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 !

Well …we should be satisfied the baying cowardly crowds didn’t spit on him, as was often the norm for returning Vietnam veterans.

There is a big lesson here for the younger generations. Don’t invest your precious life on US losing wars. There are definitely no rewards for services rendered!

Seems the author is having a bet both ways.

The heroes here are the brave SAS members who had the moral courage to report and give evidence about what went on and BRS's role in it.

There as hardened soldiers who were repelled by those actions and acted accordingly.

Hopefully command responsibility and structures can be reviewed so that this is much less likely to blight the reputation of our armed forces in the future.

To those who would have the code of conduct of our SAS akin the that of the Taliban, go away.

Loose lips sink ships…there once was an ethic.

So what was the reward for squealing ?

Me..I’d rather live with the former knowledge than live with the latter reputation.

All’s fair in love and war. Have we forgotten that one? The Taliban certainly didn’t, and guess what, they defeated the US in Afghanistan with a motley band of rough necks.

And on that one, they were quite happy separating a head from a body at the neck.

Nothing has changed, as in Vietnam, identifying the enemy among the crowd was more often unachievable: so a fearsome reputation was a means of extracting the truth.
And the armchair warriors that criticise the method, what of them? Seems the “rare” one chirps loudly on OLO.

Here is a suggestion to improve out parliaments.

A minimum of 2 years military service in a branch of the Australian defense force should become a requirement before anyone can stand for election to any level of government in Australia.

This would certainly get rid of a lot of the garbage currently in our governments.

Hasbeen

Most of the useless pricks haven’t even had a job.

You get what you ask for.

It’s you who vote for them, by so doing, it’s you who support their feign Parliamentary wars, as facade for our Democracy, it’s you turn a blind eye to plundering public resources for partisan self interest and personal wealth building and consequently, it’s you who support the scum bags in pushing our decorated returned servicemen under the bus.

Stop supporting them with your vote!

Another good article from Binoy Kampmark, this time about the trumped up hero Ben Roberts-Smith. Afghanistan is just another example of toady Australia being led by the nose once again into a useless war orchestrated by the worlds Bully Boy America. The phoney veneer of valour which the warmongers like to wrap war in, is nonsense, the truth is war is murder, hell for both the physical participants, and the innocent non-combatants alike.

Dan,

Your 'don't vote' rhetoric is is ridiculous. If we stopped voting we would be controlled by warlords, as in the Middle East sandpits and Communist China.

There are other ways. Don’t vote!

Why hasn't the head of the army been brought to account for the atrocities alledged to have been committed by a mere Corporal?

After WW11, high ranking officers were hanged for war crimes committed, not by themselves, but by their troops - whether or not they had ordered the actions, or didn't even know about them, as the current General claims that he didn't.

Dan

Well. Come on. What are these "other ways"

Hear, hear and well said, Hasbeen.

The buck stops with the commanding General, not a lowly corporal. War and the rules of engagement are a recipe for a mental breakdown.

In Afghanistan as in Vietnam, even a boy armed with Kalashnikov, could be the enemy.

If we ever go to war again, we need to forget rules of engagement that simply put our soldiers in a military straightjacket.
Alan B.

Ever notice that when some little yapping cur yaps at a Great Dane, the Dane doesn't acknowledge the cur.

In the same way, I'm sure Mr Roberts-Smith will never notice the likes of this whiny nobody author.

Dear Diver Dan,

You wrote: "All’s fair in love and war. Have we forgotten that one? The Taliban certainly didn’t, and guess what, they defeated the US in Afghanistan with a motley band of rough necks."

Even stop to think that was because all the indiscriminate killing saw there was little differentiation between the invading forces and those home grown to the ordinary Afghani. The Four Corners report on the conflict showed there were households when one brother was fighting with the Afghan Army and another with the Taliban.

The US kept corrupt and brutal Afghan officers because "all was fair in love and war".

It seems by your rhetoric you would have had no problem with the My Lai massacre because it would have contributed to a "fearsome reputation". You would have accused the helicopter pilot who intervened and later reported the mass killing of over 500 unarmed civilians as a "squealer".

