Society/Culture Victoria Cross winner Ben Roberts-Smith - Allegations of war crimes

[Schneebly11]

its very evident you have a hatred of all things military but Christ dude, you are just getting hysterical now

Really? So let’s have a look at my post:

Dutto thinks the military is getting too “woke”. This is the same military where the supposedly most professional unit was murdering kids with impunity. They need to concentrate on the “application of lethal violence”? Was the Brereton Report not enough in Dutto’s mind? How far does he want the military to go then? Committing My Lai style exterminations of entire towns? Or maybe just switching the cameras off before committing a war crime will suffice.

So that’s me “hysterically hating the military”? More like hysterically hating Peter Dutton.

Dutton in the meantime has decided the Brereton Report was too “woke”. He’s decided the sociologist who first uncovered SAS war crimes will be prevented from ever doing so again, like he “wants to switch the cameras off” hint hint?

Dutton takes aim at war crimes study author

Samantha Crompvoets may be denied future defence contracts, while Peter Dutton is also seeking legal advice on an upcoming book she will release.

www.afr.com

He also doesn’t want the military “distracted by things in the past” (Anzac Day and AWM extension OK though). Doesn’t sound like someone taking the Brereton Report and it’s recommendations seriously.

After this front page of the Daily Tele the other day:



And this barely concealed attack:



It’s then no surprise this happened to her in an Australian military veteran’s Facebook group:



Samantha Crompvoets is an Australian hero. There’s no doubt Dutton’s comments and Newscorp’s attack led to the vile abuse sent her way. Any true patriotic Aussie and anyone with a shred of humanity should be 100% behind her.

 

[Chief]

Dutto’s family investments conveniently forgotten. Writing a book is now worse than shooting kids.

Grubs.

 

[Malifice]

I’d like to see some of these SF and how they go without weapons, team mates, body armour, airstrikes, artillery, satellite intel, helicopter extraction, NVGs.....

Seeing as we receive training for doing just this, (Escape and Evasion, Close Quarter fighting, Resistance to Interrogation, language skills etc). we'd do better than you would I dare say.

 

[jerry springer]

Really? So let’s have a look at my post:



So that’s me “hysterically hating the military”? More like hysterically hating Peter Dutton.

Dutton in the meantime has decided the Brereton Report was too “woke”. He’s decided the sociologist who first uncovered SAS war crimes will be prevented from ever doing so again, like he “wants to switch the cameras off” hint hint?

Dutton takes aim at war crimes study author

Samantha Crompvoets may be denied future defence contracts, while Peter Dutton is also seeking legal advice on an upcoming book she will release.

www.afr.com

He also doesn’t want the military “distracted by things in the past” (Anzac Day and AWM extension OK though). Doesn’t sound like someone taking the Brereton Report and it’s recommendations seriously.

After this front page of the Daily Tele the other day:



And this barely concealed attack:



It’s then no surprise this happened to her in an Australian military veteran’s Facebook group:



Samantha Crompvoets is an Australian hero. There’s no doubt Dutton’s comments and Newscorp’s attack led to the vile abuse sent her way. Any true patriotic Aussie and anyone with a shred of humanity should be 100% behind her.

I stopped reading when you referenced My Lai in your original post. goodbye

 

[Nuke Fremantle]

Gosh our dear local newspaper isn't very smart. The whole world and his dog knows that Kerry Stokes is keeping BRS on their payroll and now they come up with a puff piece like this (paywalled of course);

‘Attacks on our son destroyed his life’

Ben Roberts-Smith’s parents have opened up about how ‘gravely distressing allegations’ against the Victoria Cross recipient ‘have not only destroyed Ben’s life, but affected us every day’.

thewest.com.au

 

[Schneebly11]

The “defamation trial of the century” (apparently) is underway.

BRS’s lawyers in their opening statements look to be going for the defence of “bitter ex colleagues jealous of his success,” “vindictive media determined to tear our heroes down”,
“too hard to distinguish between enemy and civilian in Afghanistan”
And a Winston Churchill quote:
“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”

‘Corrosive jealousy and lies’ behind Ben Roberts-Smith war crime claims, court told

The barrister for the former special forces soldier has opened the defamation case in the Federal Court in Sydney saying his client was a victim of “tall poppy syndrome”.

amp.smh.com.au

BRS himself as the plaintiff will be the first witness to take the stand.

 

[Over The Post]

“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”

Needs more Samuel Jackson. "I didn't know what it means, I just thought it was some cold-blooded shit to say before I popped a cap in his ass."

 

[MC Bad Genius]

The “defamation trial of the century” (apparently) is underway.

BRS’s lawyers in their opening statements look to be going for the defence of “bitter ex colleagues jealous of his success,” “vindictive media determined to tear our heroes down”,
“too hard to distinguish between enemy and civilian in Afghanistan”
And a Winston Churchill quote:
“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”

‘Corrosive jealousy and lies’ behind Ben Roberts-Smith war crime claims, court told

The barrister for the former special forces soldier has opened the defamation case in the Federal Court in Sydney saying his client was a victim of “tall poppy syndrome”.

amp.smh.com.au

BRS himself as the plaintiff will be the first witness to take the stand.

