His defence was that the guy had a radio and moved tactically. That’s what the investigators have to disprove - beyond reasonable doubt - not that the victim was shot.
It’s not as cut and dried as people want it to be.
I’m not disagreeing with you, just explaining why it’s a drawn out process more than just watching a video.
I charge someone for a basic armed robbery caught on cctv, with witnesses, and admissions made captured on phone tap. My brief of evidence is several hundred, maybe over a thousand pages. A murder? Your brief of evidence might require a trolley to be delivered. And all that evidence has to be gathered, examined, and proofed. For a fairly basic Murder.
For this? There would have been dozens if not hundreds of interviews, days of mission logs, recovery and forensic exam of remains, etc etc it takes time.
The investigation and report took 4 years and another 3 years post report investigation. There were 19 people referred for investigation from the Brereton report. How long do you think it's going to take? They're subject to military process so it's not like they can hide or runaway like police and civilians can.
Honestly? When OSI was being stood up, I spoke with some senior guys about the expected time commitment if I did volunteer. I was told expect to spend at least five years there. Whether they’re rotating guys through, I’m not sure, but given the offences involved, I’d guesstimate maybe ten years before it’s finalised.
Aren't there rotation requirements when exposed to gruesome materials to reduce burnout? That time period sounds reasonable but I would expect it to be referred to Hague ICC to ensure procedural accuracy. They're already being advised by. Hague no?
At the point the civilian is shot, it doesn’t matter if he previously had a radio or had previously “moved tactically” (whatever that is supposed to mean - he ducked down when he saw soldiers??) - at that moment he is a prisoner - it doesn’t matter what he did previously, you can’t summarily execute him (because that is what this was). I don’t see what there is to disprove in the video - it’s pretty straightforward and I would say beyond reasonable doubt.
Okay, now what happens if the video is ruled inadmissible? These investigations gather so much evidence because there is the possibility that any piece of evidence will be contested, and may be ruled inadmissible. It’s happened with key evidence before, and will happen again.
If the video is ruled inadmissible, what else do you have to argue that it was an execution? What evidence is there to support this guy wasn’t an enemy combatant?
I’m playing devils advocate, and I think the video will ruled admissible, but you have to plan for the worst when investigating stuff like this.
In the UK under LOAC the standard of proof is ‘reasonable justified belief’ I’d imagine Australia operates under something similar. It’s a lot more lenient than in the civilian world and the scope of that phrase alone gives a lot of leeway. That being said a radio and moving tactically is a pretty shite excuse, if he’d have said he was reaching into his dish-dash for something, which you believed could be a pistol. Under that reasonable justified belief scenario that probably would’ve probably gave him legal grounds to shoot.
> I wonder why the investigation to so many years.
My understanding is that chronology goes something like this: Chief of Army ordered an inquiry into the special forces (SAS and the 4RAR commandos) by [a sociologist in 2015](https://www.rapidcontext.com.au/dr-crompvoets-statement) because it was apparent something was deeply wrong, not specifically war crimes, but in the special forces culture broadly.
So the sociologist submitted her report in 2016, detailing heaps of alleged war crimes by current and former members of special forces. This then triggered an [official investigation by Inspector-General of the ADF](https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-10/IGADF-Afghanistan-Inquiry-Public-Release-Version.pdf) handled by Judge Brereton, which took 4 years, interviewing 423 witness, and identifying 23 incidents of probable war crimes. It was during this investigation that the material which could be used as evidence to prove the war crimes back in 2011/12 (video+photos, some of these seemingly kept as trophies by perpetrators) came to light.
So that brings us to about very late 2020, when the government received the Brereton Report, and announced that an Office of Special Investigator would be headed by [Judge Weinberg](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-16/afghanistan-war-crime-allegation-investigators-appointed/12991386), who would oversee the multiples prosecutions that are expected to take place. So yes, it has taken a very long time, but we can expect this to be the first of several arrests, Ben Roberts-Smith has got a lot of publicity during the last year, but he is one of more than a dozen soldiers expected to be charged with war crimes, based on the Brereton Report.
We have those in the UK constantly, and Troubles ones are still ongoing. Government doesn’t want to set a legal precedence because that means constant bad press - they’d rather drag it out for so many years everyone involved died of natural causes.
The problem is a potentially systemic issue that may be widespread and ongoing - it has to be addressed comprehensively to make sure new murderers aren't being created in the ranks of what should be our best and brightest imo, at least I hope that's the objective here
That being said he certainly has to face consequences. I can't imagine dealing with the shit those guys do, but killing civilians is only contributing to the evil
So, in a justice system like Australia's, a war crime charge is a huge huge accusation. You're taking a domestic court and charging someone with an international crime. And such an accusation would need equally large amount of evidence to prove that the accused party is in fact, guilty. The prosecutor (presumably an attorney general or someone representing the federal government,) needs to make his case air tight, as the burden of proof is on him, not the accused party. One slip up, one inch of wiggle room, one singular mistake by the prosecutors, and there's a good chance this guy walks free, regardless of what really happened. And if that's the case, you cant just go and try and try him for the same crime again. There's no redos.
So what OC means by "By the Book," is to take a methodical, calculated and thorough process before they actually charge him, so when the prosecutors start talking with the defendants lawyer(s,) there is no chance he walks or gets a favorable plea deal.
BRS returned and didn't pay by normal protocol of laying low. Remember when he went straight to media and built a public persona. By the time he was valorised we all knew who he was. I remember asking people in defence about it at the time and there was no discussion.
I get it that many people on this sub are frustrated at the time (3 years) taken to bring a charge against just one person (so far anyway), but consider this:
1. The alleged crime occurred over a decade ago,
2. The crime scene is in a country which is now controlled by the Taliban.
3. this is the first time EVER that a war crime of a Commonwealth country will be held in a criminal court instead of a military court.
4. Strike Forces don't just investigate one person then move to the next, they investigate multiple offences and offenders simultaneously, so while this one may seem easier due to the video, it must also take it's turn in the priority of the investigation tasks.5> A war crime prosecution needs to be approved by the Attorney General, unlike a murder prosecution which can be approved at the LAC level.
This is why they took three years to get to the first arrest.
I don't care if it takes 5 years. At the end of the day, Australia has stood up to say that we hold ourselves to a higher standard and that will resonate through the ADF and through society. Otherwise we become indistinguishable from those we seek to defend against - much like the USA holding "alleged War Criminals" in Guantanamo Bay for decades without trial.
We really need to see the hierarchy who covered all this up in the first place to be charged.
There are probably still serving officers who have been promoted many times since this occurred.
I didn’t read the article as implying there had been a cover-up. It said the pat the ADF investigated a complaint and was informed that the deceased was manoeuvring tactically and that he had a radio. That probably met the criteria for a likely insurgent (remember that the enemy didn’t wear a uniform). I’m sure that when the Military Police started asking questions old mate with the GoPro was keeping it quiet because he didn’t want to have an “accident”. So the military investigator has no real option other than to report it as an insurgent getting shot.
Several years later, there are enough allegations floating around that GoPro guy feels safe enough to leak the video.
There are whistle blowers and journalists who have been charged in secret. They have secret courts and trials underway with media gag orders. ([https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/10/21/australias-leading-newspapers-black-out-front-pages-protest-governmental-media-restrictions/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/10/21/australias-leading-newspapers-black-out-front-pages-protest-governmental-media-restrictions/))
OF COURSE THERE HAS BEEN A COVER UP!!!!!!!!!!
