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

[ExcitementMachine]

The Geneva Conventions and Australian military and civilian law would like a word with you.



It won’t be pleasant for the soldiers doing the pulling, dragging and shooting when they’re sent to prison for war crimes/murder. They’d better be hoping they get a good lawyer or a sympathetic cell mate.

I wouldn't wish what you're insinuating on anyone, you twit.

 

[Malifice]

Just so we are clear, the alternative choices you're advocating for the removal of an enemy combatant

You're no longer a 'combatant' if you're tied up, captured and unarmed! You're now a POW, and rules apply to their treatment, including NOT SHOOTING THEM DEAD.

I don't see a difference between being sent into a building to find a specific enemy, making a quick visual confirmation then shooting them in their living room and dragging them outside to be absolutely certain they are the target before similarly killing them.

Then you're a psychopath, and I am glad you aren't in the police force or military, because what you are describing is both murder and a war crime.

 

[Malifice]

Just so we're clear here everyone:

Taylor is completely fine with Australian troops being ordered to shoot and kill unarmed prisoners.

She genuinely thinks this is how war should be conducted, irrespective of Australian laws and the Geneva conventions that expressly prohibit such acts.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

I am not convinced that one isn't being substituted for the other when it's convenient. I don't know which is which, but one is certainly valid and is being argued against here.

If he has killed innocent people then he should go to prison, if he has killed enemy targets in a guerrilla conflict zone then it's good work.
I get that the imagery makes you uncomfortable, nobody likes the part between seeing the cows and the steak dinner.

You don't have the stomach for it, neither do I, but I prefer that the people killing innocents in roadside bomb attacks are taken out because they will keep doing it and there isn't a justice system to prosecute them.

As far as it goes operationally the target is identified and then the mission is carried out.

Just so we are clear, the alternative choices you're advocating for the removal of an enemy combatant/bomb manufacturer are the dropping of a smart bomb on their home killing them, their family and the families around them or not engaging them at all, leaving them to some law enforcement that is also you.

I don't see a difference between being sent into a building to find a specific enemy, making a quick visual confirmation then shooting them in their living room and dragging them outside to be absolutely certain they are the target before similarly killing them.

People die. Bad people get killed. Sending in the SAS to capture, identity and then execute targets is far more humane than dropping a bomb on their home and killing everyone.

But if you're going to drag the professional killers, let's not pretend the special forces are hug merchants, through the mud for it after then lets just drop the bombs and kill plenty more people.

You can argue the validity of the targets, you can argue the validity of the conflict itself but pretending that conflict won't have ugly ways in which people who try and kill other people are themselves killed is dreamworld stuff.

I don't have a problem with people who kill innocents with hidden explosive devices being hunted down and killed. I'd prefer the soldiers were sure who the target was before pulling the trigger and capturing them first achieves this.

If they are gunning down innocents for no reason and under no orders then that's entirely different.

In no uncertain terms, you are advocating for Australian troops to break long-standing rules of war. It's not even weasel-wording around things, you are unequivocally stating that is OK.

We disagree on a lot of things politically, but I generally appreciate where you come from despite the disagreement. But this one is something completely different and I genuinely think your viewpoint on this is abhorrent.

 

[Malifice]

In no uncertain terms, you are advocating for Australian troops to break long-standing rules of war. It's not even weasel-wording around things, you are unequivocally stating that is OK.

We disagree on a lot of things politically, but I generally appreciate where you come from despite the disagreement. But this one is something completely different and I genuinely think your viewpoint on this is abhorrent.

Things Taylor is OK with:

 

[Taylor]

Just so we're clear here everyone:

Taylor is completely fine with Australian troops being ordered to shoot and kill unarmed prisoners.

She genuinely thinks this is how war should be conducted, irrespective of Australian laws and the Geneva conventions that expressly prohibit such acts.

And Malifice would prefer we drop a bomb through the building to kill the entire neighborhood instead of a person who was declared a target being killed slightly later after their identity was confirmed.

 

[Ben The Donkey]

The "rules of war" work just fine when everyone is a signatory and abides by them, but the days when the nations involved all wore uniforms clearly identifying and separating them from civilians are gone. In many cases, there are no such things as civilians any more... or at least they're largely unidentifiable as such.

