Australia to dismiss at least 10 soldiers over Afghan killings - ABC

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and get paid a whole lot more for doing the job.

 

Can't see this as being good for morale for the guys on the firing line. I care nothing for what the "top brass" say from the splendour of their offices far from the front line.

BTW, unlike ( apparently ) some posters on here I have served in the military, and I doubt it's changed much since I left.

Please explain to me the point of fighting an enemy, if one is going to become just like them.

[EvetsKram]

10 hours ago, kingdong said:

Judging by the amounts of advertising for the armed forces i would beg to differ,had a mate in the 70s had a criminal record,got sectoned thru drugs,was released and joined the army the next week.

A guy I served with when asked by a shrink at  recruitment why do want to join the army?  Responded "I want to kill c#@?! and not go to jail for it". He served for many years & was highly decorated 

[smutcakes]

2 minutes ago, SomchaiCNX said:

Yet again how was this not noticed? The selection in my home country is so difficult that only a handful are picked to start the training and none of them are psychopaths or naturally born killers. 

 

What was not noticed? That some soldiers had gone rogue? It deals with that in the report. It has references to the culture of the SAS, filing false reports on incidents etc.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, kingdong said:

In conventional warfare with 2 sides adhering to the geneva convention i,m sure you,re correct,against some fanatical irregular militias i would save the last cartridge for myself,easy to sit in our des res,es 5000miles away in judgement.if you look back in history you,ll find it is the unconventional elite units such as sas,selous scouts,32 bn units, that have the most success.

 

Your post has nothing to do with alleged war crimes by Australian SF against restrained POWs and civilians in Afghanistan.

 

BTW are saying Selous Scouts and 32Bn committed the same crimes, murdering POWs and civilians and in your opinion that's OK?

 

 

[SomchaiCNX]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Please explain to me the point of fighting an enemy, if one is going to become just like them.

Becoming just like of them is probably the best thing you can do. I propose that they send a bunch of snowflakes next time with candles, guitars and John Lennon songs and let's see what happens.

Edited November 27, 2020 by SomchaiCNX

[SomchaiCNX]

Just now, simple1 said:

 

Your post has nothing to do with alleged war crimes by Australian SF against restrained POWs and civilians in Afghanistan.

 

BTW are saying Selous Scouts and 32Bn committed the same crimes, murdering POWs and civilians and in your opinion that's OK?

 

 

Got the crew of Enola Gay convicted, those who bombed Dresden? Any president or prime minister ?  Shooting POW and know civilians is not ok but it happened before and it will happen again as long as people go to war. 

[simple1]

44 minutes ago, jaiyen said:

There were plenty of armed kids, women and old men who were armed and killed soldiers before they had time to react. Its a WAR !  No time to think, react quickly to a threat, bad decisions do get made but would you prefer our soldiers to get killed because they were too slow and stuck to a rule book ??

 

The circumstance you outline do not apply to the allegations, they were after combat cold blooded murders of the unarmed for the purpose of 'bloodying' those SF who had not already killed.

 

Rather than constant repetition of irrelevant posts it would make a pleasant change for members to actually inform themselves of the background for the allegations prior to posting.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

Please explain to me the point of fighting an enemy, if one is going to become just like them.

To explain that properly would take too many pages and would be rather boring, but in brief, if one believes that guys volunteer to join up because they want to serve queen and country one is mistaken, IMO. I joined for adventure and because my job was a dead end. I doubt I met any that joined for patriotic reasons. Those that join combat units do so because, IMO, they are looking for the ultimate thrill.

In short, guys go to war for a lot of reasons, but being a follower of the law and a lover of rules is not, generally, one of them, IMO.

I doubt one never in the military could understand the motivation though, so I'm not even going to try to explain that, but all that stuff about honour and glory is something in books and movies, IMO. I certainly never met anyone serving for honour or glory. It was just a job that was different.

[simple1]

3 minutes ago, SomchaiCNX said:

Got the crew of Enola Gay convicted, those who bombed Dresden? Any president or prime minister ?  Shooting POW and know civilians is not ok but it happened before and it will happen again as long as people go to war. 

 

Churchill recognised if the Allies had lost the war, they would be put of trail for 'terror bombing'. However one on one murders of the purpose of 'bloodying' is a very different matter.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, SomchaiCNX said:

Got the crew of Enola Gay convicted, those who bombed Dresden? Any president or prime minister ?  Shooting POW and know civilians is not ok but it happened before and it will happen again as long as people go to war. 