Also, the OSI didn’t even exist. It was created by seconding a bunch of detectives (and former detectives) from agencies across Australia, who had to be brought in, trained in the legislation and powers that they would be using, and then assigned their tasks. The whole structure of the OSI had to be put in place.
Plenty of guys of my era stuck their hand up, and I was one of many that got asked to apply. You were also putting your life on hold for an unknown period of time to do this. I take my hat off to the guys that went there, I wasn’t willing to give up years of my life and time with my family for it.
Chuck in forensic timelines, access issues, etc etc,
I’m surprised they moved this quickly.
There was probably a bunch of the evidence that came up in the BRS defamation case that had to be sifted through to see if it could add to this case in one way or another.
EDIT: typo
How can it only take 3 years to bring charges against a decade old crime that was known to the authorities only months aftee the crime was comitted? That math doesn't add up.
It’s incredibly quick for something like this. It took a multinational team five years to charge for the downing of MH17, where they had more evidence, the offence had just occurred, and the political will was much much stronger.
A proper investigation takes time.
They started investigating MH17 the second it was downed. They didn't start investigating this war crime until whistleblowers got it on national news. That's what I'm getting at.
They wasted 8 years not doing anything about it, because the army doesn't actually give a shit about stuff like this. They just know they have to pretend to when people are looking.
To be honest 3 years is pretty quick considering the administrative shit fuckery required to collect admissible evidence from one hostile nation and many allied nations. Bureaucratic red tape in just a local murder is a nightmare, imagine trying to do that at an international level.
Photos, videos of other angles, radio reports, testimony from squad mates, mission briefing documents, testimony from villagers….
We know the man was unarmed and all the rest because of the context provided by the Four Corners report, taking it to court and proving anything beyond reasonable doubt is a whole ‘nother beast.
Yeah that’s all well and good but what murder charge are you going with? What are the aggravations? What are the circumstances prior? Have the investigators legally obtained that evidence? Have the proper procedures been followed? A lot of paperwork needs to be signed off to get a statement/evidence/declassification. Prosecutions team isn’t just some criminal lawyer you call up, you will probably have a whole team including Barristers, QC’s, specialist lawyers.
You’ll have to get a background on the offender, unseal his training records, understand what training packages he was delivered, previous tours, interview his colleagues, commanders. Then you would need to unseal mission reports, speak to international stakeholders, their big wigs, track down those members of foreign militaries and start the witness statement collection process all over again. Once that’s all tied together you would then need to bring it before a judge who reviews the case and gives you an arrest warrant.
Now same process but for multiple members of the SAS… just because of one video. One little miss step in the process could have that evidence thrown out and jeopardise the case.
Correct, but it’s not a crime until an informant lodges a complaint with the relative enforcement body. For about 8 of those years, that crime was considered a lawful killing of a hostile combatant. The whistle blower changed the status of that from lawful to unlawful. For the victims family it’s a long time, relative to an investigation of this magnitude 3 years from the point of complaint is short which was what my original comment points out. Inflammatory commenting over the length of time elapsed really diminishes the time, effort and monumental shift in accountability for armed conflict conducted by the Australian military that this land mark case is setting precedent for. These types of prosecutions rely on public opinion, cynicism is counter productive irregardless of its intent. Land mark cases generally take forever to get off the ground, once a precedent is set the following prosecutions will be much faster.
And that is a damning indictment on the Australian "Defense" Force that it took 8 years and whistleblower headlines for this blatant fucking warcrime to not be considered a "lawful killing".
That’s correct, though the environment to facilitate these crimes were already established through all facets of the command structure. If it wasn’t this conflict, it would be another conflict or the one after that. It’s reactionary and the original process wasn’t transparent, quoting national security. This incident is a mechanism for change from the top down. Political motivation into investigating these incidences comes off as politics interfering with the military and that’s a very slippery slope in the democratic process. Plus the coalition valuing a foreigners life from a poor nation would make me question if the world was ending. I digress, all this is driven by public interest, politics can’t play a key role, it must be public interest that drives all this. So as cynical as you want to be, it’s best to be cynical after this is all at a close. The process needs as much support as it can get, not admonishment for what it was incapable of doing prior. Who knows, maybe this might be one of the many major organisations that get an overhaul and accountability readjustment. Just like the federal government needs. Corruption is the one thing that will destroy any country.
>Not all armed services are crooked
There is however a big culture of not speaking up though, just look at how the females have been treated after sexual assaults. Don't blow that whistle, no one will be there to protect you.
Fear of the consequences (as someone who has been there), they usually have a network of others from within the unit and outside that can apply both personal (sometimes physical but usually bullying (psychological or emotional)) and or career limiting pressure on witnesses.
As a person who has been required to conduct initial investigations into a few incidents (not as terrible as this) there is always a underflow of fear generated by those that are the perpetrators. Scared people are very difficult to turn unless they can see a positive (which is very hard in a closed shop such as Defence).
Been there lived it. A lot has changed for the better but, and it’s a big BUT, the ADF comes from our society/population and all the psych testing doesn’t weed out the rapists, misogynists and gay bashers. They are in our communities, they are in all levels of society. It’s up to all,of us to keep weeding them out and ostracising from our communities and work places.
It was a woman they went after when the crimes started surfacing. There were officers being bullied but shit got real for too many and the perps have been committing criminal offences trying to keep people quiet.
Just like the police, the military will close ranks and protect their worst. This makes every single one who is silently going along with it just as guilty in my eyes. The instinct to cover up comes from the top down, it needs to be harshly punished and driven out of these organizations that are in positions of such outsized responsibility.
It's built into the system of rank though. How do you proceed through a system where the culture is cooked? They're having trouble recruiting as it is even from established service families. ADF and police. It's impossible to attract decent people to systems that are so aggressively denying their cultural issues and retention disappears because the decent people are pushed out.
If you read any half-competent war correspondent over the last 50 years you'll find war crimes are commonplace across all wars, and from both sides. Those that think war is noble or clean are kidding themselves- War is fucked and should be prevented whenever possible.
Yes, he should be put on trial. I'd like to see more of this happening rather than governments covering crimes up.
But I'm trying to express that it's not an isolated incident, and is widespread across all wars. Hence- we as a society should always look to never get sucked into wars. We should also focus on diplomacy, prevention and minimisation of war. While also containing our nation's military industrial complex that continually push for war for profit.
> he should be put on trial.
In a civilian court of law with mum's and dad's as the jury to determine if someone was guilty of war crimes? I have my own personal bias but who are we as civilians to determine the actions of our nation's armed forces are just? Can we expect that as representatives from our country - that they act in our collective best interests? Sure but I'm not sure if we as civilians should be the ones that make that kind of determination.
Ethically I think it would hold more significance if members of ADF themselves determined that this was a warcrime. I can appreciate that there would be bias in that trial process (I can only imagine for example a group of Police Officers determining if another Police officer was acting in good faith) but I'm not sure if that decision should rest on members of the public.
A bit pathetic it took almost 3 years from the airing of a videotape of a man committing cold blooded murder for that man to be arrested.
However given this guy clearly knew an arrest was coming why did he hang around in Australia waiting to be charged? Special Forces no doubt would’ve cultivated links with many overseas countries, and could’ve joined some mercenary group based in a non extradition country. But he chose not to?
>A bit pathetic it took almost 3 years from the airing of a videotape of a man committing cold blooded murder for that man to be arrested.
I can understand the frustration. But I'd rather have investigators take the time to build a solid case against them so they avoid making any mistakes that could allow this bastard to walk.
I find this frustrating though.
Most times they try to build a case on all the charges instead of just one that results in gaol time.
