Support my legal and personal GoFundMe:🔗https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-dave-mcbride-fight-for-justice-for-afghanistaContact:🌏davidmcbride.com.au✉ contact@...

(Not me) Official video from David McBride’s Official Youtube channel. If you don’t know who he is - I don’t blame you, with how little coverage this story has gotten

  • surreptitiouswalk
    22·
    1 month ago

    Did you ready the article? McBride initially posted on his personal blog, which caught the attention of ABC journalist Dan Oakes. The information was leaked to Oakes and the ABC from there.

    My reading of the article was McBride didn’t initially think there were war crimes committed but:

    ADF leadership alleg(ed) that SAS soldiers were being wrongly accused and illegally investigated for war crimes.

    “If there is political bullshit going on against soldiers, and it doesn’t matter whether they’re SAS or not, you need to stand up for it,”

    McBride didn’t think war crimes had happened which is why he asserts that the soldiers were being wrongly accused and investigated. Oakes disagreed.

    Now the question is, why is Oakes making this allegation allegation against McBride if it’s not true?

    • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻OPMEnglish
      6·
      1 month ago

      I’m pretty sure he thought war crimes were happening, he just thought they were investigating the wrong soldiers to cover up for higher-ranking and more decorated soldiers like Ben Roberts-Smith to pretend that they cared about war crimes

      • surreptitiouswalk
        2·
        1 month ago

        soldiers were being wrongly accused and illegally investigated for war crimes.

        Is honestly pretty unambiguous wording.

        And the other evidence against your claim is, why would McBride had been pissed off by the ABC’s reporting of his leaked files? If you were right, the ABC’s angle would be completely aligned with McBride’s. Why would Oakes allege there was disagreement there?

        • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻OPMEnglish
          6·
          1 month ago

          I think he’d be pissed off at the ABC for missing the point and just covering the war crimes, effectively covering up the arses of those higher up.

          soldiers were being wrongly accused and illegally investigated for war crimes.

          Could mean exactly what I said as well

          investigating the wrong soldiers to cover up

          That’s what I said. The two statements are not mutually exclusive

    • ZagorathEnglish
      1·
      1 month ago

      I’m willing to entertain the idea that he may not have intended to whistleblow in order to reveal war crimes.

      But if that’s the case, why couldn’t the government have relied upon a fair trial to establish his guilt? Even if he is guilty, he is owed due process, and being restricted from presenting necessary evidence is a violation of that due process.