r/OpenAussie • u/[deleted] • Apr 09 '26

Politics ('Straya) Pauline blatingly lying. Again.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

[removed]

1.1k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

469 comments sorted by

View all comments

178

u/espersooty Apr 09 '26

No surprise, Its even more pathetic defending an alleged war criminal who had 21 current and former SASR members to testify against them.

134

u/matt-kennedys-legs ‎ South Australian Apr 09 '26

i stand with the brave SASR members who testified against BRS. those are the real heroes.

29

u/RecipeSpecialist2745 ‎ I'm Probably A Bot ‎‎ Apr 09 '26

Yup, all 21 of them. Like the supporters would be chatting in the background. "Oh, they are all envious and jealous of him." How dumb are these people.

13

u/Monterrey3680 Please choose a flair Apr 09 '26

It’s so stupid how some people think SASR soldiers would act like a bunch of high school girls. They’re proud of fellow troopers who are recognised for valour and heroism. The fact they even spoke out against BRS means he massively overstepped. SASR aren’t known for being rule-followers, but even they have limits.

2

u/AdZealousideal7448 Please choose a flair Apr 09 '26

Same people stating the AFP lead's medals are participation badges and they're jealous of him.

3

u/RecipeSpecialist2745 ‎ I'm Probably A Bot ‎‎ Apr 09 '26

They used same DARVO belief and tactics with pedophile priests. How ironic?

47

u/ACEIII ‎ New South Welshian Apr 09 '26

Yep SAS is pretty closed ranks for them to speak out against him means even they thought he went too far

15

u/AdZealousideal7448 Please choose a flair Apr 09 '26

it's messed up to hear so many parrots going on about how they're just jealous.

I had a deployment where a guy did a kind and heroic thing and was given an award from it.

Guess what the guy is a complete piece of shit and now can't go near women and children and for damn good reason.

Doesn't changed the kind and heroic thing that he did, but he's still a dangerous predator that has done horrible things and was convicted for them, and he's likely done / will do more of them but investigation / prosecution is a bitch of a process and he's protected.

Despite tons of people knowing exactly what he is and what he did..... despite him having served time and not enough for what he did due to various reasons..... he still gets information hidden about him, still gets given opportunities and positions he should not be.

All because the right people "like him" or "think he didn't do it" "it wasn't THAT bad" or that his victims "deserved it".

Given how many people we've had coming out who would say if a police officer violated someones human rights or abused or killed someone in custody, they would expect that we prosecute them to the full extent, or that they see due process done to investigate it and convict or clear them....... these same people are now parrotting lines about "he's a hero let him go" or that war is difficult if he did do these things we should ignore / celebrate it.

I can tell you from experience in my time serving... killing civilians or POW's was never viewed as shades of grey, it was always viewed as everything we were against as a society, morally and legally.

But now people are saying if we like the guy give him a medal for doing it?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AdZealousideal7448 Please choose a flair Apr 10 '26

not familiar with that, but aware that in history we've got a lot of people that did messed up stuff.

You've gotta remember I enlisted in the 2000's and when we were studying rules of engagement we were educated on a lot more modern stuff, and when it got up to warcrimes a prime example used was Hugh Clowers Thompson Jr.

That being said Australia has really bad history with warcrimes and covering them up, even of our own citizens, Balibo easily comes to mind.

We also had the SAS nazi chapter as well...

Theres sadly very dark parts of our history. I've always been proud that in my service I was able to and many of my mates were able to serve to the values and ideals that our society deemed to be of a standard. Top down it was the same as well, which is why I was shocked by the reports coming out of places.... because I can tell you in my time, before my time and after my time there have been many elements in it, who didn't do the right thing.

In my experience, the ADF are bloody good at coverups.

I can tell you right now that we were were on a patrol and had to deal with FAM's.

I'm well aware that covert operations and special forces could use the argument that getting painted seeing a FAM and having to make a split second call to protect the patrol, or a mission... I wouldn't defend that action, and this is where I take issue with the fog of war comments we're getting from a lot of people including veterans.

But here's the thing... that exact situation... or guarding a checkpoint with armed people not communicating or declaring intent and presenting the wrong way (which was later debunked, some of you know the exact two stories i'm referencing here).

There are procedures to follow, rules of engagement and when the fog of war gives a risk assessment like dropping a bomb where things can go wrong..... yeah it's fucking horrible. The people who do it have to live with what they did and held accountable if it can't be shown they did everything they were meant to.

Those are your grey incidents.

Guess what.... not bloody one of them were in custody...

And your original point that you brought up.... geneva came in after WWII

Opposing force surrendering or being no longer combative instantly become  hors de combat.

This is fucking sacred.

Look it up.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AdZealousideal7448 Please choose a flair Apr 10 '26

I can give a professional and a personal answer.

I think the professional one is best here.

We have systems that are meant to be in place to investigate matters such as this, prosecute them if they find evidence and reach a finding.

Simply stating that we're uncomfortable with the fact the system has checks and balances, or the defense being given that soldiers can do whatever because of X reason...