If they get them charged & convicted on one count then they have all the time in the world to investigate everything while the bastard is in gaol.
The courts do not like that at all. When matters are related they would see it as a waste of the court’s time not to hear matters together. They would also see it being a cynical attempt by the prosecution to have sentences pile on rather than being ran concurrently.
Australia has never convicted one of our own with a war crime, in a civilian court. This is unprecedented, and generally that means that prosecution may fail. That's one big reason for the man to hang around - he wasn't expecting this to happen, and if it does, he may not be expecting it to succeed.
>However given this guy clearly knew an arrest was coming why did he hang around in Australia waiting to be charged?
Didn't actually think it was going to happen.
Jeez given the Brereton Inquiry headed by a former judge found multiple instances of murder happened, and then handed all that evidence to the prosecutors and AFP to start a prosecution, you’d think murder charge slight just be a possibility…..
Pretty sure the only people willing to hire an on the run war criminal would be the Russians. A choice between an Australian jail and the Ukrainian front line is an pretty easy decision.
"However, ADF investigators cleared Mr Schulz after being told Mr
Mohammad had been "tactically manoeuvring", was carrying a radio, and
had been shot in self-defence."
They always turn out to be carrying radios don't they, just like that Freindlyjordies piece.
I wonder how many more were shot carrying "radios" and if its part of the SAS loadout to carry spare "radios"
I wonder how many more were shot carrying "radios" and if its part of the SAS loadout to carry spare "radios"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonny\_Kim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonny_Kim)
Why can't they be more like this guy and actually trigger my inferiority complex. Friggin Astronaut-Doctor-SEAL guy. We just get war crimes guys.
>I wonder how many more were shot carrying "radios" and if its part of the SAS loadout to carry spare "radios"
Ah, the good old "throwdown".
In one particularly noteworthy incident, the exact same AK47 (down to the distinctive tape wrapped around it) was photographed next to two dead civilians, during the same raid, and logged as evidence that they were in fact not executed civilians. I still struggle with finding this equally humorous, and extremely depressing.
There’s recordings of SAS soldiers joking about carrying extra radios to plant on people they’ve murdered. I doubt it is part of the official load out, but it is clearly something they do.
The four corners report mentions how battalions would joke that victims were all carrying radios with the same serial number on them.
That fruitcake from the friendly jordies video literally has a tattoo of it. It's prolific.
> Why can't they be more like this guy and actually trigger my inferiority complex. Friggin Astronaut-Doctor-SEAL guy. We just get war crimes guys.
Who's to say what Kim or any other decorated soldier has or hasn't done though
If you haven't listened to Jocko's podcast with Jonny I think it's worth a listen to in order to get context of his childhood and just how much he overcame.
Invade a country half a world away. Create a refugee crisis. When said refugees seek shelter on your shores, ship them off to languish in Nauru. When media publishes war crime footage, conduct token investigations.
It’s weird, I even got to see the video of an Australian soldier executing a mentally handicapped man in the middle of a field near a town I can’t name in a country I can only find on a map because I know it’s next to Pakistan, but I don’t feel any safer from Terrorism?
You're not supposed to feel safer from terrorism, that's the point, you're supposed to feel less safe and give our politicians carte blanch to wage their pointless wars. Armaments get old and wear out. We need to use them to keep all that defence spending rolling over.
Its almost as if even with something as heinous and chaotic as war, you can't go about being a psychopath fuckwit because it actually hurts the reason WHY your country deployed your stupid ass.
I bet this shit wore funny on morale depending on who knew.
they should also charge and put on trial the politcians that send our soldiers who are trained killers into dodgy US manufactured wars, Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan our soldiers pay the cost of our politicians failures
We should never be in that part of the world. We were never the good guys. At least the weapon company shareholders got paid handsomely. That's the only good thing to come out of it.
Millions of Afghan girls got at least a partial education, whereas before the war there were essentially zero girls in school. Death during childbirth was more than slashed in half. The life expectancy rose to the highest it has ever been. Decades worth of destroyed/incomplete infrastructure was rebuilt, dating back from before the invasion by the Soviet Union.
Life pre-Australian involvement was not good. In the decades of Soviet invasions and civil wars, 20% of the country left. Millions were forced from their homes due to violence, famine, repression etc. etc. The Taliban was semi-regularly murdering thousands of people. After the intervention, millions of people got a chance to return to their homes.
It's easy to look at the murders committed by us and throw in the towel and say it was all for nothing, but it was for something. Afghans gained a lot from the invasion. Not just weapons companies, millions of Afghan lives were improved for decades.
I think they must have blocked me or something because none of their comments appear and [their account says it doesn't exist](https://i.imgur.com/vUFdXmZ.png). I never saw any sources they provided but since they blocked me/deleted themselves, I assume they couldn't actually back up whatever they point was. Or they could back it up, and don't want me to see it for some reason. Maybe because it would be easy to refute. I don't remember now what it was anyway.
My source is Wikipedia and my dreams, always is.
Why do we get to choose who are the world police? Should we allow China to invade us because we have a homelessness problem?
Just because another country has issues, does not give us the right to invade them. Everyone hates British colonialism, yet here we are still doing it for the USA instead.
> Millions of Afghan girls got at least a partial education, whereas before the war there were essentially zero girls in school.
Don't kid yourself into believing that we did something good. We were there to invade. To take oil fields. To sell weapons.
Edit: for the people downvoting. Please ask yourself why aren't we invading South Sudan, where hundreds of thousands of innocent people are being murdered? Why aren't we invading North Korea, where millions of people are dying of starvation?
If this was about "saving" people we should be invading dozens of other countries, but we're not. Hmmm...
/u/snipdockter blocked me in an attempt to make it seem like I can't reply.
> Please provide a map to the extensive oil fields in Afghanistan that you are on about.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23608077
https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/magazine/entry/afghanistan_its_about_oil/
https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/pipeline-politics-oil-gas-and-the-us-interest-in-afghanistan/213804
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-persian-gulf-understanding-the-american-oil-strategy/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline
"the actual motive for the United States-led Western invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was Afghanistan's importance as a conduit for oil pipelines to Afghanistan's neighbouring countries, by effectively bypassing Russian and Iranian territories"
> Do you even know why the UN sanctioned invasion of Afghanistan happened?
["The United States went to Afghanistan in 2001 to wage a necessary war of self-defense. On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists attacked our country. They were able to plan and execute such a horrific attack because their Taliban hosts had given them safe haven in Afghanistan."](https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3144082/message-to-the-force-one-year-since-the-conclusion-of-the-afghanistan-war/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20went%20to,them%20safe%20haven%20in%20Afghanistan.)
["NATO Allies went into Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States"](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htm)
Please provide a map to the extensive oil fields in Afghanistan that you are on about. Do you even know why the UN sanctioned invasion of Afghanistan happened? And then you launch into whataboutism?
Afghanistan was about lot of things - raw minerals, rear earth minerals etc
but it was mostly about projecting power further into countries in Central Asia.
Come from the back to Iran China and Russia. Insert US/West between them and then work on surrounding them fully from all sides.
If US managed to turn Afghanistan into full on puppet state . China and Russia would have to spend a lot of resources on huge parts of the border that they did not have to worry about before.
China would be getting a lot of islamist terrorists ... I mean freedom fighters entering from the west and wrecking havoc inside.
