War is not a free-for-all.
There are sensible limits.
Defending yourself against those who would harm you is one thing.
Attacking defenceless civilians is quite another.

I also wonder about the justification for undertaking the 'war' in the first place.
Did they come here and attack us?
No?
Then why did we set foot in their country.
Is this a case where we were wrong?

Altogether a mish mash of mixed up meddling?
Let us be thankful a cooler head put it behind us.
Now there is just the mess to clean up...
And Mr Smith should have known better.

I don't trust much of the media and it's Communist anti-West bent. And universities have become very Communist too- and therefore so to has the legal system. I see the Communist and Hebrew Hollywood attack on Western Military as an attack on the West. Interesting that the Chinese are labelling SASR as baby killers- seems the Western Communists and Hebrew Hollywood are perhaps on the side of the Chinese.

Not sure how the media was able to get top secret information about SASR operations. The SASR are a small corps of about 500 men- if they need to be deployed in a region it means that the circumstances are desperate.

The West has been fighting the middle east for survival since the time of Alexander the Great.

They talk about the Pharises/ legalists in the bible- sometimes the law isn't enough to deal with the realities of the situation. Sadly in order for the law to change requires that many that are genuinely trying to serve the nation are hurt- especially when international law is concerned.

I think that the media should be more balanced in their coverage and talking about the groups that the SASR are fighting to protect Australia from events such as September 11.

It seems that Communist leaning governments in Austrlia routinely ignore ASIO advise of security risks.

You don't win wars by being nice to the enemy; nor do you win them when people want to take a VC-awarded soldier "down a peg or two"; or when you have a Prime Minister like Scott Morrison condemning our soldiers without the benefit of a trial, or a 'high command' more interested in gender bending and recruiting of females than they are in respecting and standing up for their troops.

Little wonder recruitment has been a problem.

It "seemed" that Cpl. Roberts-Smith was a "ruthless executioner and a bully". Well, until a criminal court - not a civil one - just finished - proves that assumption, he is neither of those things: he is still a hero, prepared to do things for his country that his mewling, bed-wetting critics are incapable of.

For reasons much different from those of young men reportedly not willing to fight for their country (various polls), I am beginning to doubt that Australia - or Australians - are worth fighting for

No one who has not been in the position where the friendly villager will shoot you in the back the moment you turn to leave, has any right to judge those who have.

The case was tried and not proven and all you do here, Binroy, is repeat unproven allegations. No soldier is a saint.

You're given a weapon and expected to kill with it. Politicians deciding condition of service are not on the field and haven't a clue about actual conditions.

We went into Afghanistan spent many lives and what for? What has changed!?

Unarmed?

Weapons include concealed knives, slingshots, bamboo slivers and concealed grenades. And Ben may have seen him planting an IUD.

How much sleep had the bloke got when he issued those orders?

You go out there and put it all on the line, Binroy, and see how well you measure up to Ben.
Alan B.

Easy to fix, reintroduce a National Service with a few weeks of military enlightenment thrown in. The comments will be vastly different !