RIP Jim Molan

Remove this Banner Ad

FmoBSidXoAAJm-R
 

Log in to remove this ad.

^^^

a little off topic (but somewhat related)

theres a Q@A episode very early on the piece that had tim flannery and barnyard as panel members - where barnyard tried to school flannery in climate science and scientific methods ...... let that sink in ....... a glorified f$%king bookeeper (and a dodgy one at that) tried to school an academic professor (according to wikipedia flannery was professorial head of Climate Risk Concentration of Research Excellence @ Macquarie Uni around the time the episode was aired) in climate science and scientific method

molan = barnyard ...... cut from the same unhinged far right evidence-free cloth
 
Last edited:
It's a shame for him and his family that his death comes in the wake of another, far worse, ideologue and all their praise will ring hollow, because only last week they were defending paedos.

Molan was obviously a person who lacked empathy for those who were not like him. Apparently had lots of time for other returned soldiers, but seemingly very little care for people in Fallujah, refugees or poor people.

The country has lost very little with his passing (especially for a lifelong Government employee, I guess Joe Hockey would consider him a Leaner)
 
Saint said:
It's a shame for him and his family that his death comes in the wake of another, far worse, ideologue and all their praise will ring hollow, because only last week they were defending paedos.
Click to expand...

If hell exists at least George Pell will now have a friend down there. They can discuss whether raping children and helping to cover it up is worse than burning and choking children to death using white phosphorous.

Saint said:
Molan was obviously a person who lacked empathy for those who were not like him. Apparently had lots of time for other returned soldiers, but seemingly very little care for people in Fallujah, refugees or poor people.
Click to expand...

Molan wouldn't have considered Muslims to classify as people.


My favourite was ALP Senator Doug Cameron skewering Molan over his constant big noting of himself as a former soldier, so much so Molan threw a hissy fit against Cameron.

 
Albo has more respect for a war criminal than the people living in poverty in this so called country

 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gough said:
Was it the innocent people whose slaughter he led in Falujah or was it his role in imprisoning refugees on sand bars that impressed you most about the dear departed?
Click to expand...
I cant stand Molan’s politics. Hes far to the right of ghengis khan and anyone whos read anything i write would know as a politician hes clearly anathema to me and my decidedly left of centre values.

However.

Civillians have this idea that clearing a built up city of insurgents should be a completely bloodless procedure in modern warfare. After all, as weve seen in so many conflicts such as errrrr… well theres ahhhhh…….well im sure there are some*.

*narrators voice : there isnt

The Generals prosecute the war, the politicians send them there, i dont agree with the iraq war remix by any means, but if you are in a war you go there to win it.

This is a case of holding western military to standards where no other military are ever held to anything approaching the same level, despite the civilian toll in fallujah being far lower than any contemporary scaled battles in history.

Fighting in a city is a meatgrinder, the highest casualties in any war are from taking cities. As a former light infantryman i know that’s the worst environment where the skillset advantage you have as a professional soldier compared to other areas you can fight in are narrowed down compared to your enemy the most. You have to close with the enemy and expose yourself to get to him, he can shoot one bloke then move to the next piece of cover and you cant see him move or often even where he shot from.

My old battalion vs almost any military unit in the world in the jungle we would eat them alive. We would expect to attrit the enemy at 10-1 or more. In urban warfare that ratio can flip against a professional force.

The only way to clear buildings is one by one and you often need to use artillery to do so. Artillery is indiscriminate - it kills friend or foe or civilian without compunction.

The best you can do as a soldier is call the civilians out and let them evacuate, they did this. Not everyone evacuated. The fact that not everyone evacuates is not the fault of the attacker.

Id like to hear some other options for taking a city with no civilian casualties in those circumstances. Anyone?

Perhaps have a look at how russia is going with that, or even ukraine as it takes back its own cities, killing its own citizens in the process. Look at other wars where countries have retaken their own cities and compare the deaths with Fallujah.