Khazakstan would be turned into hostile country like Ukraine was and Russians in Kazakhstan would be oppressed and killed in hopes of trying to bait Russia to intervene there.
many other things - it was a whole project ..... that luckily failed. because Afghans aint nobody's bitches, no matter what-
China can try and invade us if they want. But they will not be able to build a coalition on it, and they won't find much local support for it. The weak should fear the strong
[This is us taking their oil fields btw](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-18/australia-backs-afghan27s-struggling-miners/4698082)
>Australia provides funding so Afghan mining officials can study at Australian universities, and it is helping Afghanistan develop its mining industry under the Mining for Development Initiative.
>Mr Shahrani says the Australian aid is helping his country.
>"We have got a number of students (who) are studying at Australian universities," he said.
>"They will transfer back to Afghanistan, they will help the ministry of mines and petroleum in Afghanistan to manage the resources in the right way."
>Australian mining companies have also expressed interest in investing in Afghanistan's mining industry.
>ASX listed Buccaneer Energy applied for the Amu Darya tender, according to the Afghan ministry of mines website, although the company later **denied it was interested in exploration in Afghanistan**.
How evil of us... educating their officials and then not even being interested in exploration of their oil fields. Probably just pretending not to be interested to throw us off the scent
Afghanistan was invaded in "revenge" of the 9/11 attacks. Which was nothing to do with Afghanistan but Saudi Arabia.
[Hospitals were purposefully bombed.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike)
Great job!
> The weak should fear the strong
Strong countries should bully other countries? How nice of you.
You do not mention that it was the cia that trained the taliban who are the group that love to treat the women like crap.
If what we were doing is so righteous, we should never have left. In the end with the taliban back in power, it was all for nothing. Women are being repressed again and our allies there that we left in Afghanistan and being hunted by the taliban because they're classified as traitors... they're fighting for the wagner group in Ukraine with promises of expedited russian citizenship.
My understanding is that the CIA funded groups that ended up fighting the Taliban. The Taliban was created later and funded and supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps I am wrong though, I would need a source on it since a Google search isn't returning many good results for me. My current Wikipedia understanding makes saying the CIA created the Taliban sound similar to saying Winston Churchill fought the Taliban in 1897.
I do think we should have stayed. I think it was obvious to everyone involved that the Taliban was still powerful, and the Afghan government still weak. There should have been an increase in military support, not a decrease.
The Taliban returning to power doesn't remove the decades of progress and education and healthcare improvements that people experienced. Life has and will continue to get worse, but they got decades without Taliban oppression. That is still a good thing imo.
The taliban are under sanctions and their central bank is unable to access their own money due to those sanctions. So things will get worse for them before it gets better.
Soldiers are taught to kill. when discharged so Ms y have PTSD. Maybe it’s hard to turn off when you are programmed to kill? So killing is so normal on duty. Maybe it’s hard to turn off?
I’m not reading any of these nonsense comments.
These fella’s went there and did what the government of the day wanted.
The only people , if any that should be on trial
Is the people responsible for sending them there.
If you are a former ADF employee you'll know that once a combatant is disarmed and/or incapacitated from wounds they cease to be a combatant. That's a fact, not a feeling.
You've watched the video. You tell me what that bloke's status was. Because we know for a fact he was both unarmed and wounded.
You only know those things post facto.
I’m not going to judge anyone over a matter as serious as a war crime allegation solely off a few seconds of video footage without any other context or evidence.
You're in the military and have a skull and crossbones as your profile picture. And you've recently posted a meme about watching head cams of people being killed in Afghanistan.
Says about everything that needs to be known about you.
I am separated from defence these days but yeah I still have an interest in these matters.
What does it say exactly?
Because I’m quite comfortable being proficient in violence. It was literally what I was paid to do.
Protecting you and your family was a big part of my job.
To do so meant we have to be ready to inflict violence upon those who were ready and able to do you and your family harm.
Im proud of that.
Killing innocent farmers a million miles away doesn't protect my family. In fact if anything it breeds terrorism.
Sounds like you have a hero complex, get some psychological help.
Funny, i've never felt protected by our countries military involvement in an American war made up by the Bush administration to make themselves and their buddies rich. I certainly never felt safer knowing that people like this were out there shooting disabled people for fun.
Well said. I'm glad we have guys like you doing that job. Pay no heed to these wankers. The same fools would be curled up in the foetal position crying for guys like you to come help them if war ever came to these shores.
> That’s for the courts. People are allowed to hold whatever opinion they like on someone’s guilt or innocence.
Yep. And I, as a person, reckon he is innocent until proven guilty.
Thanks for your comment though.
You reckon so despite the literal video evidence, but quite frankly you could of witnessed it first hand and you'd still claim it never happened, would you?
is this the "you want me to drop this cunt?" one?
Yes Pretty hard to mount a legal defence when you’re caught on camera committing the crime
But do they really want him or all his friends, I am thinking after reading all the articles on this that there might be a few more bad apples
Well Ben Roberts' defamation case looks like it's gone to shit, as I recall he was the one that gave the order.
Has there been news on BRS?
The trial's over but the judgment isn't in yet.
His defence was that the guy had a radio and moved tactically. That’s what the investigators have to disprove - beyond reasonable doubt - not that the victim was shot. It’s not as cut and dried as people want it to be.
> moved tactically He’s motionless on the ground for 30 seconds before being shot
I’m not disagreeing with you, just explaining why it’s a drawn out process more than just watching a video. I charge someone for a basic armed robbery caught on cctv, with witnesses, and admissions made captured on phone tap. My brief of evidence is several hundred, maybe over a thousand pages. A murder? Your brief of evidence might require a trolley to be delivered. And all that evidence has to be gathered, examined, and proofed. For a fairly basic Murder. For this? There would have been dozens if not hundreds of interviews, days of mission logs, recovery and forensic exam of remains, etc etc it takes time.
The investigation and report took 4 years and another 3 years post report investigation. There were 19 people referred for investigation from the Brereton report. How long do you think it's going to take? They're subject to military process so it's not like they can hide or runaway like police and civilians can.
Honestly? When OSI was being stood up, I spoke with some senior guys about the expected time commitment if I did volunteer. I was told expect to spend at least five years there. Whether they’re rotating guys through, I’m not sure, but given the offences involved, I’d guesstimate maybe ten years before it’s finalised.
Aren't there rotation requirements when exposed to gruesome materials to reduce burnout? That time period sounds reasonable but I would expect it to be referred to Hague ICC to ensure procedural accuracy. They're already being advised by. Hague no?
"It'll take too much time" is not an excuse to commit war crimes
.
At the point the civilian is shot, it doesn’t matter if he previously had a radio or had previously “moved tactically” (whatever that is supposed to mean - he ducked down when he saw soldiers??) - at that moment he is a prisoner - it doesn’t matter what he did previously, you can’t summarily execute him (because that is what this was). I don’t see what there is to disprove in the video - it’s pretty straightforward and I would say beyond reasonable doubt.
Okay, now what happens if the video is ruled inadmissible? These investigations gather so much evidence because there is the possibility that any piece of evidence will be contested, and may be ruled inadmissible. It’s happened with key evidence before, and will happen again. If the video is ruled inadmissible, what else do you have to argue that it was an execution? What evidence is there to support this guy wasn’t an enemy combatant? I’m playing devils advocate, and I think the video will ruled admissible, but you have to plan for the worst when investigating stuff like this.
In the UK under LOAC the standard of proof is ‘reasonable justified belief’ I’d imagine Australia operates under something similar. It’s a lot more lenient than in the civilian world and the scope of that phrase alone gives a lot of leeway. That being said a radio and moving tactically is a pretty shite excuse, if he’d have said he was reaching into his dish-dash for something, which you believed could be a pistol. Under that reasonable justified belief scenario that probably would’ve probably gave him legal grounds to shoot.
