RIP Jim Molan

[Baltimore Jack]

This thread has gone from accusations of breaking the rules of war and war crimes which i countered by posting the ACTUAL rules - which show molan acted within those rules.

To the vibe of the thing…..

See how they have got you totally sucked in?

You think there is a difference......there isn't

 

[Big Papa Ted]

Why are you still here, I told you to delete your account

Strong, well reasoned retort.

 

[kranky al]

See how they have got you totally sucked in?

You think there is a difference......there isn't

Yes, the icrc has me completely sucked in.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Strong, well reasoned retort.

Listen doofus after you have done a few years serving, maybe we can have a conversation, but until then I dismiss you

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Yes, the icrc has me completely sucked in.

Progress....well done

 

[Big Papa Ted]

Listen doofus after you have done a few years serving, maybe we can have a conversation, but until then I dismiss you

So we can have a conversation now then.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

While your hero's like Molan and BRS bring shame to all of us

Your values are in the toilet

Um, Roberts-Smith is under investigation for war crimes.

Much as I disagree with so much of Australia’s militarist history, much as I don’t lament Molan as a climate-change denying politician, what war crimes was he accused of?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Um, Roberts-Smith is under investigation for war crimes.

Much as I disagree with so much of Australia’s militarist history, much as I don’t lament Molan as a climate-change denying politician, what war crimes was he accused of?

"He helped direct operations against Fallujah in November 2004, the scene of some of the most horrific US war crimes in Iraq. The US laid siege to the city in order to wipe out insurgents, cutting off all exits to the remaining 30,000 to 50,000 civilians.
Medical clinics were bombed and the Red Cross prevented from taking in medical supplies.
At least 800 civilians were killed. The US has admitted to using white phosphorus there in violation of international law."

 

[Baltimore Jack]

 

[Big Papa Ted]

"He helped direct operations against Fallujah in November 2004, the scene of some of the most horrific US war crimes in Iraq. The US laid siege to the city in order to wipe out insurgents, cutting off all exits to the remaining 30,000 to 50,000 civilians.
Medical clinics were bombed and the Red Cross prevented from taking in medical supplies.
At least 800 civilians were killed. The US has admitted to using white phosphorus there in violation of international law."

At least have the integrity to post the "unbiased" source you pulled that from. Jim Molan—war criminal, now Senator – Solidarity Online

Also from this same article. "While Molan details his efforts to comply with the letter of international law".

You literally just googled "Jim Molan war criminal" and tried to use the only thing you can find.

Pathetic.

 

[kranky al]

View attachment 1589667

Very trump supporter like

Just whack a few unsourced screenshots and job done right.

Quote an un named site and that’ll do.

White phos isnt illegal to use. Its not illegal to shell a specific building you are receiving fire from

You are confusing what you think the rules off wars should be in your ideal world with what the rules of was actually are. Which is not what you think they are.

Ive posted them and a source (which is the actual organisation that oversees them)

Im starting to think you are just trolling now.

 

[CD Xbow]

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.

Gee, more sociopaths than amongst CEO's and prison guards, that's quite an achievement.

 

[kranky al]

Gee, more sociopaths than amongst CEO's and prison guards, that's quite an g

Generals get to order men they know and like to horrible deaths.

Prison guards not many death, they do know them, they dont like them

Ceos dont know and dont like.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

"He helped direct operations against Fallujah in November 2004, the scene of some of the most horrific US war crimes in Iraq. The US laid siege to the city in order to wipe out insurgents, cutting off all exits to the remaining 30,000 to 50,000 civilians.
Medical clinics were bombed and the Red Cross prevented from taking in medical supplies.
At least 800 civilians were killed. The US has admitted to using white phosphorus there in violation of international law."

Firstly where is that quote from, secondly do we know that Molan himself ordered the use of white phosphorus, and finally, white phosphorus is hideous stuff and if I had my way it would be banned, but as far as I can see it is not banned.

Why don’t we just stick with the known facts, and keep our credibility intact? Molan as a politician was a dick. Good riddance.

