leftist mendozaaaa
1 Like
LMAO. People must live in alternative universes
and the far left channel nine and age newspaper
1 Like
and I love how it’s 300 million on BRS.
the 300 million is the total budget of the OSI that has been used on around 50 individual cases of alleged war crimes. but it sounds cool when the cookers say that was all spent on BRS
And I thought the cookers were experts in “doing their own research “
7 Likes
I think it’s more the right wing are happy not believing the BS trotted out by the journalists.
Given EFC Asada investigation
nick McKenzie changing his story.
he lost a defamation suit on a truth defense. that basically never happens
3 Likes
if it wasn’t for a media guy the ■■■■ would be living in a caravan
1 Like
Bring him in. We need a few big bodies who are willing to slaughter the opposition.
- One prosthetic leg.
3 Likes
But he hasn’t been convicted of being a war criminal yet, has he?
Not convicted to the criminal standard, but found by a court, in a civil trial, a war criminal.
We can call him a war criminal and there’s nothing he can do about because a truth defense has found so.
5 Likes
Clears that up then.
I don’t like this.
As an Essendon fan, whenever you discuss one of the suspended players do you call them drug cheat so and so, because they were found guilty in a civil court (The Swiss Federal Tribunal upheld the CAS decision arrived at on the balance of probabilities)? Or do you consider that the balance of probabilities call was a bullshit decision to ruin the reputations of a bunch of young men that did nothing wrong based on nothing more than the vibe. In my opinion, if you won’t do it for the Essendon players, you shouldn’t do it for Ben Roberts-Smith.
Justice Anthony Besanko adjudicated on the basis of balance of probabilities that it was “substantially” true. But this is only one persons opinion and just remember his split could have been as little as 49.9 defamation / 50.1 not defamation. Another justice may have delivered a different verdict. Just remember, 9 and McKenzie didn’t have to prove guilt, the burden of proof of defamation was on BRS as the plaintiff. Being unable to prove defamation is a very different thing to proving guilt.
As I have said repeatedly, I will await the outcome of a jury trial to determine his guilt or otherwise. Then if he is found guilty by twelve persons hearing all the evidence, and only then, in my opinion should he be labelled a war criminal. Until then, he is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
2 Likes
Maybe. Didnt most of his squad testify in a civil court that they witnessed him frog march an unarmed civilian to the top of a cliff, execute him and kick him off it?
or that he shot another simply to take his prosthetic leg as a trophy?
or pressure another soldier under his command to kill an unarmed person to “blood” him as a killer?
This is not equivalent to someone taking perhaps a legal or suspected illegal sports supplement.
What your doing is questioning say “the entire football team” who have come out and said one of their eggs was seriously bad.
Deadset are you serious?
3 Likes
Mate, I have had formal complaints raised against me by subordinates for literally making them do their job, and I mean literal in the literal sense. We were de-storing and cleaning a ship and they said I was making them do menial work be de-storing and cleaning, the same menial work that I, and every other sailor on that ship were doing. As such nothing surprises me when it comes to accusations and complaints about superiors in the military.
He has not been found guilty in a court of law of war crimes, he lost a defamation case. Even Justice Besanko stopped short of straight out calling him a war criminal. You can play the exasperated fool all you want, but until then, like every other person in this country, he is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Until then at absolute worst, he is a suspected war criminal.
If you can’t understand that, then I must ask deadset are you serious?
3 Likes
It’s the testimony of 20 of his team mates.
you understand the sort of pressure ir would put under the people making the accusations as well?
The guys a Victoria cross winner. It’s not as if it’s they are throwing a private under the bus.
Cleaning a ship and killing civilians is not the same.Just like a supplements regime using stuff which may or may not have been wada approved.
You’re way off on this one. BRS has had a lot of days in court with a lot of resources at his disposal.
There’s a reason he was trying to flee to Spain.
2 Likes
Allegedly over 400 were interviewed and 21 claimed Roberts killed or aided killing others. All were offered immunity for this. Allegedly of the 400 many claimed the stories were fabricated and false, but their evidence was not used in the enquiry.
BRS did not hide he was planning a trip to Europe with his family, terming it fleeing to Spain is a further fabrication of evidence.
Why can’t you just let justice run its course ?
1 Like
you can’t throw that term unarmed civilian around. It wasn’t a normal type of war.
one minute they were shooting at you the next picking up a stick and pretending they are a goat herder.
One incident was apparently in a town where everyone is the enemy and they were all civilians/ soldiers. The valley of Martrys.
It was frequent Taliban practice to claim insurgent KIA were civilian.
The journalists are using terminology to paint BRS in a worse light.
I find this one of the more disturbing posts in the thread. I can certainly understand people taking the position that the allegations might have been fabricated, for some reason I don’t entirely understand, but this is coming perilously close to endorsement. “Yeah, he did these murders, here’s why it was ok.”
Even if all of your other assertions are true (I haven’t followed the details of the allegations on this one), you ALSO can’t frogmarch a disarmed, captured enemy to the top of a cliff, execute him, and kick him off it.
Rules of engagement exist for a reason. For one, winning a guerilla war as the occupying force is absolutely reliant on the goodwill of the local population, and exemplary behaviour and discipline, and going to extremes to avoid casualties among civilians or conspicious displays of brutality, are necessary for that. Arbitary executions are the sort of thing that makes committed enemies out of sullen semi-neutrals. Also, there are very clear orders, rules of engagement against casually murdering prisoners - anyone who does has disobeyed a clear order on top of anything else. Also also, part of the reasons that these rules and laws exist is to keep standards up in the armed forces, to prevent them becoming a hotbed of casual murderers or psychopaths.
18 Likes