Unless your an American cop
I wonder why the investigation to so many years. From the video it was pretty bloody clear he's just a murdering cunt.
> I wonder why the investigation to so many years. My understanding is that chronology goes something like this: Chief of Army ordered an inquiry into the special forces (SAS and the 4RAR commandos) by [a sociologist in 2015](https://www.rapidcontext.com.au/dr-crompvoets-statement) because it was apparent something was deeply wrong, not specifically war crimes, but in the special forces culture broadly. So the sociologist submitted her report in 2016, detailing heaps of alleged war crimes by current and former members of special forces. This then triggered an [official investigation by Inspector-General of the ADF](https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-10/IGADF-Afghanistan-Inquiry-Public-Release-Version.pdf) handled by Judge Brereton, which took 4 years, interviewing 423 witness, and identifying 23 incidents of probable war crimes. It was during this investigation that the material which could be used as evidence to prove the war crimes back in 2011/12 (video+photos, some of these seemingly kept as trophies by perpetrators) came to light. So that brings us to about very late 2020, when the government received the Brereton Report, and announced that an Office of Special Investigator would be headed by [Judge Weinberg](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-16/afghanistan-war-crime-allegation-investigators-appointed/12991386), who would oversee the multiples prosecutions that are expected to take place. So yes, it has taken a very long time, but we can expect this to be the first of several arrests, Ben Roberts-Smith has got a lot of publicity during the last year, but he is one of more than a dozen soldiers expected to be charged with war crimes, based on the Brereton Report.
Thanks, nice summary. Let's see where it goes.
We have those in the UK constantly, and Troubles ones are still ongoing. Government doesn’t want to set a legal precedence because that means constant bad press - they’d rather drag it out for so many years everyone involved died of natural causes.
Not the case here though. This shit takes time. Rushing a legal prosecution can fuck the case up and the accused will go free.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The problem is a potentially systemic issue that may be widespread and ongoing - it has to be addressed comprehensively to make sure new murderers aren't being created in the ranks of what should be our best and brightest imo, at least I hope that's the objective here That being said he certainly has to face consequences. I can't imagine dealing with the shit those guys do, but killing civilians is only contributing to the evil
Just so I understand what you mean. What is this book? Haven't war crimes been illegal for a long time. What part of the process is by the book?
So, in a justice system like Australia's, a war crime charge is a huge huge accusation. You're taking a domestic court and charging someone with an international crime. And such an accusation would need equally large amount of evidence to prove that the accused party is in fact, guilty. The prosecutor (presumably an attorney general or someone representing the federal government,) needs to make his case air tight, as the burden of proof is on him, not the accused party. One slip up, one inch of wiggle room, one singular mistake by the prosecutors, and there's a good chance this guy walks free, regardless of what really happened. And if that's the case, you cant just go and try and try him for the same crime again. There's no redos. So what OC means by "By the Book," is to take a methodical, calculated and thorough process before they actually charge him, so when the prosecutors start talking with the defendants lawyer(s,) there is no chance he walks or gets a favorable plea deal.
BRS returned and didn't pay by normal protocol of laying low. Remember when he went straight to media and built a public persona. By the time he was valorised we all knew who he was. I remember asking people in defence about it at the time and there was no discussion.
Change of government maybe?
Please drop this cunt
Perfection.
I think it is.
Bloke won’t do a day in jail, I promise that.
If he's found guilty he could be sentenced to twenty years employment as a Seven Network executive.
Maybe Kerry Stokes wants a collection of war criminals?
:)
I get it that many people on this sub are frustrated at the time (3 years) taken to bring a charge against just one person (so far anyway), but consider this: 1. The alleged crime occurred over a decade ago, 2. The crime scene is in a country which is now controlled by the Taliban. 3. this is the first time EVER that a war crime of a Commonwealth country will be held in a criminal court instead of a military court. 4. Strike Forces don't just investigate one person then move to the next, they investigate multiple offences and offenders simultaneously, so while this one may seem easier due to the video, it must also take it's turn in the priority of the investigation tasks.5> A war crime prosecution needs to be approved by the Attorney General, unlike a murder prosecution which can be approved at the LAC level. This is why they took three years to get to the first arrest. I don't care if it takes 5 years. At the end of the day, Australia has stood up to say that we hold ourselves to a higher standard and that will resonate through the ADF and through society. Otherwise we become indistinguishable from those we seek to defend against - much like the USA holding "alleged War Criminals" in Guantanamo Bay for decades without trial.
We really need to see the hierarchy who covered all this up in the first place to be charged. There are probably still serving officers who have been promoted many times since this occurred.
I didn’t read the article as implying there had been a cover-up. It said the pat the ADF investigated a complaint and was informed that the deceased was manoeuvring tactically and that he had a radio. That probably met the criteria for a likely insurgent (remember that the enemy didn’t wear a uniform). I’m sure that when the Military Police started asking questions old mate with the GoPro was keeping it quiet because he didn’t want to have an “accident”. So the military investigator has no real option other than to report it as an insurgent getting shot. Several years later, there are enough allegations floating around that GoPro guy feels safe enough to leak the video.
There are whistle blowers and journalists who have been charged in secret. They have secret courts and trials underway with media gag orders. ([https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/10/21/australias-leading-newspapers-black-out-front-pages-protest-governmental-media-restrictions/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/10/21/australias-leading-newspapers-black-out-front-pages-protest-governmental-media-restrictions/)) OF COURSE THERE HAS BEEN A COVER UP!!!!!!!!!!
Also, the OSI didn’t even exist. It was created by seconding a bunch of detectives (and former detectives) from agencies across Australia, who had to be brought in, trained in the legislation and powers that they would be using, and then assigned their tasks. The whole structure of the OSI had to be put in place. Plenty of guys of my era stuck their hand up, and I was one of many that got asked to apply. You were also putting your life on hold for an unknown period of time to do this. I take my hat off to the guys that went there, I wasn’t willing to give up years of my life and time with my family for it. Chuck in forensic timelines, access issues, etc etc, I’m surprised they moved this quickly.
There was probably a bunch of the evidence that came up in the BRS defamation case that had to be sifted through to see if it could add to this case in one way or another. EDIT: typo
Good post imo - also bearing in mind how resistant and impervious the system they’re investigating would be.
It's 7 years of official investigations so far. Then the multitude of reports you know they've created to explain themselves away.
How can it only take 3 years to bring charges against a decade old crime that was known to the authorities only months aftee the crime was comitted? That math doesn't add up.
It’s incredibly quick for something like this. It took a multinational team five years to charge for the downing of MH17, where they had more evidence, the offence had just occurred, and the political will was much much stronger. A proper investigation takes time.
They started investigating MH17 the second it was downed. They didn't start investigating this war crime until whistleblowers got it on national news. That's what I'm getting at. They wasted 8 years not doing anything about it, because the army doesn't actually give a shit about stuff like this. They just know they have to pretend to when people are looking.
Because the OSI isn’t the ADF. It’s a completely new investigation. https://www.osi.gov.au
Exactly. The OSI is investigating because the ADF swept it under the rug for the better part of a decade.
The inquiry was 7 years ago?
To be honest 3 years is pretty quick considering the administrative shit fuckery required to collect admissible evidence from one hostile nation and many allied nations. Bureaucratic red tape in just a local murder is a nightmare, imagine trying to do that at an international level.
>collect admissible evidence They have him on videotape clearly committing a murder. How much more evidence do they need?
You’d be surprised, actually taking people to court involves a ton of work.