It's all getting so barmy, IMO, that they'll be putting Bomber Harris on trial for war crimes and arresting Barnes Wallace for inventing weapons of war.

( I'm aware that they are dead ).

Perhaps they'll destroy Winston Churchill's statue for being a war monger.

Sad days indeed.

[thaibeachlovers]

22 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

What was not noticed? That some soldiers had gone rogue? It deals with that in the report. It has references to the culture of the SAS, filing false reports on incidents etc.

The culture didn't invent itself. It happened while a lot of officers were involved. How many of those officers are being charged?

Doesn't matter how many reports were filed, superior officers knew the truth, IMO.

They created the machine and now that it went off track they are, IMO, trying to escape responsibility for the inevitable result of their creation by throwing a few sacrificial lambs to the wolves.

Edited November 27, 2020 by thaibeachlovers

[SomchaiCNX]

21 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

What was not noticed? That some soldiers had gone rogue? It deals with that in the report. It has references to the culture of the SAS, filing false reports on incidents etc.

17 people is 2 squads, half a platoon (depending on which country your serve) That's a lot. They just dismissed a gsg9 unit in Germany because they suspected them to be (extreme) right they probably would be called left wing in de States. GSG9 is probably the unit they call when you are taken hostage to get you free again.

[smutcakes]

5 minutes ago, SomchaiCNX said:

17 people is 2 squads, half a platoon (depending on which country your serve) That's a lot. They just dismissed a gsg9 unit in Germany because they suspected them to be (extreme) right they probably would be called left wing in de States. GSG9 is probably the unit they call when you are taken hostage to get you free again.

 17, some combatants some accessories but the investigation covered a period of 7 years.

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, SomchaiCNX said:

Becoming just like of them is probably the best thing you can do. I propose that they send a bunch of snowflakes next time with candles, guitars and John Lennon songs and let's see what happens.

Missing the point, what happens when they come back to their home society? You think you can switch trained killers with no moral code on and off like a tap?

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

To explain that properly would take too many pages and would be rather boring, but in brief, if one believes that guys volunteer to join up because they want to serve queen and country one is mistaken, IMO. I joined for adventure and because my job was a dead end. I doubt I met any that joined for patriotic reasons. Those that join combat units do so because, IMO, they are looking for the ultimate thrill.

In short, guys go to war for a lot of reasons, but being a follower of the law and a lover of rules is not, generally, one of them, IMO.

I doubt one never in the military could understand the motivation though, so I'm not even going to try to explain that, but all that stuff about honour and glory is something in books and movies, IMO. I certainly never met anyone serving for honour or glory. It was just a job that was different.

If there was one thing I learned in my mercifully brief acquaintance with the military, it is that the army values obedience and the following of orders without question above everything else.. To suggest guys in the army are not followers of rules is laughable. Perhaps they are not lovers of rules; however, they had better be if they know what is good for them. That's why I got out as soon as I could, officers don't take kindly to having their intelligence questioned.

Perhaps you are right, most are in it for the thrill. I don't have a problem with killing enemy combatants in a war. However, when the thrill becomes executing innocent civilians in cold blood, that to me is a loss of moral compass civilized countries cannot afford.

[SomchaiCNX]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Missing the point, what happens when they come back to their home society? You think you can switch trained killers with no moral code on and off like a tap?

No you can not, after 30+ years you still can switch me on. I had moral so don't worry but I still spend a couple nights in the service each month. 

[Lacessit]

9 minutes ago, SomchaiCNX said:

No you can not, after 30+ years you still can switch me on. I had moral so don't worry but I still spend a couple nights in the service each month. 

You're saying you are a responsible person, good for you. Permit me to doubt you can speak for every soldier in service.

It's the ones that can't switch off when they get back to civvy street that are the problem.

[SomchaiCNX]

59 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If there was one thing I learned in my mercifully brief acquaintance with the military, it is that the army values obedience and the following of orders without question above everything else.. To suggest guys in the army are not followers of rules is laughable. Perhaps they are not lovers of rules; however, they had better be if they know what is good for them. That's why I got out as soon as I could, officers don't take kindly to having their intelligence questioned.

Perhaps you are right, most are in it for the thrill. I don't have a problem with killing enemy combatants in a war. However, when the thrill becomes executing innocent civilians in cold blood, that to me is a loss of moral compass civilized countries cannot afford.

I had problems with my superiors a couple times, I never followed stupid orders. Had a bad reputation as an NCO with some Aholes who where there for their careers. Yes those who cross(ed) the line need to be stopped and get help. However, jail is not the best option. They should get help from the same people who send them there in the first place.