As an Australian I was heartened hearing Australian pilots in Iraq exercised stricter rules of engagement than the Americans and when US command raised the issue with the ADF and ministers they all backed the pilots.

My father who served always felt the way Australians conducted themselves in combat situations honourable in comparison.

But due to rogue conduct by a small group of SAS troops in Afghanistan we have the Americans informing us that their actions:

“may trigger Leahy law consideration with regard to the relationship between the United States armed forces and a partner unit or organisation, in this case either being Special Operations Command or the Special Air Service (SAS) regiment”.

And while a certain person "continued to serve in the special forces, there was “no path” to alleviate the concerns of the US".

What the hell have we become?

Finally your arguments seem to clearly accept that he did commit war crimes but you have sought to excuse rather than deny they occurred.

It really is time to park the jingoistic crap, acknowledge what happen was a dark stain on the reputation of the SAS and let it get dealt with properly.

One sides WAR HERO is the other sides WAR CRIMINAL.

I can appreciate the frustration of soldiers boiling over & regretful actions ensue but for lounge chair parasites to call someone criminal is criminal in itself !
As someone said recently, the civilian walking towards you will pick up a hidden in the grass weapon behind your back, shoots you & puts the weapon back in the grass & acts like an unarmed civilian again !
How idiotic is it to talk about rules of war with people who say they wished they had more kids to sacrifice ?

Indy,

For one who shirked the opportunity to enlist in the military when presented, now you are safe in old age from any such engagement, it hypocritical of you to say; "reintroduce a National Service with a few weeks of military enlightenment thrown in" As for only militarist being eligible to govern, it shows you want the the country run by a military dictatorship of I assume old farts!

p/s Why did YOU shirk military service?

Why did YOU shirk military service?
Paul1405,
Too many Paul1405's out there who don't deserve a second of my time to be wasted on ! That's why !

Posted by Paul1405-
One sides WAR HERO is the other sides WAR CRIMINAL.

Answer-
I've long suspected that Paul1405 was on the other side- now he admits it

CM,

That is a general observation by me, you don't need to worry which side I'm on, I'm always on the side of PEACE. As for you, are you also a MILITARIST itching for a war with China, like the American military-industrial complex are determined to have.

Just as a side, it was the American President Dwight D Eisenhower who in 1961 warned the world, and his fellow Americans, of the dangers of the American military-industrial complex. Eisenhower didn't strike me as a "lefty radical", rather conservative I thought, but he was alarmed by that dangerous warmongering mob within America. My question to you is; Do you consider Eisenhower was a COMMUNIST, maybe a wolf in sheep's clothing? You are fond on calling out communists at every opportunity, what about Ike!

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-warns-of-military-industrial-complex

Yes I've previously talked about Hebrew- Edward Bernays "Consumer Industrial Complex"- and how it has distorted US society according to commentators such as the BBC's Adam Curtis- in a sense the military industrial complex is a component. But I think that perhaps Paul1405 needs to read again what Eisenhower actually said. Perhaps Eisenhower is implying that sometimes enemies use false flags (the Russian's are coming) for distraction- rather than being aware of the real issue- citizens losing control of their own civilization. That doesn't mean that the Russian's aren't a danger and they may even be the biggest danger- but they aren't the only danger- and they won't always be the biggest danger. Perhaps he was implying that the revolution of Consumer Culture that Bernays created was/is an insidious danger and still is today. Others also commented on the dangers of cultural trends in the US- Yuri Bezmenov, Solzenytzn, Dostoevsky, James Burnham, others- even Hebrew Father of the New Left- Herbert Marcuse said that society was the sickness that was the cause of individual psychological diagnoses- perhaps he was trying to sew doubt as to what the Hebrew cultural position really is on Hebrew/ Anglo US/ Western relations.

Bernays like his uncle Sigmund seem to think of US mass population as something that needed to be controlled under the illusion of democracy.

It's helpful sometimes to keep the competition guessing.

What if Bernays was the greatest Russian agent they never had? A fascinating thought.

Oh CM, so "fascinating", I'm fascinated to my boot straps. What if Fred Flintstone was a fascist, would you still be fascinated? BTW, is a fascinated person a fascists?