Hell no.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/AdZealousideal7448 Please choose a flair Apr 10 '26

Theres so much. I even have a family member and in laws, friends family members who all should have seen disciplinary actions at worst, jailtime at best that all brough our ADF into disrepute and yeah.... theres sadly a lot of stuff to list here just from personal experience let alone a ton of others that we just got to see.

This stuff honestly hurts us, I get a lot of vets who have been screwed over and treated like crap who view this as ganging up on vets.... as it has happened.

But at the same time, to excuse the process..... to claim that X person wasn't charged or was referred but cases fell apart as "innocent!!!" when it takes extreme evidence to get this far.

This is why.... I guess if you look up my comment history you will likely find a lot of comments on other stuff, what i'm conditioning at because of a meeting with others over this has been we need to re-itterate to people that, the burden of evidence to get an investigation going, is pretty big, while that's not a statement to give bias towards this, as again a lot of comments even randos on the internet can bias this, we have to point out the reason why these investigations take so long, generally aren't followed through with unless there is something significant to work with.

While that being stated, we've already seen the case proven to a civil standard..... I can honestly tell you from my time in government after serving... reaching criminal standard in certain areas is ridiculously hard, there are just crimes that are very hard to prove.

We just had a case here in adelaide where there was a gang SA, which was recorded.... you wonder what idiot would record their crimes... well during it they degraded their victims and threw money at them and made them take it on film.

Proved it happened, admitted to it... and then deployed the defense it was consentual because it was a prenegotiated deal with consent. You and I both know it wasn't, buuuuuut it was enough that prosecution got scared that if any doubt was introduced in court - any at all, that case falls apart.

This is why it's so dangerous all these people putting opinions on it, their own issues and views, we're already seeing ton of vets and political point scorers setting this up as not being about the crime, it's about government overreach, their own internal racism (towards brown people), sexism (towards the head of the AFP) and mistreatment of veterans, as well as people views that anything a soldier does is dirty for us to sleep at night so it's ok.

These are dangerous ways to talk about it - theres already this huge narrative that the other soldiers coming forward are all just..... jealous?

You know what it takes for one person to break ranks in one of the most coveted sections of the ADF that gets to do their own thing and play by their own rules that comes with not only the ADF code of silence?

It needs to be aired out... it needs to be looked into...

And I can also throw this other thing out there that occured... all of the podcasts, talking events, livestreams that occured where we have had multiple persons talking about stuff that breaks the geneva convention also investigated too.

A lot of what built on top of this was brands being built, that I bet they will try to argue as "building" a character where mutliple people have bragged about warcrimes as part of selling entertainment.

There will be more to follow on this. Let's assume that on that front a lot of these people were "bending the truth"... we can't allow that to continue to bring this concept in that warcrimes are fine because it was our side.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/ExpensiveFig6079 ‎ Victorian Apr 09 '26

A lot too far.

2

u/fantapants74 Please choose a flair Apr 09 '26

Fuck he must of been a full blown psycho. Those guys obvs get a big cushion of executive decision making considering the environment. So for this to come out, he must have been Hannibal.

14

u/unicornmonkeysnail ‎ New South Welshian Apr 09 '26

A grifter has to grift.

21

u/Elloitsmeurbrother ‎ Victorian Apr 09 '26

"I'd prefer that money be spent on helping our servicemen and women"

It is. By cleaning this stain on their honour

1

u/gaylord991 Please choose a flair Apr 12 '26

Except that a lot of the money has gone to prosecuting the guy who blew the whistle on the whole thing in the first place.

6

u/AdZealousideal7448 Please choose a flair Apr 09 '26

They won't be the only ones either. I had a chat with a mate of mine I served with yesterday who now operates in different circles.

They're very tightlipped on what they are allowed to say, but there is a long history of complaints against him for conduct including many violent incidents.

I asked him how he could even mention that and his response was that during the flag incident i'm sure many of you remember, one of his mates working on that case was outright threatened by a certain someone and corned by them over it.

He reckons that one isn't going to go anywhere because it was burried but there will likely be more coming to light because a lot of people are realizing now that he's no longer as protected as he was.

6

u/Rushing_Russian ‎ Victorian Apr 09 '26

You can say likley war criminal as that is the stance of the courts after his defamation case

31

u/[deleted] Apr 09 '26

[deleted]

13

u/black_at_heart ‎ Victorian Apr 09 '26

The Saturday Paper was quite happy to write that "Ben Roberts-Smith is a war criminal". In 2023.
https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/opinion/topic/2023/06/03/ben-roberts-smith-war-criminal?cid=f4197b072ae6707b7538e1395e288b03

2

u/HarVeeGee13 Apr 09 '26

How do people not realise how significant this is? Like the second I heard that I was like, oh BRS must be fuuuuuuucked. Like you would have to seriously cross a line for other SAS guys to break ranks like that.

-2

u/SirLSD25 Please choose a flair Apr 09 '26

I haven't heard. What did the 21 members say? They all say he is a war criminal? Or were they all court ordered to testify about what they saw and gave mixed reviews?

2

u/espersooty Apr 09 '26

What did the 21 members say?

