Diggers Sailors face trial over footy stoush
TWO Australian sailors accused of attacking a California man after a drunken argument about sport will stand trial in March.
The article says it was all about the differences between Grid Iron and Aussie Rules but reading further I see something ominous in this statement;
encourage excuse them for hitting out, considering the mitigating circumstances.
Give them one for me when you get out boys!
The Australian headline refers to Sailors as Diggers. In my long association with the military I have never heard the term used with sailors hence the strikeout in my headline – yeah, I know pedantic but accurate.
The men also argued about politics in the Middle East.Like most Vietnam Veterans I have been insulted by stupid people and it was only my absolute disdain for such opinions that stopped me from ICUing them. I can easily imagine Left wing terrorist apologists attacking a couple of sailors over them having the temerity to support a war against terrorists and if that was the case then I can only
Facebook
Twitter
Mate you are so muddle headed – in this blog it’s ok for a couple of blokes to have a punch up but in the next you spew forth about a 14 year old having the courage of conviction to protest the killing of whales.
Not only is your hipocracy absolutely blinding you are able to justify violence in your own mind if the recipient is anyone on the left (or is it anyone who disgrees with you).
How do you know that the political argument was how you assume? Given the American and Australian worldviews, it is more likely that the Australian were slaging the Amercians for their botched entry into the war and their botched tactics ever since.
Remember – to assume makes and ass out of U and me!
were slaging the Amercians for their botched entry into the war and their botched tactics ever since.
I rest my case.
He he he
You sure this Islander guy isn’t a figment of your imagination Kev just to show how stupid the left is?
The article states:
“Wilkinson said he told the sailors the US and Australia were in the Middle East for no reason…”
Didn’t Islander read it?
He rebukes you for making assumptions and then he goes and does the exact thing himself:
“it is more likely that the Australian were slaging the Amercians for their botched entry into the war and their botched tactics ever since.”
This is the exact opposite of what was revealed in the article – he obviously didn’t read it!
Anyway the guy is a cocaine dealer – he’ll end up in jail anyway.
Kev
For mine, the issue is how the interests of these two are being looked after by our consulate people in California. You’d have to know the full story before assuming any kind of political disagreement. Are they back in Oz? Doing time in the Californian clink is not good.
Also – how did they get into this sort of trouble in the first place? Where were their immediate superiors? What has happened to the tradition of looking after each other in foreign ports?
Maybe it’s a very different situation from Vungers in 1970, but I can’t imagine my platoon commander or for that matter my section commander letting any of his diggers get into this sort of merde without getting involved if they knew about it.
But then, these are matelots – different breed altogether.
The left don’t need my help to look stupid.
“botched entry into the war and their botched tactics ever since.”
entry = fastest blitzkrieg in history.
results of tactics ever since = they’ve won it in Iraq and are well down the path to winning in Afghanistan (which has never been done before).
BTW, do a bit of historical reading, 2 things stand out –
1. in war, mistakes are made in every case, it is the adaptability that wins.
2. Armchair generals will criticise every decision with 20/20 hindsight. always.