RIP Jim Molan

[kranky al]

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.

I know a couple of generals. They are a breed apart, you have to be willing to throw men from your own side into situations where they die, are wounded, horribly burnt, crippled etc.

Most of your young officers dont make it to the next grade - and even less the grade after that - i look at the lt’s that went to war and got out , a lot of them have the same if not worse ptsd than the diggers they commanded. The ones who stay on and go up the slippery rope are hard men without much compassion.

Theres a lot of soldiers coming back from iraq and afghanistan that saw horrendous s**t - kids with bombs strapped to them and stuff like that. Quite a few of them are mates of mine, some can separate the psychos who strapped bombs to kids from the general population, some cant and will hate all of those people, some are poisoned towards the folk whos country they invaded a lot like ww2 vets were poisoned against germans or japanese. Some will get over it, some wont.

Molan as a leader should have set an example when he came back and what he said made it pretty clear to me that he was utterly unfit to be a politician.

 

[Northalives]

I won't speak ill of the dead but I do read some obits with some degree of pleasure.

Well played.

 

[Northalives]

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

Absolutely no reason at all for us to be there.

I just remember, the Vietnam Moratoriums and at they had a huge influence on me. I also had family friends and older brothers of my fiends who were conscripted to go as well as being part of the armed forces. If you are in the armed forces and you are told to go, you go. If you are conscripted, you can try to not go and get thrown in jail with all the shame that this brings on family so you felt obliged to go.

I got to know some of these returned Vietnam soldiers and they too were victims. The conscripted ones had a couple of months training at Puckapunyal and Singleton, put on a plane, land in a jungle, (on another planet) and didn't even know who the enemy was! They saw things and had to do things to stay alive that no human being should ever have to do and then, when it's time to come home, they are thrown on a plane and land at Kingsford Smith. They are spat on, called child killers, murderers, have pigs blood thrown at them and the politicians who sent them there just turn their back on 'em and don't want anything to do with them.

Being in the Armed Forces is nothing to be ashamed of. I wouldn't never enlist in the Armed Forces but people that do, have a sense of duty in defending Australia. The majority you will find, don't want to go and fight America's/Britain's wars. They want to defend Australia but it's politician's and war mongers who send them out to fight, kill and die.

Conscription is legalised slavery for the killing machine and machinations of Generals and Politicians.

There are some who are just bloodthirsty *s who are just itching to be killers; like that * who went off to fight in Ukraine and from what I can ascertain, had absolutely no connection with anyone or any country in that region but he wanted to go and join in the bloodlust, got killed and he is fated in some quarters as a f****ng hero! Mercenaries are the worst of the worst.

We need to be careful when we talk about military personnel because not all of these people are bloodthirsty pigs. It's the Molan's, Menzies, Holts, Howards, Duttons, Abbotts, Morrisons etc that are the murderous pigs who send out others to do the killings.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

and then, when it's time to come home, they are thrown on a plane and land at Kingsford Smith. They are spat on, called child killers, murderers, have pigs blood thrown at them and the politicians who sent them there just turn their back on 'em and don't want anything to do with them.

Not that I want to detract from your heartfelt post, which I totally agree with, but this particular trope has proven extremely elusive to substantiation.

There is an excellent chapter in "Zombie Myths of Australian History", written by historian Jeffrey Grey, himself the son of a Vietnam vet, which clarifies an enormous number of misconceptions about attitudes to our involvment in the the Vietnam War at the time.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

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

This is a classic straw man argument. Yes, civilians die in wars, no one disputes that. That doesn't make it right to deliberately starve them and use white phosphorus on them.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

This is a classic straw man argument. Yes, civilians die in wars, no one disputes that. That doesn't make it right to deliberately starve them and use white phosphorus on them.

Generals back in a safe HQ and out of all danger: "Boys, civilians gonna die....and if we bomb those civilians with white phosphorus, well you know....civilians gonna die"

 

[kranky al]

This is a classic straw man argument. Yes, civilians die in wars, no one disputes that. That doesn't make it right to deliberately starve them and use white phosphorus on them.



Again the fact that there was days of aitrborne leaflet drops, loudspeakers 24/7, tv and and radio announcing that unrestricted warfare was going to start and for civilians to evacuate beforehand.

How were they supposed to deliver food after that when noone was able to deliver food without the insurgents shooting at them?

Air drop? The insurgents will take that.

Most civilians left - a small percentage stayed.