 

[sherb]

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

I inadvertently saw footage of that killing as a young kid, I would have been about 8.

I haven't been able to watch it since. So thanks for bringing that up and causing me to relive that ....... not.

 

[sherb]

Whats your feelings about Zelensky?

Hes killing a bunch of civilians retaking his cities too.

Zelensky references don't belong in a discussion about Molan.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

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.

And that makes it okay, does it? I find this line of argument to be pretty sickening. Men of fighting age were not allowed to leave, so they were all assumed to be insurgents and left to die.

Air drop? The insurgents will take that.

So what?

Most civilians left - a small percentage stayed.

How dare anyone stay in their home, they must be bombed off the face of the earth. Palestinians fled in 1948 to escape war and were never allowed to return to their homes. I don't blame anyone for not fleeing after that.

All of this is besides the point anyway, the US had already got rid of Saddam Hussein, and so they had changed their mission to being colonial occupiers. Their continuing presence in the country was wrong to begin with.

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.

In a post full of sickening statements, this might be the worst. Do you have any idea what white phosphorus does to people? It's not a simple explosive, it's a chemical weapon designed to cause maximum pain by burning the flesh. You'll find there is a humanitarian law against its use, it's called the Geneva Convention.

 

[kranky al]

And that makes it okay, does it? I find this line of argument to be pretty sickening. Men of fighting age were not allowed to leave, so they were all assumed to be insurgents and left to die.


So what?


How dare anyone stay in their home, they must be bombed off the face of the earth. Palestinians fled in 1948 to escape war and were never allowed to return to their homes. I don't blame anyone for not fleeing after that.

All of this is besides the point anyway, the US had already got rid of Saddam Hussein, and so they had changed their mission to being colonial occupiers. Their continuing presence in the country was wrong to begin with.


In a post full of sickening statements, this might be the worst. Do you have any idea what white phosphorus does to people? It's not a simple explosive, it's a chemical weapon designed to cause maximum pain by burning the flesh. You'll find there is a humanitarian law against its use, it's called the Geneva Convention.

You are confusing what you think international law should be with actual international law.

The Jus in Bello of White Phosphorus: Getting the Law Correct

Focusing on the weapon, and not how it is being used, muddies the law and facts surrounding the circumstances in which a war crime may have occurred.

www.lawfareblog.com

Im simply pointing out the realities.

Unlike you ive sat through a bunch of lectures on what we can or cannot do.

You guys are trying to invent your own rules and then hang molan on those rules.


Are you just as angry at zelensky as he retakes ukraininan cities?

 

[The Punter]

Disrespect for expertise is a problem across the political spectrum.

 

[kranky al]

Zelensky references don't belong in a discussion about Molan.

Hes doing what molan did - of course they are his own cities.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

You are confusing what you think international law should be with actual international law.

The Jus in Bello of White Phosphorus: Getting the Law Correct

Focusing on the weapon, and not how it is being used, muddies the law and facts surrounding the circumstances in which a war crime may have occurred.

www.lawfareblog.com

Im simply pointing out the realities.

Unlike you ive sat through a bunch of lectures on what we can or cannot do.

You guys are trying to invent your own rules and then hang molan on those rules.

Oh well done, you've spammed an article without pointing out what within it is relevant to the discussion at hand. Top tier shitposting. Let me provide you with quotes that are more relevant:

"According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, burning phosphorus flames reach levels of over 800 degrees Celsius and fires can spread over huge areas, up to several hundred square kilometres.

According to their translated Facebook post, the Additional Protocols to the 1977 Geneva Convention restrict the deployment of white phosphorus bombs if they endanger civilians."

What are white phosphorus bombs, the banned chemical Russia is allegedly using?

As the conflict between Russia and Ukraine grows, reports indicate that hundreds of people have been killed in both nations, with the leading casualties seeming to be Ukrainian...

amp.marca.com

Are you just as angry at zelensky as he retakes ukraininan cities?