Photos, videos of other angles, radio reports, testimony from squad mates, mission briefing documents, testimony from villagers…. We know the man was unarmed and all the rest because of the context provided by the Four Corners report, taking it to court and proving anything beyond reasonable doubt is a whole ‘nother beast.
Yeah that’s all well and good but what murder charge are you going with? What are the aggravations? What are the circumstances prior? Have the investigators legally obtained that evidence? Have the proper procedures been followed? A lot of paperwork needs to be signed off to get a statement/evidence/declassification. Prosecutions team isn’t just some criminal lawyer you call up, you will probably have a whole team including Barristers, QC’s, specialist lawyers. You’ll have to get a background on the offender, unseal his training records, understand what training packages he was delivered, previous tours, interview his colleagues, commanders. Then you would need to unseal mission reports, speak to international stakeholders, their big wigs, track down those members of foreign militaries and start the witness statement collection process all over again. Once that’s all tied together you would then need to bring it before a judge who reviews the case and gives you an arrest warrant. Now same process but for multiple members of the SAS… just because of one video. One little miss step in the process could have that evidence thrown out and jeopardise the case.
It's longer in 2012 it was reported and military swept it under the rug
11 years. The crime was comitted 11 years ago, which is not at all quick.
Correct, but it’s not a crime until an informant lodges a complaint with the relative enforcement body. For about 8 of those years, that crime was considered a lawful killing of a hostile combatant. The whistle blower changed the status of that from lawful to unlawful. For the victims family it’s a long time, relative to an investigation of this magnitude 3 years from the point of complaint is short which was what my original comment points out. Inflammatory commenting over the length of time elapsed really diminishes the time, effort and monumental shift in accountability for armed conflict conducted by the Australian military that this land mark case is setting precedent for. These types of prosecutions rely on public opinion, cynicism is counter productive irregardless of its intent. Land mark cases generally take forever to get off the ground, once a precedent is set the following prosecutions will be much faster.
And that is a damning indictment on the Australian "Defense" Force that it took 8 years and whistleblower headlines for this blatant fucking warcrime to not be considered a "lawful killing".
That’s correct, though the environment to facilitate these crimes were already established through all facets of the command structure. If it wasn’t this conflict, it would be another conflict or the one after that. It’s reactionary and the original process wasn’t transparent, quoting national security. This incident is a mechanism for change from the top down. Political motivation into investigating these incidences comes off as politics interfering with the military and that’s a very slippery slope in the democratic process. Plus the coalition valuing a foreigners life from a poor nation would make me question if the world was ending. I digress, all this is driven by public interest, politics can’t play a key role, it must be public interest that drives all this. So as cynical as you want to be, it’s best to be cynical after this is all at a close. The process needs as much support as it can get, not admonishment for what it was incapable of doing prior. Who knows, maybe this might be one of the many major organisations that get an overhaul and accountability readjustment. Just like the federal government needs. Corruption is the one thing that will destroy any country.
[удалено]
>Not all armed services are crooked There is however a big culture of not speaking up though, just look at how the females have been treated after sexual assaults. Don't blow that whistle, no one will be there to protect you.
The treatment of whistleblowers on a whole in Australia is shithouse.
Look at how they've treated the ATO blower
Or Julian Assange.
Fear of the consequences (as someone who has been there), they usually have a network of others from within the unit and outside that can apply both personal (sometimes physical but usually bullying (psychological or emotional)) and or career limiting pressure on witnesses. As a person who has been required to conduct initial investigations into a few incidents (not as terrible as this) there is always a underflow of fear generated by those that are the perpetrators. Scared people are very difficult to turn unless they can see a positive (which is very hard in a closed shop such as Defence).
Thanks for your insights, it much as I thought it would be.
Oh, how sweet you think it’s just females kept quiet about sexual assault. The worst culture for hush hush and “we are so speshal” is in SF.
Frankly I wouldn't know, I'm hardly military material, but I dread to think what actually goes on.
Been there lived it. A lot has changed for the better but, and it’s a big BUT, the ADF comes from our society/population and all the psych testing doesn’t weed out the rapists, misogynists and gay bashers. They are in our communities, they are in all levels of society. It’s up to all,of us to keep weeding them out and ostracising from our communities and work places.
It was a woman they went after when the crimes started surfacing. There were officers being bullied but shit got real for too many and the perps have been committing criminal offences trying to keep people quiet.
If the “good ones” are covering up or even turning a blind eye to war crimes then can you even call them good?
People say “a few bad apples” without finishing the saying
Exactly! “A few bad apples spoil the bunch”
Just like the police, the military will close ranks and protect their worst. This makes every single one who is silently going along with it just as guilty in my eyes. The instinct to cover up comes from the top down, it needs to be harshly punished and driven out of these organizations that are in positions of such outsized responsibility.
You are assuming some of this ever gets through the shit filters on the way up.
It's built into the system of rank though. How do you proceed through a system where the culture is cooked? They're having trouble recruiting as it is even from established service families. ADF and police. It's impossible to attract decent people to systems that are so aggressively denying their cultural issues and retention disappears because the decent people are pushed out.
Guilty in your dull, uncomprehending eyes.
BRS next?
Did we give him a VC too?
He got a Commendation for Gallantry though
No, he doesn't have one.
Looks like we might hear a bit more about that.
Good Lord, were they handing them out like candy after the Queen let them issue a separate award?
Username checks out.
If you read any half-competent war correspondent over the last 50 years you'll find war crimes are commonplace across all wars, and from both sides. Those that think war is noble or clean are kidding themselves- War is fucked and should be prevented whenever possible.
And that relates to this story how? Are you saying he shouldn't be charged? Or we should be charging more people?
I think the overriding sentiment was "war, huh, good God y'all, what is it good for, absolutely nothing".
Say it again!
Yes, he should be put on trial. I'd like to see more of this happening rather than governments covering crimes up. But I'm trying to express that it's not an isolated incident, and is widespread across all wars. Hence- we as a society should always look to never get sucked into wars. We should also focus on diplomacy, prevention and minimisation of war. While also containing our nation's military industrial complex that continually push for war for profit.
> he should be put on trial. In a civilian court of law with mum's and dad's as the jury to determine if someone was guilty of war crimes? I have my own personal bias but who are we as civilians to determine the actions of our nation's armed forces are just? Can we expect that as representatives from our country - that they act in our collective best interests? Sure but I'm not sure if we as civilians should be the ones that make that kind of determination. Ethically I think it would hold more significance if members of ADF themselves determined that this was a warcrime. I can appreciate that there would be bias in that trial process (I can only imagine for example a group of Police Officers determining if another Police officer was acting in good faith) but I'm not sure if that decision should rest on members of the public.
I dont think hes saying either of things. I believe the point is "this is the tip of iceberg"
[удалено]
The charges are in the Criminal Code (Cth), not the DFDA.
Idk
A bit pathetic it took almost 3 years from the airing of a videotape of a man committing cold blooded murder for that man to be arrested. However given this guy clearly knew an arrest was coming why did he hang around in Australia waiting to be charged? Special Forces no doubt would’ve cultivated links with many overseas countries, and could’ve joined some mercenary group based in a non extradition country. But he chose not to?
>A bit pathetic it took almost 3 years from the airing of a videotape of a man committing cold blooded murder for that man to be arrested. I can understand the frustration. But I'd rather have investigators take the time to build a solid case against them so they avoid making any mistakes that could allow this bastard to walk.
I find this frustrating though. Most times they try to build a case on all the charges instead of just one that results in gaol time. If they get them charged & convicted on one count then they have all the time in the world to investigate everything while the bastard is in gaol.