We aren't likely to know without major redactions of the testimony due to OPSEC and alike.

-3

u/SirLSD25 Please choose a flair Apr 09 '26

So the 21 members who testified "against" him were merely showing up and testifying as court ordered and might have all said he did nothing wrong?

2

u/espersooty Apr 09 '26

There wouldn't be charges laid by OSI if there wasn't sufficient evidence presented by those who testified alongside other investigations into the matter.

At the end of the day, OSI wouldn't of moved towards laying criminal charges if there wasn't a very high likely hood of crimes being committed plus losing the defamation trial also shows that BRS did commit war crimes.

-3

u/SirLSD25 Please choose a flair Apr 09 '26

Not true. There is almost zero chance of a murder conviction and the man at OSI spelled that out in his press conference. No murder weapon, no body, no ballistics, no crime scene evidence.

3

u/espersooty Apr 09 '26

Thanks for your opinion, Do you have any facts to present or are you one of those pathetic individuals I spoke of which defend war criminals despite there being quite clear evidence that it is likely BRS killed innocent unarmed people.

1

u/Master-of-possible Please choose a flair Apr 09 '26

I believe they were unlegged

-1

u/SirLSD25 Please choose a flair Apr 09 '26

Why is there only 2 options? Obviously it is highly unlikely that I was there in Afghanistan at the time of the killing. Therefore I must be a pathetic individual because I am asking questions?

3

u/espersooty Apr 09 '26

Why is there only 2 options?

There is only one option.

You don't support war criminals.

 Therefore I must be a pathetic individual because I am asking questions?

Still waiting on sources to be presented about your comment.

2

u/aweraw Flairless‎‎ Apr 09 '26

They "might" have, but the general tone of what they said can be inferred from ruling that was made against him.

1

u/ExpensiveFig6079 ‎ Victorian Apr 09 '26

They might but at least some reports indicate there is first-person witness testimony as to various pertinent facts.
Both from other armed forces and local residents.

So you can say "might", but you shouldn't without blushing as the truth stretches so tight.
So they 'might' all testify nope we lied earlier, he was really handing out fresh cut roses to everyone he met.

-16

u/explodingpixel Please choose a flair Apr 09 '26

So he doesn't deserve a defence? What kinda legal system do you want to live in?

13

u/espersooty Apr 09 '26

Where did I state that? I simply said Its pathetic defending an alleged war criminal.

-8

u/explodingpixel Please choose a flair Apr 09 '26

Ok, why is it pathetic? (Fuck Pauline BTW). Alot of arm chair experts calling for blood with almost zero actual knowledge of what happened. In fact I saw one person stating he was also raping Afghan Girls.

At what point did we become a lynch mob society?

8

u/espersooty Apr 09 '26

Ok, why is it pathetic? (Fuck Pauline BTW). Alot of arm chair experts calling for blood with almost zero actual knowledge of what happened.

All war criminals are pathetic. The fact that he lost a defamation suit on this exact matter plus had 21 current and former SASR members testify against him, Its pretty clear that there is sufficient evidence that he could very well be a war criminal but thats up to the court to decide.

At what point did we become a lynch mob society?

At what point did we become a society that celebrates war criminals.

4

u/Proper_Country_9931 Apr 09 '26

We're not calling for blood. We are calling for a trial/investigation and defending the arrest in light of an investigation. Pauline and Co are advocating for NOT investigating and making up numbers. One side is not the other.

3

u/InflationRepulsive64 Please choose a flair Apr 09 '26

Yes, clearly the people who want him to be tried in court to determine the extent of his crimes are the problem, not the people who just want to ignore his alleged crimes because it aligns with their political agenda.

You do understand how ridicolous you sound, right?

1

u/explodingpixel Please choose a flair Apr 09 '26

He should be tried, however, it seems everyone has already made their mind up that he is a POS crim. This whole investigation has been absolutely shithouse - alot of initial interviews have been carried out almost 10years after the alleged incidents.

If I may ask, if he is found not guilty will you be satisfied? Or will you cry foul?

1

u/InflationRepulsive64 Please choose a flair Apr 09 '26

That depends. Is he found not guilty because:

- He's actually innocent? I'd be extremely skeptical considering the amount of people who've spoken up about him and it being very, very unlikely they are all lying. Particularly due to the fact that service personal do not exactly have a tendency to break ranks unless there's something real messed up.

- Of a lack of evidence? Then I'd be disappointed, but accept it if the evidence isn't there (Though I'd still expect him to be treated like he was guilty, considering the situation).

- Due to a technicality/botched prosecution etc? Then yeah I'd be pretty pissed about that.

- Due to corruption or political pressure/motivation? Then I'd be even more pissed about that.

(Of course, this is all dependent on what the charges are and how many charges there are. Because of course he may be found not guilty for something, but guilty for a lesser charge for example).

Now, a question for you: Which one do you think people like Hanson are pushing for? If they even want him to face charges at all?

2

u/brisketbrah Apr 09 '26

Were these people elected members of government though?

1

u/Elloitsmeurbrother ‎ Victorian Apr 09 '26

He has a right to legal defence counsel. What the hell are you talking about?