Why Afghanistan was lost, AKA are we any better than the Russians?

[normiss 622]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

In the wash today an Australian SAS VC recipient was found in court (in almost a carbon copy of the BBC reporting on the UK SAS) to have deliberately murdered Afghan civilians and prisoners, and to have ordered and bullied his colleagues and subordinates into murdering civilians and prisoners. In one instance, pushing a handcuffed man off a cliff. He also sent threatening letters to another soldier he believed was informing on him, saying he would expose murders that guy had committed.

I wonder what you’ll have to say about respect now? About standards of reporting? Any concern about how these guys were out there materially aiding the Taliban and undermining the new Afghanistan we were supposed to create? Or maybe you’d rather just keep your head stuck firmly under the sand.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-65773942

I heard this story on NPR  BBC News Hour  this morning

[mistercwood 287]

9 hours ago, jakee said:

In the wash today an Australian SAS VC recipient was found in court (in almost a carbon copy of the BBC reporting on the UK SAS) to have deliberately murdered Afghan civilians and prisoners, and to have ordered and bullied his colleagues and subordinates into murdering civilians and prisoners.

I feel the need to make one tiny correction/clarification here - he wasn't found guilty of these things in court. The case was one of defamation that BRS (the soldier in question) brought against news organisations that had reported that he committed unlawful killings. The court found that he wasn't defamed as the organisations had reasonable belief to report the events as true.

It may seem a stupid thing to pick at, but it's important to note that he currently faces no criminal or war crimes charges, just that a court found it reasonable to conclude that he did in fact do war crimes. I think he's guilty as hell, but there is no legal finding of that yet.

[jakee 1,255]

7 hours ago, mistercwood said:

I feel the need to make one tiny correction/clarification here - he wasn't found guilty of these things in court.

That’s why I didn’t use the word guilty.

7 hours ago, mistercwood said:

The court found that he wasn't defamed as the organisations had reasonable belief to report the events as true.

Well now I have to correct you. The court found that he wasn’t defamed because because the organisations demonstrated to the court that the allegations were true.

[Bokdrol 40]

28 minutes ago, jakee said:

the allegations were true.

I think 'substantially true' were the beak's exact words. That was on 4 of 6 allegations and the other 2 were found to not be even substantially true. That creates some reasonable doubt. I've no doubt that the woke left media will get their day in court to parade more heroes' heads on the parapet of investigative journalism. As for me. well, my head is still stuck firmly under the sand, as you put it. And there, on this and on other similar situations, it will stay planted.

[jakee 1,255]

14 minutes ago, Bokdrol said:

I think 'substantially true' were the beak's exact words. That was on 4 of 6 allegations and the other 2 were found to not be even substantially true. That creates some reasonable doubt. I've no doubt that the woke left media will get their day in court to parade more heroes' heads on the parapet of investigative journalism. As for me. well, my head is still stuck firmly under the sand, as you put it. And there, on this and on other similar situations, it will stay planted.

Riiiiiight - the fact that they evaluated each allegation separately creates reasonable doubt that the ones they said were true were actually true. Ok, you have fun with that logic.

Why do you think the soldiers who testified that the allegations were true - including ones who didn’t think there was anything wrong it - were lying to the court? Why don’t you have even a modicum of respect for the troops?

[Stumpy 256]

32 minutes ago, jakee said:

Why don’t you have even a modicum of respect for the troops?

He uses the words "Woke left media". Instantly identifies him as someone lacking critical thinking skills.

[Bokdrol 40]

1 minute ago, Stumpy said:

He uses the words "Woke left media". Instantly identifies him as someone lacking critical thinking skills.

So true - we must have met!

[Bokdrol 40]

38 minutes ago, jakee said:

Why don’t you have even a modicum of respect for the troops?

Actually ' the troops' are the only people in this sorry witch-hunt for which I have any respect. Certainly not the 'investigative journalists'  (won't call them woke left wing for fear of reprisals lolll) or the faux morally outraged. 

[jakee 1,255]

26 minutes ago, Bokdrol said:

Actually ' the troops' are the only people in this sorry witch-hunt for which I have any respect. Certainly not the 'investigative journalists'  (won't call them woke left wing for fear of reprisals lolll) or the faux morally outraged. 

How can you respect them if you think their superiors should be able to bully and coerce them into committing war crimes without any sort of come back?

How can you respect them if you think they lie to the press and lie in court for reasons of petty personal jealousy?

How can you respect them if you think they should have to work alongside sociopaths and murders that no-one is allowed to investigate?

How can you respect them if you support the people who directly undermined the success of the 20 year mission they fought and died for?

On the contrary, it's quite clear that you hold ordinary decent soldiers in utter contempt without the slightest regard for their lives and wellbeing.

Edited June 2, 2023 by jakee

[Bokdrol 40]

11 minutes ago, jakee said:

On the contrary, it's quite clear that you hold ordinary decent soldiers in utter contempt without the slightest regard for their lives and wellbeing.

As my eldest daughter would say, when she realises she's farting against thunder and want's to exit the discussion holding the moral high ground - whateverrrrrrrr

[jakee 1,255]

1 hour ago, Bokdrol said:

As my eldest daughter would say, when she realises she's farting against thunder and want's to exit the discussion holding the moral high ground - whateverrrrrrrr

And that’s all you have to say to justify your support for people and practices that make soldiers’ jobs more difficult and more dangerous? 
 

I’m sure it’ll work as well for you as it does for her. 

[wmw999 2,123]

5 hours ago, Bokdrol said:

I think 'substantially true' were the beak's exact words. That was on 4 of 6 allegations and the other 2 were found to not be even substantially true. That creates some reasonable doubt. I've no doubt that the woke left media will get their day in court to parade more heroes' heads on the parapet of investigative journalism. As for me. well, my head is still stuck firmly under the sand, as you put it. And there, on this and on other similar situations, it will stay planted.

I'd say that this paragraph is an excellent example of the range of "reasonable doubt" when it's someone you identify with, vs. "reasonable doubt" when it's someone you don't identify with. And it's always important to keep that in mind.

The reason it's wrong to simply murder people when at war is that it's wrong to simply murder people. And if you find new, fun, ways to dispatch people who are in the way of your (hopefully righteous) mission, then it's also wrong.

Wendy P.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

It is why demonizing a group is so important. Makes it so much easier to justify killing them.