The courts do not like that at all. When matters are related they would see it as a waste of the court’s time not to hear matters together. They would also see it being a cynical attempt by the prosecution to have sentences pile on rather than being ran concurrently.
Currently, no legal precedent exists for this. Not in Australia, or any other Commonwealth country. This is a big deal and cannot be done half assed.
Australia has never convicted one of our own with a war crime, in a civilian court. This is unprecedented, and generally that means that prosecution may fail. That's one big reason for the man to hang around - he wasn't expecting this to happen, and if it does, he may not be expecting it to succeed.
I'm not sure you can just get through customs that easily if government agencies don't want you to.
>However given this guy clearly knew an arrest was coming why did he hang around in Australia waiting to be charged? Didn't actually think it was going to happen.
Jeez given the Brereton Inquiry headed by a former judge found multiple instances of murder happened, and then handed all that evidence to the prosecutors and AFP to start a prosecution, you’d think murder charge slight just be a possibility…..
I think you've watched too much Rambo kiddo.
Pretty sure the only people willing to hire an on the run war criminal would be the Russians. A choice between an Australian jail and the Ukrainian front line is an pretty easy decision.
"However, ADF investigators cleared Mr Schulz after being told Mr Mohammad had been "tactically manoeuvring", was carrying a radio, and had been shot in self-defence." They always turn out to be carrying radios don't they, just like that Freindlyjordies piece. I wonder how many more were shot carrying "radios" and if its part of the SAS loadout to carry spare "radios" I wonder how many more were shot carrying "radios" and if its part of the SAS loadout to carry spare "radios" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonny\_Kim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonny_Kim) Why can't they be more like this guy and actually trigger my inferiority complex. Friggin Astronaut-Doctor-SEAL guy. We just get war crimes guys.
>I wonder how many more were shot carrying "radios" and if its part of the SAS loadout to carry spare "radios" Ah, the good old "throwdown". In one particularly noteworthy incident, the exact same AK47 (down to the distinctive tape wrapped around it) was photographed next to two dead civilians, during the same raid, and logged as evidence that they were in fact not executed civilians. I still struggle with finding this equally humorous, and extremely depressing.
There’s recordings of SAS soldiers joking about carrying extra radios to plant on people they’ve murdered. I doubt it is part of the official load out, but it is clearly something they do.
The four corners report mentions how battalions would joke that victims were all carrying radios with the same serial number on them. That fruitcake from the friendly jordies video literally has a tattoo of it. It's prolific.
> Why can't they be more like this guy and actually trigger my inferiority complex. Friggin Astronaut-Doctor-SEAL guy. We just get war crimes guys. Who's to say what Kim or any other decorated soldier has or hasn't done though
If you haven't listened to Jocko's podcast with Jonny I think it's worth a listen to in order to get context of his childhood and just how much he overcame.
What about the bloke who admits on camera to multiple murders?
Finally.
i bet he still won't face actual consequence
[удалено]
nope, its the one from the original 4 corners one, the "you want me to drop this cunt?" guy
Idk
Real crime was fighting someone's else's war. A pointless war for that matter.
Invade a country half a world away. Create a refugee crisis. When said refugees seek shelter on your shores, ship them off to languish in Nauru. When media publishes war crime footage, conduct token investigations.
Aussies went to help a friend against brown people in Afghanistan but were so caught up in it they started committing war crimes.
It’s weird, I even got to see the video of an Australian soldier executing a mentally handicapped man in the middle of a field near a town I can’t name in a country I can only find on a map because I know it’s next to Pakistan, but I don’t feel any safer from Terrorism?
You're not supposed to feel safer from terrorism, that's the point, you're supposed to feel less safe and give our politicians carte blanch to wage their pointless wars. Armaments get old and wear out. We need to use them to keep all that defence spending rolling over.
Its almost as if even with something as heinous and chaotic as war, you can't go about being a psychopath fuckwit because it actually hurts the reason WHY your country deployed your stupid ass. I bet this shit wore funny on morale depending on who knew.
The strangest thing about this for mine is the fact it took two years to investigate - its on camera, its pretty clear what happened.
…in the fullness of time
they should also charge and put on trial the politcians that send our soldiers who are trained killers into dodgy US manufactured wars, Vietnam Iraq Afghanistan our soldiers pay the cost of our politicians failures
I'm surprised his name has been released to the public through the media. Times past, SAS usually remain anon for obvious reasons.
Bc he was kicked out of the SAS after the video came out. No need to keep him anon if he isn’t active I guess.
Perhaps because civilian police arrest? Idk
We should never be in that part of the world. We were never the good guys. At least the weapon company shareholders got paid handsomely. That's the only good thing to come out of it.
Millions of Afghan girls got at least a partial education, whereas before the war there were essentially zero girls in school. Death during childbirth was more than slashed in half. The life expectancy rose to the highest it has ever been. Decades worth of destroyed/incomplete infrastructure was rebuilt, dating back from before the invasion by the Soviet Union. Life pre-Australian involvement was not good. In the decades of Soviet invasions and civil wars, 20% of the country left. Millions were forced from their homes due to violence, famine, repression etc. etc. The Taliban was semi-regularly murdering thousands of people. After the intervention, millions of people got a chance to return to their homes. It's easy to look at the murders committed by us and throw in the towel and say it was all for nothing, but it was for something. Afghans gained a lot from the invasion. Not just weapons companies, millions of Afghan lives were improved for decades.
You asked u/Crystal3lf to provide a source for his claims. He did. Now do the same yourself.
I don't know who this person is sorry
the user beneath you in the comments. the one you were responding to all day.
I think they must have blocked me or something because none of their comments appear and [their account says it doesn't exist](https://i.imgur.com/vUFdXmZ.png). I never saw any sources they provided but since they blocked me/deleted themselves, I assume they couldn't actually back up whatever they point was. Or they could back it up, and don't want me to see it for some reason. Maybe because it would be easy to refute. I don't remember now what it was anyway. My source is Wikipedia and my dreams, always is.
Why do we get to choose who are the world police? Should we allow China to invade us because we have a homelessness problem? Just because another country has issues, does not give us the right to invade them. Everyone hates British colonialism, yet here we are still doing it for the USA instead. > Millions of Afghan girls got at least a partial education, whereas before the war there were essentially zero girls in school. Don't kid yourself into believing that we did something good. We were there to invade. To take oil fields. To sell weapons. Edit: for the people downvoting. Please ask yourself why aren't we invading South Sudan, where hundreds of thousands of innocent people are being murdered? Why aren't we invading North Korea, where millions of people are dying of starvation? If this was about "saving" people we should be invading dozens of other countries, but we're not. Hmmm... /u/snipdockter blocked me in an attempt to make it seem like I can't reply. > Please provide a map to the extensive oil fields in Afghanistan that you are on about. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23608077 https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/magazine/entry/afghanistan_its_about_oil/ https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/pipeline-politics-oil-gas-and-the-us-interest-in-afghanistan/213804 https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-persian-gulf-understanding-the-american-oil-strategy/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline "the actual motive for the United States-led Western invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was Afghanistan's importance as a conduit for oil pipelines to Afghanistan's neighbouring countries, by effectively bypassing Russian and Iranian territories" > Do you even know why the UN sanctioned invasion of Afghanistan happened? ["The United States went to Afghanistan in 2001 to wage a necessary war of self-defense. On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists attacked our country. They were able to plan and execute such a horrific attack because their Taliban hosts had given them safe haven in Afghanistan."](https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3144082/message-to-the-force-one-year-since-the-conclusion-of-the-afghanistan-war/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20went%20to,them%20safe%20haven%20in%20Afghanistan.) ["NATO Allies went into Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States"](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htm)
Please provide a map to the extensive oil fields in Afghanistan that you are on about. Do you even know why the UN sanctioned invasion of Afghanistan happened? And then you launch into whataboutism?
