Skip to comments.Diggers defend killer Commando Sergeant Paul Cale (Commando who strangled Taliban commander)
Posted on 03/08/2013 2:27:11 PM PST by naturalman1975Edited on 03/08/2013 2:30:29 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
DIGGERS have fiercely defended an Australian warrior who strangled a Taliban commander during hand-to-hand battle in Afghanistan.
Sergeant Paul Cale, an elite soldier from Sydney's 2 Commando Regiment, was forced to kill an enemy fighter with his bare hands when his platoon was ambushed while on a mission in the restive Chora region.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
I’m not reading the article because the excerpt ticked me off.
Would they have been happier if he shot the enemy instead?
Billy BadAss is alive and well!!!!
God Bless him.
One islamist pigdog one, about a billion to go.
It worked. You do what you have to in close combat.
"He's dead, Jim!"
If you had read it, you would happily find out that the US military has “poached” him from the Aussies to train Green Berets in close quarter combat.
It’s all good.
At first, I thought the controversy was about how he’d strangled a taliban commander to death after the battle was over or something, but apparently it seems the battle was still raging. Why is this even an issue?
A few years ago Bill Bagwell was training Green Berets in fighting with the Bowie knife, I wonder if any freepers took that training, I have been hugely curious about that course.
As I understand it, he was mixing with US troops when he did it. I think it’s a command issue, because he was not under American command at the time.
I guess its not PC to kill the enemy with your bare hands
Calling in a drone strike and taking out the enemy, his wife and the neighbor’s kid is much more sterile and acceptable to liberals
Reminds me of how the easily offended crowd got their panties all bunched up back in Gulf War I. They were appalled at the idea that we were using tank plows and bulldozers and combat engineer vehicles to bury the Iraqi troops alive in their trenches and bunkers.
I suppose it would have been better for them if we’d done it the way it was done at Iwo, Tarawa, Guadalcanal - with satchel charges, bayonets, grenades, carbines, pistols and flame throwers. Yep, much more humane.
Oh, well that’s good news. From the excerpt it sounded like his men were defending him.
When people must stand and defend you it usually means you have been accused of doing something wrong.
and of course liberal warriors Bubba Clinton and his ace commander Weasly Clark showed that manly men fight noble wars from 35,000 feet, though a number of civilians on trains buses and in refugee camps might have experienced otherwise
at least Sudanese aspirin factories only suffered surgical strikes
The closest I ever came to combat was Fort Knox,KY and Fort Meade,MD and *I* can understand why Sgt Cole might have been forced to do what he did.My guess is that those criticizing him are the “Kumbaya,give peace a chance” crowd.I wonder if I’d be out of line to assume that they believe that it should have been the Sergent who should have been strangled...or maybe beheaded.
I noticed that too.Assuming that the Sergent fulfilled his obligations to the Australian Armed Forces then one could argue that he had a right to take the US up on its offer,even if Aussies think he had a moral obligation to his country.Of course the opposite is also true...a US serviceman,once lawfully discharged from the Armed Forces,can do what he wants.But my understanding is that when a US citizen serves in a foreign military,even one of an allied nation,he/she places their US citizenship in jeopardy under current Federal law.
I support him too.
weird. The excerpt has nothing at all to do with the article.
It did when I posted it. For reasons I’m not clear on, it’s been further excerpted. Maybe news.com.au is making more of a fuss than they did before (they’ve required excerpting for years, but not to this extent), I will need to check before I post again.
If so, Admin Moderator has simply cut it right down leaving only the first line or so - fair enough, they probably have to do such things quickly and easily.
I think the references to 'poaching' are a bit overdone in this case - I think their main point is to contrast how highly regarded SGT Cole is in the Special Forces community, with the handwringing of some of the more gentle of the general public.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
- George Orwell
Fortunately, most people do seem to get this - even if they could never do it themselves, they understand their needs to be somebody out there who can and will. But there's a minority who think you can always find a peaceful, gentle way, and some of them love to bleat about it.
Just curious about something,naturalman...looking at the tributes to many fallen countrymen in your outstanding profile I see mention made of the “Australian Army” rather whereas,OTOH,I’ve often seen mention made of the “Royal Australian Air Force” and the “Royal Australian Navy”.Does your profile contain typos,am I misunderstanding something or is there an historical explanation for the difference? As you surely know many of us Yanks,myself included,don’t know much about foreign military forces or about the Royal Family (even though one of my grandparents was a British subject at birth).
In 1689, the Parliament of England invited William III of Orange (Holland) and his wife Mary II to become King and Queen of England (as co-rulers - this has only happened twice in English history - both were actual Monarchs, rather than Monarch and Consort. They did this to ensure a Protestant succession, because the current King (Mary's father) James II was Catholic, and also believed he had a divine right to rule which superseded the rights of Parliament. This lead to a conflict as to who was supremely powerful - the Monarch or Parliament. Civil war (which had occurred during the reign of James I's father, Charles I) was a real possibility (fighting had already begun in Ireland) and Parliament decided to take action and replace the King. James II chose not to fight and went into exile and William and Mary became the rulers of England. But Parliament required them to agree to the Bill of Rights as a condition of being allowed to take the throne.
The relevant part of the Bill of Rights to your question follow:
Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following, viz.:
Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;
By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;
And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare
That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
What this did was codify into English law - and the constitution of Britain - a longstanding belief that it was Parliament who had ultimate control over the existence of a standing army in England.
For this reason, in English law, while the Navy (and the subsequent Air Force) 'belong' to the King, the Army belongs to Parliament and the People. So the Army was the English Army, and then the British Army, while the Navy was the Royal Navy, and the Air Force, eventually was the Royal Air Force. The Marines are also the Royal Marines.
Individual units of the Army can carry the 'Royal' name, or the name of an individual member of the Royal family, but the Army itself is not referred to in this way.
And, as other countries in the Empire (and subsequent Commonwealth) acquired their own armed forces, they followed the same tradition.
Constitutionally, the Monarch remains the Commander-In-Chief of the Army, and it must obey the Monarch's orders - but Parliament has the power to stand down the army in times of peace. That is intended to ensure a balance against a military dictatorship on either side - Parliament cannot order the Army against the crown, and if the Crown tried to order the Army against Parliament, Parliament could dissolve it.