<<<
There is no general prohibition under international humanitarian law against using heavy explosive weapons in populated areas; however, such use must comply with all the rules governing the conduct of hostilities, notably the prohibitions against indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks and the obligation to take all feasible precautions in attack.>>>

Such as giving your enemy days to prepare for an assault by announcing by every means possible that you are going to assault and that civilians must leave.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

This is a classic straw man argument. Yes, civilians die in wars, no one disputes that. That doesn't make it right to deliberately starve them and use white phosphorus on them.



Again the fact that there was days of aitrborne leaflet drops, loudspeakers 24/7, tv and and radio announcing that unrestricted warfare was going to start and for civilians to evacuate beforehand.

How were they supposed to deliver food after that when noone was able to deliver food without the insurgents shooting at them?

Air drop? The insurgents will take that.

Most civilians left - a small percentage stayed.

<<<
There is no general prohibition under international humanitarian law against using heavy explosive weapons in populated areas; however, such use must comply with all the rules governing the conduct of hostilities, notably the prohibitions against indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks and the obligation to take all feasible precautions in attack.>>>

Such as giving your enemy days to prepare for an assault by announcing by every means possible that you are going to assault and that civilians must leave.

Why not bold this bit "prohibitions against indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks"
Molan ordered the use of white phosphorus which ensured he could not comply with the bolded

You get that you are making excuses for the indiscriminate slaughtering of civilians, right?

 

[Donakebab]

Molan went on to be a politician within the party that made those decisions and continued to espouse racist ideals about the same groups of people that had been slaughtered in Fallujah.

Blood all over his cold dead hands.

 

[kranky al]

Why not bold this bit "prohibitions against indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks"
Molan ordered the use of white phosphorus which ensured he could not comply with the bolded

Indiscriminate attack is what the russians are doing, blanketing cities in shellfire and drones.

The yanks (and our guys for that matter) call in a target and deliberately pulverise the building they are being fired on from.

You will find this fits within the geneva convention guidelines.

You get that you are making excuses for the indiscriminate slaughtering of civilians, right?

Interesting that having your legs blown off by artillery is ok but white phos isnt.

Use a flamethower and that’s just dandy but.

Im going to repeat, they allowed llenty of time and-actively assisted civilians to leave.

They were absolutely upfront with what was going to happen afterwards.

Show me a city being taken in history where those measures were taken.

You are judging that battle at a standard no other urban battle in history was judged by - despite the fact that noone has facilitated civilians leaving like that.

Once again ill ask, how would we have won ww2 under your rules?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Indiscriminate attack is what the russians are doing, blanketing cities in shellfire and drones.

The yanks (and our guys for that matter) call in a target and deliberately pulverise the building they are being fired on from.

You will find this fits within the geneva convention guidelines.

Interesting that having your legs blown off by artillery is ok but white phos isnt.

Use a flamethower and that’s just dandy but.

Im going to repeat, they allowed llenty of time and-actively assisted civilians to leave.

They were absolutely upfront with what was going to happen afterwards.

Show me a city being taken in history where those measures were taken.

You are judging that battle at a standard no other urban battle in history was judged by - despite the fact that noone has facilitated civilians leaving like that.

Once again ill ask, how would we have won ww2 under your rules?

Look...over there...a squirrel

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Why not bold this bit "prohibitions against indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks"
Molan ordered the use of white phosphorus which ensured he could not comply with the bolded

You get that you are making excuses for the indiscriminate slaughtering of civilians, right?

Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are prime examples.

 

[Gralin]

WW2 has literally nothing to do withbehat Molan did kranky al

You seem to think what he did was totally fine and acceptable, I do not.

Seems you get real pissy at the idea that we don't want to give an absolute s**t stain of a human a pass for his war crimes.

How dare we apply our own standards to our judgement of an unrepentant racist.

It's funny you keep bringing up WW2 though given Molan was the kind of guy who would have joined the Germans in the war

 

[Schneebly11]

They saw things and had to do things to stay alive that no human being should ever have to do and then, when it's time to come home, they are thrown on a plane and land at Kingsford Smith. They are spat on, called child killers, murderers, have pigs blood thrown at them and the politicians who sent them there just turn their back on 'em and don't want anything to do with them.

One of the biggest war related myths in existence. It was a slur made up years after the conflict to denigrate the anti war movement. No recorded instances of a soldier being spat on.

The Spitting Image - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Have a think about it. A fully trained combat soldier, fresh out back from Vietnam, is approached by a long haired hippie and spat on and called “baby killer”. Really? If the spitting didn’t make a news headline or police report then the brawl that would’ve started when the soldier punches the hippie square in the face would have. But it was never recorded to have happened.