As a soldier he took on a job that was a s**t sandwich. The US took their highest casualty rates of the war in the assault and as a general you are stuck balancing civilian casualties against your own soldiers. Anything that lowers casualties in one raises casualties on the other.

For the US to have taken fallujah without civilian deaths would have multiplied the numbers of deaths of soldiers to the thousands.
 
Last edited:
kranky al said:
I cant stand Molan’s politics. Hes far to the right of ghengis khan and anyone whos read anything i write would know as a politician hes clearly anathema to me and my decidedly left of centre values.

However.

Civillians have this idea that clearing a built up city of insurgents should be a completely bloodless procedure in modern warfare. After all, as weve seen in so many conflicts such as errrrr… well theres ahhhhh…….well im sure there are some*.

*narrators voice : there isnt

The Generals prosecute the war, the politicians send them there, i dont agree with the iraq war remix by any means, but if you are in a war you go there to win it.

This is a case of holding western military to standards where no other military are ever held to anything approaching the same level, despite the civilian toll in fallujah being far lower than any contemporary scaled battles in history.

Fighting in a city is a meatgrinder, the highest casualties in any war are from taking cities. As a former light infantryman i know that’s the worst environment where the skillset advantage you have as a professional soldier compared to other areas you can fight in are narrowed down compared to your enemy the most. You have to close with the enemy and expose yourself to get to him, he can shoot one bloke then move to the next piece of cover and you cant see him move or often even where he shot from.

My old battalion vs almost any military unit in the world in the jungle we would eat them alive. We would expect to attrit the enemy at 10-1 or more. In urban warfare that ratio can flip against a professional force.

The only way to clear buildings is one by one and you often need to use artillery to do so. Artillery is indiscriminate - it kills friend or foe or civilian without compunction.

The best you can do as a soldier is call the civilians out and let them evacuate, they did this. Not everyone evacuated. The fact that not everyone evacuates is not the fault of the attacker.

Id like to hear some other options for taking a city with no civilian casualties in those circumstances. Anyone?

Perhaps have a look at how russia is going with that, or even ukraine as it takes back its own cities, killing its own citizens in the process. Look at other wars where countries have retaken their own cities and compare the deaths with Fallujah.



As a soldier he took on a job that was a s**t sandwich. The US took their highest casualty rates of the war in the assault and as a general you are stuck balancing civilian casualties against your own soldiers. Anything that lowers casualties in one raises casualties on the other.

For the US to have taken fallujah without civilian deaths would have multiplied the numbers deaths of soldiers to the thousands.
Click to expand...
We weren't there for good reasons and the Australian military is very good at war crimes.

Our political class likes to pretend we're better than we are and if we weren't the allies of the US we'd be getting called out by them for what we've done.

That's the world though, western imperialism does war crimes and makes excuses for it if they even admit it happens.

There was literally no reason for us to be there other than we're part of the machine.

War crimes are just that, saying well we would have lost more soldiers if we didn't kill civilians, my answer would be that's a you problem, soldiers signed up for it, the civilians being invaded didn't
 
Gralin said:
We weren't there for good reasons and the Australian military is very good at war crimes.

Our political class likes to pretend we're better than we are and if we weren't the allies of the US we'd be getting called out by them for what we've done.

That's the world though, western imperialism does war crimes and makes excuses for it if they even admit it happens.

There was literally no reason for us to be there other than we're part of the machine.

War crimes are just that, saying well we would have lost more soldiers if we didn't kill civilians, my answer would be that's a you problem, soldiers signed up for it, the civilians being invaded didn't
Click to expand...
And im fine for you to lay that s**t at a politicians door. The general who tells the politician our next assault will cost 5000 soldiers lives and 56000 injured or we can use artillery etc and lose 100 lives and 1000 injured at the expense of civilian casualties will be told to do the latter. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Unlike russia, we allowed days with plenty of warning for civilians to leave the area.