[SomchaiCNX]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

 

 

Edited November 27, 2020 by SomchaiCNX

[RJRS1301]

20 hours ago, Natai Beach said:

Slit unarmed teenage kids throats and shot old grandpa in his own home. 

I wonder what the families think of this punishment?

They have not been charged with anything, these people are considered either witnesses or accessories .

 

So far no one has been charged as the criminal investigation has not begun.

 

[SomchaiCNX]

15 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You're saying you are a responsible person, good for you. Permit me to doubt you can speak for every soldier in service.

It's the ones that can't switch off when they get back to civvy street that are the problem.

Yes you are right, they have a serious problem and need help. That why I have problems to believe those people that say rehabilitation of those Muslims who fought for the IS can be integrated in society again.

[kingdong]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmmm. How many guys come home from active service mentally destroyed? A LOT do.

If those guys were mentally damaged to be sadists ( neither of us were there so we don't KNOW, do we? ), that was on their superior officers to remove them from active service- you know who they are, don't you? They are every NCO senior to them, and every officer that served with them. If they were not removed that's down to their superior officers. THEY are RESPONSIBLE. I can guess why they weren't removed- could be a shortage of soldiers to do the job or similar. If those senior officers reported the situation to their superiors and nothing was done that's on the senior officers. THEY are RESPONSIBLE for EVERYTHING that happens under their command, and so on up the line to the very top of the command chain.

 

As usual the guys at the bottom of the food chain are being punished for a failing of their officers and commanders. None of those guys were operating out of the loop.

 

So, how many officers are being punished for their failure to control the troops under THEIR command?

IMO this situation resulted from a systemic failure of command, and the brass are throwing the lowest level to the wolves to cover their own failure.

seems a lot of the conflicts the west are getting involved in are being fought on 2 fronts,where it occurs and against political correctness back home,to quote ian smith ",we were defeated by our friends,not by our enemies. "

[kingdong]

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

Your post has nothing to do with alleged war crimes by Australian SF against restrained POWs and civilians in Afghanistan.

 

BTW are saying Selous Scouts and 32Bn committed the same crimes, murdering POWs and civilians and in your opinion that's OK?

 

 

Did i say those units were responsible for atrocities ?no you did,i pointed out they were militarily successful in doing their jobs.as for your allegation regarding the conduct of aussie sf,s were you there?

[kingdong]

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

Your post has nothing to do with alleged war crimes by Australian SF against restrained POWs and civilians in Afghanistan.

 

BTW are saying Selous Scouts and 32Bn committed the same crimes, murdering POWs and civilians and in your opinion that's OK?

 

 

Did i say those units were responsible for atrocities ?no you did,i pointed out they were militarily successful in doing their jobs.as for your allegation regarding the conduct of aussie sf,s were you there?

[rosst]

The number of atrocities committed against the Aussie soldiers outnumber ten to one any infringement by these men. 

Personally I don't have a problem with their performance of their task. 

Stop sending them to do the job you won't do yourself. 

Pales into insignificance compared to the attacks by their own people on the population. 

[kingdong]

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Please explain to me the point of fighting an enemy, if one is going to become just like them.

To kill them before they kill you?

[Lacessit]

24 minutes ago, rosst said:

The number of atrocities committed against the Aussie soldiers outnumber ten to one any infringement by these men. 

Personally I don't have a problem with their performance of their task. 

Stop sending them to do the job you won't do yourself. 

Pales into insignificance compared to the attacks by their own people on the population. 

Begs the question of why they are there in the first place, doesn't it?

Permit me to doubt shooting unarmed civilians, as an exercise in ensuring a new recruit achieves their first kill, is a legitimate task. That's cowardice, not bravery.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, kingdong said:

<SNIP>.as for your allegation regarding the conduct of aussie sf,s were you there?

Nonsensical comment - not my allegations, but the outcome of an ADF review lasting four years

[simple1]

1 hour ago, kingdong said:

To kill them before they kill you?

Obviously not the case regards this matter. It's alleged the murder of restrained POIWs and civilians for the purpose of 'bloodying'; by any measure, if proven guilty, war crimes.

[kingdong]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

Obviously not the case regards this matter. It's alleged the murder of restrained POIWs and civilians for the purpose of 'bloodying'; by any measure, if proven guilty, war crimes.

Unfortunately its not all black and white in armed conflicts,especially involving terrorists,still you obviously know best so perhaps you could explain the source of your knowledge?