The overriding impression I'm getting from this thread is that, if Australia was ever to be involved on a war fought on our own home soil, we're ****ed. Our soldiers may as well fight hobbled and chained.

Perhaps we could send in the lawyers and woke folk to plead our case, and try to explain to the enemy how unfair it all is.

 

[Taylor]

Things Taylor is OK with:

View attachment 1151790

These aren't even remotely the same thing.

If the Japanese were raiding a ship to target a specific individual and instead of sinking the entire ship took their target and killed them, then it's the same.

 

[Taylor]

In no uncertain terms, you are advocating for Australian troops to break long-standing rules of war. It's not even weasel-wording around things, you are unequivocally stating that is OK.

We disagree on a lot of things politically, but I generally appreciate where you come from despite the disagreement. But this one is something completely different and I genuinely think your viewpoint on this is abhorrent.

I'm advocating that attacking a valid target is done with as little collateral damage as possible through positive identification prior to execution.

You might call it taking a prisoner, but it's a delay while they check ID.

You can have it the other way. But people are shot first then their identity is confirmed.

More innocent people die.

 

[Over The Post]

Once again the injustice of not being able to put a mod community leader on ignore becomes apparent.

 

[Kwality]

You realise this is a Defamation case right?

Interesting ... not suit your purpose ?

 

[Taylor]

Once again the injustice of not being able to put a mod community leader on ignore becomes apparent.

Insert you can't handle the truth gif.

Military action against guerrilla warfare targets isn't a clear battle line especially when the target is a target because they have their fingerprints on the bomb that just targeted civilians.

 

[Malifice]

Insert you can't handle the truth gif.

Military action against guerrilla warfare targets isn't a clear battle line especially when the target is a target because they have their fingerprints on the bomb that just targeted civilians.

Jesus you talk shit.

 

[Kwality]

Jesus you talk sh*t.

War is not black & white.

 

[ralphmalph]

Is the truth the only defense they are going with?

All the relevant information is here:

Ben Roberts-Smith - Online file

www.fedcourt.gov.au

Try this one:

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/54178/NSD1485of2018-181009Defence.pdf

 

[Ned_Flanders]

War is not black & white.

Murdering unarmed pows is pretty ****ing black and white

 

[Kwality]

Murdering unarmed pows is pretty ******* black and white

IF that is what happened I agree totally.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

IF that is what happened I agree totally.

So tell us, what happened?

 

[Kwality]

So tell us, what happened?

I ask you the same question as at this point I dont know, thats why I am waiting . Over to you IF you claim to know.

See my earlier post re Cowra WW2 POWs.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I ask you the same question as at this point I dont know, thats why I am waiting . Over to you IF you claim to know.

I don't, but here's what I know. Even if the investigations allegations of killing civilians, pows, and a kid are confirmed, you won't care. Cost of war and all that shit. You will say he did nothing wrong, and they were probably terrorists anyway (Inc the kid)

 

[Kwality]

I don't, but here's what I know. Even if the investigations allegations of killing civilians, pows, and a kid are confirmed, you won't care. Cost of war and all that sh*t. You will say he did nothing wrong, and they were probably terrorists anyway (Inc the kid)

No circus would employ a mindreader as poor & delusional as your good self.

 

[Kwality]

I don't, but here's what I know. Even if the investigations allegations of killing civilians, pows, and a kid are confirmed, you won't care. Cost of war and all that sh*t. You will say he did nothing wrong, and they were probably terrorists anyway (Inc the kid)

So like me you do not know, then you roll on making things up. Take a Bex.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

So like me you do not know, then you roll on making things up. Take a Bex.

You have form for victim blaming. If rape victims are in it for the money, I have no doubt murdered pows will be terorrists

 

[MC Bad Genius]

IF that is what happened I agree totally.

Regardless of if it happened in this particular case or not, Taylor has said she's OK with it happening. That's actually insane.

 

[Taylor]

Regardless of if it happened in this particular case or not, Taylor has said she's OK with it happening. That's actually insane.

I value the life of the valid target less than the lives of the innocents tha would be killed if we just bombed the house, or lit it up from the outside to get the enemy inside.

If they have murdered innocent people then they should be brought to justice, but I don't see the killing of bad guys as bad.

There is more noise made about IED builders deaths this way than the dozens of people killed when we just bomb the building.