 

[kranky al]

Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are prime examples.

Yes they are.

 

[kranky al]

WW2 has literally nothing to do withbehat Molan did kranky al

You seem to think what he did was totally fine and acceptable, I do not.

Seems you get real pissy at the idea that we don't want to give an absolute s**t stain of a human a pass for his war crimes.

How dare we apply our own standards to our judgement of an unrepentant racist.

It's funny you keep bringing up WW2 though given Molan was the kind of guy who would have joined the Germans in the war

You could say the same for most generals. They tend to be right wing af.

Once again ill ask you to show me any urban conflict in history where civilians have been given as much opportunity and encouragement to leave before unrestricted warfare started.

Why didnt they leave?

 

[kranky al]

One of the biggest war related myths in existence. It was a slur made up years after the conflict to denigrate the anti war movement. No recorded instances of a soldier being spat on.

The Spitting Image - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Have a think about it. A fully trained combat soldier, fresh out back from Vietnam, is approached by a long haired hippie and spat on and called “baby killer”. Really? If the spitting didn’t make a news headline or police report then the brawl that would’ve started when the soldier punches the hippie square in the face would have. But it was never recorded to have happened.

I know for a fact it happened. In the 1 R.A.R museum theres a photo of it.

 

[kranky al]

WW2 has literally nothing to do withbehat Molan did kranky al

You seem to think what he did was totally fine and acceptable, I do not.

Seems you get real pissy at the idea that we don't want to give an absolute s**t stain of a human a pass for his war crimes.

How dare we apply our own standards to our judgement of an unrepentant racist.

It's funny you keep bringing up WW2 though given Molan was the kind of guy who would have joined the Germans in the war

And what im trying to tell you is that its not a war crime.


Civilians seem to have this idea that soldiers have rules of engagement like the police.

In some circumstances they do, peacekeeping missions are a lot more tied up before you start shooting shooting is the very last resort.

Every action has rules of engagement that differ - an all out shooting war is very much a free fire zone.

I had a mate of mine watching combat footage in afghanistan where a yank chopper zotzed a few taliban holding weapons and he said “that’s murder, they should be charged with murder”

I asked why and he said that there was no warning given. He honestly believed that a soldier cant shoot unless fired on. I explained to him what im explaining to you now, once youve warned civilians to get out of an area and announced that it will be a free fire zone, anyone holding a weapon is shot with zero warning, if we see the enemy using the same path over and over we will set up an ambush and without warning will initiate with multiple claymores and everyone will all open up - no warning whatsoever - that's the idea. That way you kill as many of them for as few as yours.

And if they are using civilians as porters or human shields

THATS ON THEM - NOT ON YOU

you have not broken any commandments - unless of course you believe in jeebers.

Some of you spouting off about war crimes need to actually have a look at the rules of war under the Geneva convention. Theres an enormous difference between what you guys think is a war crime and what actually is.

Case in point :



From the Vietnam war.

People up in arms squealing about it being murder back then need to actually have a look at the rules of war. North Vienam and South Vietnam were in an unrestricted war.

By the rules if war if you are a combatant and you arent in uniform you are subject to immediate execution without trial as a spy.

That’s why our troops and German troops in ww2 would wear their own uniforms under the oppositions when they were dealing out commando skulduggery. It was a pretty loose and fast way of trying to bend the rules of war.

Fast forward to my mate watching the taliban getting the good news according to apache - those guys were armed and in an area that was a free fire zone, if you are armed, you are a combatant. No rules broken.

Move 100km south or wherever and the rules of engagement can be different.


<<<
IHL prohibits attacks directed against civilians, as well as indiscriminate attacks, namely those that strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. Principle of proportionality: IHL prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause excessive incidental civilian harm in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. In the conduct of hostilities, causing incidental harm to civilians and civilian objects is often unavoidable.

However, IHL places a limit on the extent of incidental harm that is permissible by spelling out how military necessity and considerations of humanity must be balanced in such situations. Principle of precaution: In the conduct of military operations, constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects. All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

Given the significant risk of harm to civilians whenever the military is executing an attack, IHL imposes detailed obligations to those planning, deciding on or carrying out attacks. It also requires parties to the conflict to protect civilians and civilian objects under their control against the effects of attacks. >>>


More: Frequently asked questions on the rules of war

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

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.