That's some serious cases of shared jealousy for multiple people to accuse someone of war crimes ...

 

[Leeda]

Dutto’s family investments conveniently forgotten. Writing a book is now worse than shooting kids.

Grubs.

Wildly provocative

 

[Schneebly11]

That's some serious cases of shared jealousy for multiple people to accuse someone of war crimes ...

Funny how none of these “triggered snowflakes” had a problem with Mark Donaldson.

Something interesting from his lawyer:

He said the soldiers had “no way of knowing” whether a person was an insurgent or an ordinary villager in Afghanistan because “they didn’t wear uniforms; they didn’t carry a sign saying ‘insurgent’.”

Is that an admission by his lawyers that BRS did shoot/cliff kick people? Have they shot themselves in the foot because as the law states it doesn’t matter if a person is enemy or civilian once they’re in your custody you don’t execute them?

 

[Leeda]

Funny how none of these “triggered snowflakes” had a problem with Mark Donaldson.

Something interesting from his lawyer:

He said the soldiers had “no way of knowing” whether a person was an insurgent or an ordinary villager in Afghanistan because “they didn’t wear uniforms; they didn’t carry a sign saying ‘insurgent’.”

Is that an admission by his lawyers that BRS did shoot/cliff kick people? Have they shot themselves in the foot because as the law states it doesn’t matter if a person is enemy or civilian once they’re in your custody you don’t execute them?

Cancer in the ranks…following hank …lively

 

[NSWCROW]

If it's a square-up then you have to ask yourself -

" How much of a campaigner do you have to be for someone to go to THIS extent to square-up ?? "





That all said just another chapter in the " nein vs 7 " ****-off that's been going decades

 

[Kwality]

One of the deaths attributed to BRS seems he was on an op on the other side of the country.
Not a good start for the truth defence.

 

[Balls In]

One of the deaths attributed to BRS seems he was on an op on the other side of the country.
Not a good start for the truth defence.

If there was any "evidence" BRS would have been nailed to the wall by military bureaucrats long ago and the crazies wouldn't have needed a MSM hit job with leaked anonymous "sources". Seven figure payout I'm guessing.

 

[Schneebly11]

One of the deaths attributed to BRS seems he was on an op on the other side of the country.
Not a good start for the truth defence.

The date was changed from October to November in the court filing. Could have been a simple error. But the substance of the matter has not yet been argued, and 9 hasn’t called any witnesses yet.

Don’t forget there are multiple incidents being reported on with multiple eyewitnesses. At least 20 former SAS soldiers will testify for 9, unknown how many will testify for BRS. The level of truth found in one incident won’t have a bearing on any of the others. It’ll take weeks to sort them all out. There is a chance truth could be upheld in some incidents whilst not in others

And in terms of defamation the real kicker (pardon the pun) will be the “Darwan Cliff Incident”, in which the 60 Minutes episode was based on. They have two direct SAS eyewitnesses to that incident in addition to any local Afghans.

The trial is barely beginning.....

If there was any "evidence" BRS would have been nailed to the wall by military bureaucrats long ago and the crazies wouldn't have needed a MSM hit job with leaked anonymous "sources". Seven figure payout I'm guessing.

Well that “evidence” as you’ve described it was the basis for Brereton Report. 25 soldiers alleged in 39 incidents. It was been referred to the AFP for Prosecution. So the “nailing of the wall” of BRS wouldn’t have happened long ago, it would have to wait until the IGADF inquiry was over and then the AFP Prosecutor investigations. So that’ll have no bearing on the defamation case.

The sources are only anonymous to the public. Every involved with the trial would have a fairly good idea who “person 7” is etc. They’ll gave witness statements in confidence to the court but are fully known.

In terms of payout if 9 being the defendant thought they’d have a chance of losing I assume they would’ve gone for a settlement with a non disclosure agreement and quiet retraction of the articles. As they haven’t I assume they’re pretty happy their witnesses are solid.

As far as BRS’s case there’s no chance of a settlement so he and Stokes might as well go for a Hail Mary pass.

 

[NSWCROW]

REALITY - Quentin Bryce WON'T give evidence citing personal reasons but his lawyers say she supports him

Ch7 - ( Lead story ) FMR GG SUPPORTS BEN !!!!!!
OMG YAAAAAAAAAAY VIT VIT VIT



****en circus

 

[JackOutback]

If there was any "evidence" BRS would have been nailed to the wall by military bureaucrats long ago and the crazies wouldn't have needed a MSM hit job with leaked anonymous "sources". Seven figure payout I'm guessing.

That's almost cute in its naivety.

 

[Schneebly11]

REALITY - Quentin Bryce WON'T give evidence citing personal reasons but his lawyers say she supports him

Ch7 - ( Lead story ) FMR GG SUPPORTS BEN !!!!!!
OMG YAAAAAAAAAAY VIT VIT VIT



fu**en circus

The evidence his lawyers are using to claim Quentin Bryce’s support for BRS is a letter of support from March 2019. Before publication of the Brereton Report, before the eyewitnesses spoke to 9 on camera, before video footage of SAS war crimes was broadcast.

