratos wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 12:57pm: Rhet-Oracle wrote on Mar 24th, 2014 at 12:24pm: This is an article from The Mail and was included in a book written by an Officer in The Rifles Regiment now retired. It should be taken with a pinch of salt as the person is using it to sell his book. The soldiers shot insurgents carrying guns and he has admitted that they at first were firing warning shots but when senior officers found out they were ordered to stop the practice and shoot anybody approaching them who was armed. Sounds like a sensible thing to do under the circumstances. Slaughtering innocents is incorrect, they were armed, the thread title gives the wrong impression. Odd how on one level you are trying to discredit it as a flawed source, yet are perfectly illing to jump to the conclusion that being armed makes someone guilty by default, even if they are clearly no threat to them, as was stated. I would say that being armed in a country like Afghanistan unless you are in uniform, especially Helmand, is generally a good indication that you are more likely than not an insurgent, or a fool, therefore I would have to say that if I were a soldier I would treat you as the enemy and shoot you. Not odd, quite logical if you want to stay in one piece. Also I consider an ex officer who uses the term "Turkey Shoot" in regards to his men is less than a reliable source, and he discredits himself by using that term whilst trying to make money out of a book he just happened to write. If the major had written a book about the evil Taliban and how they hate our western style, he will still sell books. So to say the major is dealing with lies to sell his book is a pretty low act. He is just coming out with the truth.

The leftists would not buy a book on the devout muslims called the Taliban, they would prefer to read sensationalist crap.

It was a turkey shoot,look how few of the coalition soldiers were killed by the Taliban in over a decade,The Japs killed more at Pearl harbour in a few hours, the Germans killed more in an hour.

The Iraqi's put up speed bump type resistance to invading forces, that was a turkey shoot as well.

The Australian soldiers have something called rules of engagement, they could not shoot unless they were fired on.