Molan was an incomptent general and incompetent senator, he was an indecent man.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

And what im trying to tell you is that its not a war crime.


Civilians seem to have this idea that soldiers have rules of engagement like the police.

In some circumstances they do, peacekeeping missions are a lot more tied up before you start shooting shooting is the very last resort.

Every action has rules of engagement that differ - an all out shooting war is very much a free fire zone.

I had a mate of mine watching combat footage in afghanistan where a yank chopper zotzed a few taliban holding weapons and he said “that’s murder, they should be charged with murder”

I asked why and he said that there was no warning given. He honestly believed that a soldier cant shoot unless fired on. I explained to him what im explaining to you now, once youve warned civilians to get out of an area and announced that it will be a free fire zone, anyone holding a weapon is shot with zero warning, if we see the enemy using the same path over and over we will set up an ambush and without warning will initiate with multiple claymores and everyone will all open up - no warning whatsoever - that's the idea. That way you kill as many of them for as few as yours.

And if they are using civilians as porters or human shields

THATS ON THEM - NOT ON YOU

you have not broken any commandments - unless of course you believe in jeebers.

Some of you spouting off about war crimes need to actually have a look at the rules of war under the Geneva convention. Theres an enormous difference between what you guys think is a war crime and what actually is.

Case in point :

View attachment 1589255

From the Vietnam war.

People up in arms squealing about it being murder back then need to actually have a look at the rules of war. North Vienam and South Vietnam were in an unrestricted war.

By the rules if war if you are a combatant and you arent in uniform you are subject to immediate execution without trial as a spy.

That’s why our troops and German troops in ww2 would wear their own uniforms under the oppositions when they were dealing out commando skulduggery. It was a pretty loose and fast way of trying to bend the rules of war.

Fast forward to my mate watching the taliban getting the good news according to apache - those guys were armed and in an area that was a free fire zone, if you are armed, you are a combatant. No rules broken.

Move 100km south or wherever and the rules of engagement can be different.


<<<
IHL prohibits attacks directed against civilians, as well as indiscriminate attacks, namely those that strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. Principle of proportionality: IHL prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause excessive incidental civilian harm in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. In the conduct of hostilities, causing incidental harm to civilians and civilian objects is often unavoidable.

However, IHL places a limit on the extent of incidental harm that is permissible by spelling out how military necessity and considerations of humanity must be balanced in such situations. Principle of precaution: In the conduct of military operations, constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects. All feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

Given the significant risk of harm to civilians whenever the military is executing an attack, IHL imposes detailed obligations to those planning, deciding on or carrying out attacks. It also requires parties to the conflict to protect civilians and civilian objects under their control against the effects of attacks. >>>


More: Frequently asked questions on the rules of war

Killing civilians, killing the environment, Molan was an A1 campaigner. His family should be ashamed of him. He's un-Australian.

 

[kranky al]

Killing civilians, killing the environment, Molan was an A1 campaigner. His family should be ashamed of him. He's un-Australian.

Whats your feelings about Zelensky?

Hes killing a bunch of civilians retaking his cities too.

 

[Big Papa Ted]

Not that I want to detract from your heartfelt post, which I totally agree with, but this particular trope has proven extremely elusive to substantiation.

There is an excellent chapter in "Zombie Myths of Australian History", written by historian Jeffrey Grey, himself the son of a Vietnam vet, which clarifies an enormous number of misconceptions about attitudes to our involvment in the the Vietnam War at the time.

Jeffrey Grey is the GOAT, was my lecturer for a couple of subjects and his knowledge was unbelievable.

His tests were bulls**t hard though. One question was "what was the name of Wellington's horse at Waterloo?" Because it was referenced in one of our readings.

RIP Jeff

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Whats your feelings about Zelensky?

Hes killing a bunch of civilians retaking his cities too.

Molan was one of Australia's biggest climate bastards . I don't know how many civilians he killed by design or by incompetence but he was a very bad person.

 

[kranky al]

Molan was one of Australia's biggest climate bastards . I don't know how many civilians he killed by design or by incompetence but he was a very bad person.

There we can agree, as a politician i despised him.

As a general, he wasnt a very nice man, but a very effective leader. I suspect if tested 99.9% of generals would have strong sociopathic tendencies.

 

[kranky al]

Look...over there...a squirrel

Actually i go through peoples posts, answer their points and reply with my own, which arent even referenced.

Noone tries to actually play the ball.

Ive replied to posts, asked questions and the op’s have replied with completely different points and completely ignored what ive asked.


So no