2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I was in the forces and we were all trained killers, even if we never went near a war. What else would we have been? We were not trained to be social workers.

 

How nice to be disdainful of men sent to do a job that most would never do. Isn't there a saying about how soldiers are never appreciated till the enemy is at the gates?

Because when there are no people like you, then the diplomats would be more ..... diplomatic and go that extra mile instead of calling in the hardware 'diplomats'. Capice? 

 

 

1 hour ago, FritsSikkink said:

Because you told the forum you went back to the states

 

No he didn't; he's a Kiwi.

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

all those who served (approx 3000)

 

Not "special" forces then?Just regular foot soldiers.

Edited November 20, 20205 yr by VocalNeal

Considering that we really shouldn't be in the middle-east at all, there is no excuse for this.

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

 

Local media are claiming could take up to ten years to finalise Court proceedings - not a good look for anyone

 

Australian Federal Police for criminal investigation will have to investigate with Australian military police as soon as they arrive in Oz.

 

Prosecution to be done by the Department of Home Affairs' Office of the Special Investigator and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

 

They should also be tried at NATO military court level.

 

And why not at Civil court level in Afghanistan...

 

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I was in the forces and we were all trained killers, even if we never went near a war. What else would we have been? We were not trained to be social workers.

 

How nice to be disdainful of men sent to do a job that most would never do. Isn't there a saying about how soldiers are never appreciated till the enemy is at the gates?

 

Of course they are appreciated

 

But killing unarmed civilians for fun? That's not a soldier - it's a murderer 

 

 

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I was in the forces and we were all trained killers, even if we never went near a war. What else would we have been? We were not trained to be social workers.

 

How nice to be disdainful of men sent to do a job that most would never do. Isn't there a saying about how soldiers are never appreciated till the enemy is at the gates?

As a former military man, as was my brother, and my Dad, who spent every day of his 27 working years in the USN, I can genuinely say, ¨Thank you for your service¨

 

However, overlooking  or outright condoning a little ¨target practice¨ that killed scores of victims and left unknown numbers of orphans and widows - that does not merit praise, but rather condemnation and punishment.

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The headline says ALLEGEDLY, so why do some on here assume it was murder?

 

The same reason that a person arrested with a bloody machete in one hand and a severed head in the other while screaming at a kid cowering in the corner "I'm going to cut your head off next" is reported on as "the alleged murderer" ... until formally found guilty in a court of law due Journalistic norms do not negate the fact that the person in question caught so red handed is in fact the murderer.

2 hours ago, Grumpy one said:

I assume no one has ever shot at you

In other words: soldiers can indiscriminately kill/execute people (men, women, children) when they are shot at? Maybe you can show me where it says so in any soldier’s handbook. 

1 hour ago, VocalNeal said:

 

Not "special" forces then?Just regular foot soldiers.

No they were SAS

An enemy with no age limit or gender and no uniform.
I stand behind our troops and thank them for their service.

1 hour ago, VocalNeal said:

 

Not "special" forces then?Just regular foot soldiers.

Australia only sent commandos and SAS to fight in Afghanistan - multiple deployments - no 'regular troops' for combat.

I think that in spite of the alleged unlawful killings, the investigation has referred to 25 persons, many of whom did several tours of duty. 
Australia sent many thousands of ADF personnel to fight in desperate circumstances in a culture which is still not understood by the Coalition of the Willing , in a war that began in very questionable circumstances.

This in no way gives a reason or can in any circumstance justify the alleged killings, but I think if Australian forces have carried this out, what other countries have similar secrets as yet uncovered.

A couple of brave persons came forward, and after some investigative journalism the lid began to lift, and eventually an investigation began.  It has taken Australia 4 years;what are other countries, not looking into?

Edited November 20, 20205 yr by RJRS1301

The interviews from those on the ground that had the (huge) balls to come forward, and vision from body cams, is nothing but damning. The constant rotation of the troops will no doubt be found to be a huge factor in this. These actions have stained the reputation of our troops, disgraced the uniform they had the honour to wear and no doubt contributed to the high level of PTSD and subsequent suicides.

 

<deleted> happens in a war zone, especially in the heat of battle, cest la vie sometimes people are in the wrong place at the wrong time. But this appears to have been a systemic breakdown within certain units. If anyone thinks there are no charges to answer to, think again, there's no way the military or government would want a sniff of something like this being made public without evidence hence the 4 year investigation. 

talking their medals  off them seems a trifle harsh to me. People who have never been in their situation just don't understand the pressure and stress such troops are under.  I don't condone ex judicial killing, neither am I naïve enough to think that it doesn't happen, a lot and is sometimes the most expedient cause of action for troops in their situation. 

13 minutes ago, rudi49jr said:

In other words: soldiers can indiscriminately kill/execute people (men, women, children) when they are shot at? Maybe you can show me where it says so in any soldier’s handbook. 

its not that simple, it never is. Snipers in Iraq would kill women and children if they were in the act of terrorism.  Its war, it happens. Maybe you saw the movie American Sniper? True to life. 

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

How many unarmed innocents did you kill.

Rephrase that to how many of the locals were terrorists, armed or not

35 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

its not that simple, it never is. Snipers in Iraq would kill women and children if they were in the act of terrorism.  Its war, it happens. Maybe you saw the movie American Sniper? True to life. 

 

Nice juxtaposition.

 

Recalling Hollywood to allow unlawful killing under military command...