We in australia get to spend absolutely funk all on defence in relation to the value of the mineral wealth we have.

The US shoulders that burden for us and in return we heel like a good dog when master goes for a walk outside the house. We piss where we are told to piss and the neighbours that he doesnt like…. We s**t on his lawn on command.

If it were up to me Australia would have joined the nuke club a long time ago. Countries with nukes dont need to spend megadollars on defence as (especially is an island nation) one well placed nuke obliterates an invasion force. Countries with nukes dont need big brothers.

But failing that, your next option is to spend a funk load on defence, reintroduce conscription and have a standing army/ airforce / navy that makes an invasion untenable .

As it stands all a belligerent has to do is take north western australia and they have the majority of our wealth. They could sue for peace and there would be sfa we could do about it.

That’s the three choices we have. Three not particularly palatable choices.

Of course we could live in dreamworld, not have the yanks, not have an effective defence force and not have nukes.

Worked so well for other countries in the past hasnt it?
 
kranky al said:
And im fine for you to lay that s**t at a politicians door. The general who tells the politician our next assault will cost 5000 soldiers lives and 56000 injured or we can use artillery etc and lose 100 lives and 1000 injured at the expense of civilian casualties will be told to do the latter. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Unlike russia, we allowed days with plenty of warning for civilians to leave the area.



We in australia get to spend absolutely funk all on defence in relation to the value of the mineral wealth we have.

The US shoulders that burden for us and in return we heel like a good dog when master goes for a walk outside the house. We piss where we are ytold to piss and s**t on the neighbours lawn that he doesnt like.

If it were up to me Australia would have joined the nuke club a long time ago. Countries with nukes dont need to spend megadollars on defence as (especially is an island nation) one well placed nuke obliterates an invasion force. Countries with nukes dont need big brothers.

But failing that, your next option is to spend a funk load on defence, reintroduce conscription and have a standing army/ airforce / navy that makes an invasion untenable .

As it stands all a belligerent has to do is take north western australia and they have the majority if it. They could sue for peace and there would be sfa we could do about it.

That’s the three choices we have. Three not particularly palatable choices.

Of course we could live in dreamworld, not have the yanks, not have an effective defence force and not have nukes.

Worked so well for other countries in the past hasnt it?
Click to expand...
The Yanks like it that way too.

And sorry but the former general who became a politician who gave orders to kill civilians that he didn't even consider human can rot, * him ,he doesn't deserve s**t
 
kranky al said:
Yes he was in charge, id like to see what source you have that said he gave to order to kill civilians.
Click to expand...
You think he didn't?
You going to argue it was someone further down that gave the order?
Or you going to run with they didn't explicitly say to kill civilians so them knowing they were going to kill a bunch of civilians doesn't count?

Just trying to work out what level of war crime apologist you're aiming for here?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #23
Even if we accept Molan was doing what had to be done in Iraq his subsequent words surrounding Islam in Australia would suggest that he didn't lose much sleep over what was done on his watch and someone less charitable than I could be forgiven for thinking he might have relished it a bit.
 
Gralin said:
You think he didn't?
You going to argue it was someone further down that gave the order?
Or you going to run with they didn't explicitly say to kill civilians so them knowing they were going to kill a bunch of civilians doesn't count?

Just trying to work out what level of war crime apologist you're aiming for here?
Click to expand...
I guess every single general who has taken a city is a war criminal then.

Best we just leave cities full of enemy combatants to themselves as under the gralin doctrine, despite dropping flyers, using loudspeakers, tv and radio for days informing noncombatants that unrestricted warfare was about to happen - we cant enter a city any more.

Looks like ukraine is going to have a hard time, might as well stop where they are as the gralin doctrine forbids anything thst might kill civilians.

Thank christ you werent around in ww2 or the germans would have won with us having one hand tied behind our backs while hitlers lads have free reign.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Jim CHALMERS
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
283
Views
16K
Xtreme
Xtreme

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top