SR,

I was commenting on your statement "Jim Nolan is an out and out war criminal" which is complete bollocks. The rules of engagement of the US and Aus both far exceed the requirements of the Geneva convention, and while JN might not meet your lofty ideals, unless he deliberately hit targets that were solely civilian, he is not a war criminal. Given that the intelligence that the pilot is acting on may be wrong or out of date, the final decision and onus lies on the pilot and his judgement and training.

However that being said, rules of engagement have flexibility due to circumstances. For example, if ISIS thugs are shooting civilians, do you attack them at the risk of killing some unarmed civilians, or do you abstain and let them all be killed? This was exactly the dilemma faced by the RAF in bombing a prison in France when the SS was about to execute a large group of resistance members. The result was that roughly most of the prisoners escaped, while were killed as a result of the British attack.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Just as I thought. A straight answer to a direct question was too big an ask.

Okay. In the first two weeks of the Battle for Fallujah, which Molan oversaw, the Red Cross estimated well over 800 civilians were killed. How many civilians do you think Molan conceded were killed during that time?

These are some of the things that occurred during the conflict. Phosphorous weapons were used in violation of the Geneva convention. Orders were given that whoever appeared in the night vision goggles of US forces after curfew were to be eliminated without the need to confirm their status. Early on the US forces used a school as a base of operations. They forced the closure of the main hospital and then placed snipers on its water tower to slaughter those who tried to use it.

The US forces regularly shot unarmed wounded prisoners, one incident was even captured on film.

“A Marine corporal who was videotaped shooting an apparently injured and unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque last year will not face court-martial, the Marine Corps announced Wednesday.”
“Maj. Gen. Richard F. Natonski, commanding general of the I Marine Expeditionary Force, said that a review of the evidence showed the Marine's actions in the shooting were "consistent with the established rules of engagement and the law of armed conflict."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-charges-in-fallujah-shooting/
Molan was deeply embedded within the command structure and would have given many of these orders himself.

Do you believe shooting a wounded prisoner is within the rules of the Geneva Convention? Do you believe Australians should accept that it is "consistent with the established rules of engagement and the law of armed conflict” when it is patently not? Do you think an Australian soldier would be within his rights to refuse an order to kill and unarmed wounded and captured enemy fighter?

Nah. Scrap that. Your answer will be tiring for both of us. But I will press you on how many civilians Molan thought were killed within the first 2 weeks of fighting? Just a ballpark figure is fine.

SteeleRedux having the gall to talk about true Australians. Now there's a joke for you, coming from a true anti-Australian.

As far as I am aware, refusing to obey orders still attracts a Court Martial. There's no conscious 'vote' in the military.

SR, you are making wild and unsubstantiated claims, asking vague and unspecific questions then demanding exact answers.

WRT to the Iraq invasion and the occupation, Aus forces were not directly involved in the hostilities, and the attack on Fallujah was an exclusively US affair, so the whole issue of terms of engagement are irrelevant as is your question.

As for some of your other BS claims, only some phosphorus weapons are banned, and not the weapons used in Iraq. Similarly, shooting a prisoner, wounded or otherwise is illegal, but your example does not specify whether the individual was a prisoner or even attempting to surrender, which is crucial in determining the legality of the action. And again your assertion that the US regularly shot unarmed wounded soldiers is unsupported.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Oh good lord do we really have to keep spoonfeeding you lot?

Molan was sent to serve as Chief of Operations of the Multi-national Forces including US troops in Iraq and played a significant role in the Battle for Fallujah. His own bloody book was titled 'Running the War in Iraq' for god's sake. He was awarded the US Legion of Merit for his services.

So to my 'unsubstantiated claims'. Let us explore a couple.

School used as a base.

It was this very issue that caused the first deaths that lead to a general uprising. From Wikipedia;

“On the evening of 28 April 2003, a crowd of 200 people defied a curfew imposed by the Americans and gathered outside a secondary school used as a military HQ to demand its reopening. Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne stationed on the roof of the building fired upon the crowd, resulting in the deaths of 17 civilians and the wounding of over 70.”

Phosphorous.

Although the US is one of the few countries which haven't signed the agreement on restricting its use they had agreed not to use it directly on civilians nor combatants but only for illumination purposes.

“"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said. The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm

Sniper.

The Iraq emergency coordinator for Médecins sans Frontières ;
"The Americans put a sniper position on top of the hospital's water tower and had troops in the single-storey building," ... "The hospital had four operating theatres, which could no longer be used. If they had been working, it would have saved many lives."
He said MSF wanted an independent inquiry to determine why the US military used the hospital as a military position - a violation of the Geneva convention.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/apr/24/iraq.rorymccarthy

Any others you want substantiated?

Hi, just noticed this discussion. Andrew Bolt has had a look at the videos, and in his opinion they are factual. Haven't had time to follow all the comments here but thought I would throw this in to see what the consensus was. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/the-media-is-wrong-jim-molans-videos-are-real/news-story/4d40c226026be52a1aacb8071ddd9888?from=htc_rss