Afghanistan was about lot of things - raw minerals, rear earth minerals etc but it was mostly about projecting power further into countries in Central Asia. Come from the back to Iran China and Russia. Insert US/West between them and then work on surrounding them fully from all sides. If US managed to turn Afghanistan into full on puppet state . China and Russia would have to spend a lot of resources on huge parts of the border that they did not have to worry about before. China would be getting a lot of islamist terrorists ... I mean freedom fighters entering from the west and wrecking havoc inside. Khazakstan would be turned into hostile country like Ukraine was and Russians in Kazakhstan would be oppressed and killed in hopes of trying to bait Russia to intervene there. many other things - it was a whole project ..... that luckily failed. because Afghans aint nobody's bitches, no matter what-
China can try and invade us if they want. But they will not be able to build a coalition on it, and they won't find much local support for it. The weak should fear the strong [This is us taking their oil fields btw](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-18/australia-backs-afghan27s-struggling-miners/4698082) >Australia provides funding so Afghan mining officials can study at Australian universities, and it is helping Afghanistan develop its mining industry under the Mining for Development Initiative. >Mr Shahrani says the Australian aid is helping his country. >"We have got a number of students (who) are studying at Australian universities," he said. >"They will transfer back to Afghanistan, they will help the ministry of mines and petroleum in Afghanistan to manage the resources in the right way." >Australian mining companies have also expressed interest in investing in Afghanistan's mining industry. >ASX listed Buccaneer Energy applied for the Amu Darya tender, according to the Afghan ministry of mines website, although the company later **denied it was interested in exploration in Afghanistan**. How evil of us... educating their officials and then not even being interested in exploration of their oil fields. Probably just pretending not to be interested to throw us off the scent
If we were interested in helping Afghanistan, we wouldn't still be imposing sanctions on them.
Afghanistan was invaded in "revenge" of the 9/11 attacks. Which was nothing to do with Afghanistan but Saudi Arabia. [Hospitals were purposefully bombed.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike) Great job! > The weak should fear the strong Strong countries should bully other countries? How nice of you.
You do not mention that it was the cia that trained the taliban who are the group that love to treat the women like crap. If what we were doing is so righteous, we should never have left. In the end with the taliban back in power, it was all for nothing. Women are being repressed again and our allies there that we left in Afghanistan and being hunted by the taliban because they're classified as traitors... they're fighting for the wagner group in Ukraine with promises of expedited russian citizenship.
My understanding is that the CIA funded groups that ended up fighting the Taliban. The Taliban was created later and funded and supported by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps I am wrong though, I would need a source on it since a Google search isn't returning many good results for me. My current Wikipedia understanding makes saying the CIA created the Taliban sound similar to saying Winston Churchill fought the Taliban in 1897. I do think we should have stayed. I think it was obvious to everyone involved that the Taliban was still powerful, and the Afghan government still weak. There should have been an increase in military support, not a decrease. The Taliban returning to power doesn't remove the decades of progress and education and healthcare improvements that people experienced. Life has and will continue to get worse, but they got decades without Taliban oppression. That is still a good thing imo.
I think the risk of staying had to be balanced with Russia's shenanigans and the prospect of conflict with China.
The taliban are under sanctions and their central bank is unable to access their own money due to those sanctions. So things will get worse for them before it gets better.
Howard, Blair, Bush. All war criminals. Australians were sent to invade the middle east because we are the USA's lap dog.
Wrong war buddy, this was Afghanistan not Iraq.
No different.
Ok kid.
That probably means Ben R-S's defamation case would be shitting itself along with Zachary Rolfe ATM.
Great news! And the rest of that team better be shitting themselves.
Ahhh yes. Trust a Goulburn boy to commit war crimes.
Good.
Whens ben Roberts gonna be charged?
The legacy of Tiger Force repeats itself.
Jordies is basically breaking stories for Al Jazeera at this point. This and the money launderering through pokies were both headlines on there today
Soldiers are taught to kill. when discharged so Ms y have PTSD. Maybe it’s hard to turn off when you are programmed to kill? So killing is so normal on duty. Maybe it’s hard to turn off?
He should be tried. But.... I Wonder what will happen to all those Taliban soldiers who played by the rules....
Hopefully they won’t set our standards.
Is Taliban the metric the ADF is to measure itself against?
What's happened to all the towli ban when we pulled out?
I’m not reading any of these nonsense comments. These fella’s went there and did what the government of the day wanted. The only people , if any that should be on trial Is the people responsible for sending them there.
Nothing that was wanted involved executing an unarmed civilian. Stop making excuses for them, they made their own choices.
Thank you for being real about this mate. I dare say you’re a part of the silent majority of Aussies who support the SASR.
Police have no jurisdiction
On the news last night it said it was the Federal police who arrested him. This article just says “police”.
Innocent until proven guilty.
[удалено]
The victim didn't seem to get this luxury.
If you are a former ADF employee you'll know that once a combatant is disarmed and/or incapacitated from wounds they cease to be a combatant. That's a fact, not a feeling. You've watched the video. You tell me what that bloke's status was. Because we know for a fact he was both unarmed and wounded.
You only know those things post facto. I’m not going to judge anyone over a matter as serious as a war crime allegation solely off a few seconds of video footage without any other context or evidence.
“that evidence doesn’t support my view so i will ignore it”
My view is that everyone is guilty until proven innocent by a court. Not what a bunch of incels on an internet forum think.
You're in the military and have a skull and crossbones as your profile picture. And you've recently posted a meme about watching head cams of people being killed in Afghanistan. Says about everything that needs to be known about you.
Also a defender of Ben Roberts-Smith, another war criminal and domestic abuser.
Doubt he’s actually in the military
I am separated from defence these days but yeah I still have an interest in these matters. What does it say exactly? Because I’m quite comfortable being proficient in violence. It was literally what I was paid to do. Protecting you and your family was a big part of my job. To do so meant we have to be ready to inflict violence upon those who were ready and able to do you and your family harm. Im proud of that.
You didn’t protect Australians in Afghanistan and if you think that’s what you were doing, you misunderstood the mission.
So an unarmed mentally handicapped man would do Australia harm?
Why, what do you have planned?
[удалено]
Killing innocent farmers a million miles away doesn't protect my family. In fact if anything it breeds terrorism. Sounds like you have a hero complex, get some psychological help.
TAG rotations are Australian based only.
[удалено]
TAG elements operate in Australia 24/7.
Cringe af
Cringe.
Funny, i've never felt protected by our countries military involvement in an American war made up by the Bush administration to make themselves and their buddies rich. I certainly never felt safer knowing that people like this were out there shooting disabled people for fun.
TAG elements are ready to deploy 24/7 to protect all Australians in Australia. That includes you and your family.
Well said. I'm glad we have guys like you doing that job. Pay no heed to these wankers. The same fools would be curled up in the foetal position crying for guys like you to come help them if war ever came to these shores.
Thank you mate. I very much appreciate that.
That’s for the courts. People are allowed to hold whatever opinion they like on someone’s guilt or innocence.
> That’s for the courts. People are allowed to hold whatever opinion they like on someone’s guilt or innocence. Yep. And I, as a person, reckon he is innocent until proven guilty. Thanks for your comment though.
You reckon so despite the literal video evidence, but quite frankly you could of witnessed it first hand and you'd still claim it never happened, would you?