The defence is rightfully challenging this, the situation has changed since then and QB barely knew BRS anyway at the time.

And I’m sure if QB still supported as of today BRS but can’t appear in court for “personal reasons” she could’ve made a written submission saying so, but it appears she hasn’t.

 

[Over The Post]

And in terms of defamation the real kicker (pardon the pun) will be the “Darwan Cliff Incident”, in which the 60 Minutes episode was based on. They have two direct SAS eyewitnesses to that incident in addition to any local Afghans.

Speaking of which, is the early closure of the embassy in Kabul (in relation to troop withdrawal) partly to make it harder for the Afghans to testify?

 

[Over The Post]

Definitely not one to put at the top of your resume:

May 30:
" Mr McClintock announced in open court that he would be calling Dame Quentin as a reputational witness "
"Mr Roberts-Smith appeared on Dame Quentin’s doorstep in Brisbane last Wednesday with a bunch of flowers.
Sources said she was “horrified” to think she was getting caught up in his legal case as a character witness. It appeared to be an amazing coup for Mr Roberts-Smith that one of Australia’s most highly respected governors-general, who pinned the VC to his lapel, was prepared to take the stand in the high-profile case.
But there was a problem. Not only had Mr Roberts-Smith apparently not sought her permission to mention her name in court but worse, sources aware of the situation knew she had serious reservations about becoming personally involved."
"Sources say she opened the door and was “surprised and horrified” to see him standing there. She invited him in and there was a brief discussion.
Afterwards, she contacted the legal team at the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, which offers support to past governors-general. She made it clear that she had no intention of testifying on his behalf."

 

[Schneebly11]

Speaking of which, is the early closure of the embassy in Kabul (in relation to troop withdrawal) partly to make it harder for the Afghans to testify?

Possibly. It’s no surprise some in the government would love for BRS to win.

But according to the Guardian yesterday those Afghan civilians were still on the witness list.

 

[NSWCROW]

The evidence his lawyers are using to claim Quentin Bryce’s support for BRS is a letter of support from March 2019. Before publication of the Brereton Report, before the eyewitnesses spoke to 9 on camera, before video footage of SAS war crimes was broadcast.

The defence is rightfully challenging this, the situation has changed since then and QB barely knew BRS anyway at the time.

And I’m sure if QB still supported as of today BRS but can’t appear in court for “personal reasons” she could’ve made a written submission saying so, but it appears she hasn’t.

So it seems to me that 7 are having a wank

 

[Over The Post]

But according to the Guardian yesterday those Afghan civilians were still on the witness list.

Won't matter if they are on the list if they can't go somewhere secure with an encrypted video link to the court.

 

[Kwality]

The date was changed from October to November in the court filing. Could have been a simple error. But the substance of the matter has not yet been argued, and 9 hasn’t called any witnesses yet.

Don’t forget there are multiple incidents being reported on with multiple eyewitnesses. At least 20 former SAS soldiers will testify for 9, unknown how many will testify for BRS. The level of truth found in one incident won’t have a bearing on any of the others. It’ll take weeks to sort them all out. There is a chance truth could be upheld in some incidents whilst not in others

And in terms of defamation the real kicker (pardon the pun) will be the “Darwan Cliff Incident”, in which the 60 Minutes episode was based on. They have two direct SAS eyewitnesses to that incident in addition to any local Afghans.

The trial is barely beginning.....



Well that “evidence” as you’ve described it was the basis for Brereton Report. 25 soldiers alleged in 39 incidents. It was been referred to the AFP for Prosecution. So the “nailing of the wall” of BRS wouldn’t have happened long ago, it would have to wait until the IGADF inquiry was over and then the AFP Prosecutor investigations. So that’ll have no bearing on the defamation case.

The sources are only anonymous to the public. Every involved with the trial would have a fairly good idea who “person 7” is etc. They’ll gave witness statements in confidence to the court but are fully known.

In terms of payout if 9 being the defendant thought they’d have a chance of losing I assume they would’ve gone for a settlement with a non disclosure agreement and quiet retraction of the articles. As they haven’t I assume they’re pretty happy their witnesses are solid.

As far as BRS’s case there’s no chance of a settlement so he and Stokes might as well go for a Hail Mary pass.

If there was no chance of winning Stokes would not be bankrolling it.
Writing off one side in this case would be as foolish as those who made the same claim over Porter.

 

[Schneebly11]

If there was no chance of winning Stokes would not be bankrolling it.
Writing off one side in this case would be as foolish as those who made the same claim over Porter.

Stokes has lots of money. A Hail Mary attempt to score a hit at 9 and anything to keep the value of his VCs intact.

And Porter withdrew his action without getting any retraction from the ABC btw, that means he lost. And there’s much more evidence against BRS than Porter.