 

The killings from OP happened on regiment level. At least one Lt. Col. applied unlawful killing under military secret silence.

Just now, Thorgal said:

 

Nice juxtaposition.

 

Recalling Hollywood to allow unlawful killing under military command...

 

The killings from OP happened on regiment level. At least one Lt. Col. applied unlawful killing under military secret silence.

if you are under immediate threat,  killing is not unlawful. if what you are there to protect is under threat, then killing is not unlawful. if you believe that a person posses a potential danger to you or to your colleagues then killing is not unlawful. its often a matter of judgment at the time and if you are not there it is most impossible to form an opinion on what is lawful and what is not, it has always  been so in war. 

1 hour ago, Katipo said:

Considering that we really shouldn't be in the middle-east at all, there is no excuse for this.

100% right. After the US wiped out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan IMO all allied troops should have left and just used drones to take out any terrorists.

 

Foreign invaders have never won in that country, to my knowledge.

 

I can't think of any reason worth the life of Allied troops for them to be there.

Before you all hang these soldiers out to dry, remember how many accusations were levelled at British troops post Iraq war in 2003 I think there were thousands upon thousands but after years of investigation and the ruining of careers and lives of the soldiers allegedly involved only one or two I believe were found to be credible, the huge majority of them were just scams to get money  and anti west propaganda.

14 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

if you are under immediate threat,  killing is not unlawful. if what you are there to protect is under threat, then killing is not unlawful. if you believe that a person posses a potential danger to you or to your colleagues then killing is not unlawful. its often a matter of judgment at the time and if you are not there it is most impossible to form an opinion on what is lawful and what is not, it has always  been so in war. 

 

The Geneva Conventions comprise treaties that establish the standards of international law for humanitarian treatment in war.

 

Killing prisoners and shooting at non-combatant civilians is not allowed. OP is about non-combat execution of 39 Afghani civilians.

 

I have no problem if you’re convinced that the conventions of Geneva are only applicable within the Canton of Geneva...

It is never right but if you have watched your mates die and be mutilated it is understandable that discipline can erode. Again not right and I do not condone it but I understand why and how it can happen

 

Civilian's who have never been in this situation are unable to comprehend this, no amount of films or books can prepare you but the fact this is being brought by the Aussie Forces themselves does speak volumes and clearly there is a deep problem

 

If proven then the people involved deserve all they get but self righteous people who have never walked in their shoes are speaking about thing's they have zero experience of, they should be happy about that, that others put themselves in danger so they can speak freely

 

Justice needs to be done for the multitudes of good soldiers who will be tarnished by this episode as well as the families of the victims, that said there are places in Afghanistan where everybody is Taliban and they would happily spend the day butchering you, still not right but I can understand why and how it could happen

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

100% right. After the US wiped out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan IMO all allied troops should have left and just used drones to take out any terrorists.

 

Foreign invaders have never won in that country, to my knowledge.

 

I can't think of any reason worth the life of Allied troops for them to be there.

 

Nope. What they should have done is leave and offer 1 million dollars a year to all the tahlib warleaders if they kept Al Qaeda out of the country.

The west should then have gone after those people who fund Al Qaeda and nailed them as well. Regardless of the impact on oil prices.

If you catch my drift. 

Until the full facts are released and/or convictions are confirmed no one can be sure where the truth lies. I find it hard to believe that highly trained SF Pers would act in this manner or that the Govt that sent them there has thrown them under without due process. I also find it hard to believe that soldiers all too frequently 'drop themselves in it' digitally but I guess that's a sign of the times. 

Edited November 20, 20205 yr by evadgib

12 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

 

Nope. What they should have done is leave and offer 1 million dollars a year to all the tahlib warleaders if they kept Al Qaeda out of the country.

The west should then have gone after those people who fund Al Qaeda and nailed them as well. Regardless of the impact on oil prices.

If you catch my drift. 

 

Back in 2006 when the UK got properly involved that is pretty much what the US ODA's were doing down in Gereshk they had employed local militias to protect their base and go after the local Talib's. Problem is though it is all down to local warlords and they are not easy to manipulate and inherently dishonest, left solely to them it would have been an even bigger bloodbath..

3 minutes ago, mark131v said:

 

Back in 2006 when the UK got properly involved that is pretty much what the US ODA's were doing down in Gereshk they had employed local militias to protect their base and go after the local Talib's. Problem is though it is all down to local warlords and they are not easy to manipulate and inherently dishonest, left solely to them it would have been an even bigger bloodbath..

 

So the idea was right but the implementation was wrong.

1 minute ago, car720 said:

I wonder just how many of the locals the taliban have murdered as well.

 

Sorry, but I like to think, and would like it proven, that we are better than that.

1 minute ago, car720 said:

Ah, self righteousness.  Don't you just love it.

Every sword has two edges.

I wonder just how many of the locals the taliban have murdered as well.

 

The Talib are not profesional western forces. We should be aiming for better standards than them.

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

 

So the idea was right but the implementation was wrong.

 

Tbh, I wouldn't argue it was wrong...

 

My experience was that the Afghan militias they employed where ferocious and you would not want to be against them but they were corrupt and would use their position to rob and kill and basically better their position

 

Problem is we are bringing western morals to a medieval society they were still stoning women for refusing to wear the Burqua in 2001 still doing it 2006 and still in 2008, I would bet it's still happening today. Apples and oranges...