No, because taking back your own land is an entirely different proposition. Trying to draw a false equivalence between that and the Battle of Fallujah is pretty low. Especially since Russia are the ones reported to be using white phosphorus against civilians.

 

[kranky al]

Oh well done, you've spammed an article without pointing out what within it is relevant to the discussion at hand. Top tier shitposting. Let me provide you with quotes that are more relevant:

"According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, burning phosphorus flames reach levels of over 800 degrees Celsius and fires can spread over huge areas, up to several hundred square kilometres.

According to their translated Facebook post, the Additional Protocols to the 1977 Geneva Convention restrict the deployment of white phosphorus bombs if they endanger civilians."

What are white phosphorus bombs, the banned chemical Russia is allegedly using?

As the conflict between Russia and Ukraine grows, reports indicate that hundreds of people have been killed in both nations, with the leading casualties seeming to be Ukrainian...

amp.marca.com

No, because taking back your own land is an entirely different proposition. Trying to draw a false equivalence between that and the Battle of Fallujah is pretty low. Especially since Russia are the ones reported to be using white phosphorus against civilians.

Civilians.



You heard a buzzword phosphorus.

You read an article from some edgy magazine that bloviated that because its a chemical that its a chemical weapon.

They gushed about war crimes. Like being burnt with phosphorus is worse than being burnt by magnesium or napalm or petroleum jelly or any of the other myriad weapons systems man in his c}#%ishness has invented to burn people.

You wanna know what else has phosphorus in it?



Every fifth round out of a every machine gun - imagine how much fun it is getting a bullet full of phosphorus in ya guts.

Oh noes - it appears every single country is war criming with phosphorus.

Im going to say this really slowly so the slow kids hopefully finally get it.


When it comes to urban warfare, there is a carefully crafted system where you warn civilians of your intentions by various means and allow them to leave and help them to leave in any way you reasonably can.

You let them know that after such and such a time unrestricted warfare will commence - after that time, as long as you are not deliberately targeting civilians - as long as essentially you are shooting back at buildings you are being shot at from. You are LEGALLY ALLOWED TO USE THESE WEAPONS.

Nations around the world agreed to these rules of war. IF johnny bananas from australia had have rocked up to these negotiations and said “id like to completely ban all artillery in cities as well as x, y and z”

There would have been no agreement - a bunch of countries would have walked away and wed have no rules of war.

Take a look at cluster bombs and mines…. Theyve been trying to get an agreement on banning them for 30 years now - but theres a bunch of countries (with the us as the main one) dragging their feet so all we have currently is a bunch of countries have signed it, a bunch of countries havnt - its not international law and it doesnt look like being international law any time soon.

As an ex soldier id love to have the funking things banned, but please for funks sake stop mixing up what you think should be the case vs what actually is the case.


When the rules of war were written there was a bunch of countries that didnt want any rules at all. The rules are a compromise. They are better than nothing.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

You heard a buzzword phosphorus.

You read an article from some edgy magazine that bloviated that because its a chemical that its a chemical weapon.

They gushed about war crimes. Like being burnt with phosphorus is worse than being burnt by magnesium or napalm or petroleum jelly or any of the other myriad weapons systems man in his c}#%ishness has invented to burn people.

Oh look at you, claiming that some chemical weapons are not that bad, really, honest! What a disgusting attitude. I'm done with listening to this.

 

[kranky al]

Oh look at you, claiming that some chemical weapons are not that bad, really, honest! What a disgusting attitude. I'm done with listening to this.

Actually if you read it again without your little rage glasses on i said nothing of the kind.

When your argument consists of lamely trying to put words in someone elses mouth you know the argument is lost.

<<<Like being burnt with phosphorus is worse than being burnt by magnesium or napalm or petroleum jelly or any of the other myriad weapons systems man in his c}#%ishness has invented to burn people.>>>

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Oh look at you, claiming that some chemical weapons are not that bad, really, honest! What a disgusting attitude. I'm done with listening to this.

Good coz he said nothing of the sort.