Traitor in SAF

• Icemoon

  9 Feb 06, 01:53

  Originally posted by HENG@:

  definately more. how can justice be a bad thing for the state? it forces those in power to realise they have to answer to the state, and they don't have a free hand to do as they wish.

  cos it involves the Official Secrets Act. ke3 da4 ke2 xiao3 leh. Our sovereignity might be at stake.
  
  if you're referring to training incidents, then I suppose there's nothing very secretive about it.
  
  
• hisoka

  9 Feb 06, 01:53

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  this one is not desertion liao .. it is a mutiny!

  is there a difference in punishment??
  
  anyway in times of war i'll be tempted to kill the incompetent officers off first before they can get the troops into trouble. hmm is that considered sacrificing oneself for the greater good??
• HENG@

  9 Feb 06, 02:00

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  cos it involves the Official Secrets Act. ke3 da4 ke2 xiao3 leh. Our sovereignity might be at stake.
  
  if you're referring to training incidents, then I suppose there's nothing very secretive about it.
  
  

  sovereignity doesn't give anyone the right to protect murderers just because they are the sons of important people.
  
  and no im not refering to recent training incidents.
• LazerLordz

  9 Feb 06, 02:13

  Originally posted by HENG@:

  sovereignity doesn't give anyone the right to protect murderers just because they are the sons of important people.
  
  and no im not refering to recent training incidents.

  Agreed.
  
  I also believe that sovereignty should have no say if crimes are committed against humanity or like cases of murder.Orders from a state have no legal weight in a court of law in this case, as cited from the Nuremberg Trials.
  
  In war, each commander must realise the gravity of the situation and always remember to check the validity of the command issued down.War Crimes Tribunals are not made for show, and when you fight a war, you'd better think of how you can come out of it legally unscathed too.
  
  
• Icemoon

  9 Feb 06, 16:37

  Originally posted by hisoka:

  anyway in times of war i'll be tempted to kill the incompetent officers off first before they can get the troops into trouble. hmm is that considered sacrificing oneself for the greater good??

  but if you kill them then who will lead the soldiers?
  
  Officers are not for show you know. Someone has to lead the troops and maintain contact with higher HQ.
• iveco

  9 Feb 06, 16:38

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  but if you kill them then who will lead the soldiers?
  
  Officers are not for show you know. Someone has to lead the troops and maintain contact with higher HQ.

  Have you watched Courage Under Fire yet? The decisions of the commander might not be the best ones. THey are after all human and therefore error-prone.
• Icemoon

  9 Feb 06, 16:38

  Originally posted by HENG@:

  sovereignity doesn't give anyone the right to protect murderers just because they are the sons of important people.

  Utility theory mah. If our nation is compromised, then I rather the "murderers" be protected.
• hisoka

  9 Feb 06, 16:39

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  but if you kill them then who will lead the soldiers?
  
  Officers are not for show you know. Someone has to lead the troops and maintain contact with higher HQ.

  the competent officers, warrent officers and sergeants lor.
  
  or are you saying all officers are incompetent??
• Icemoon

  9 Feb 06, 16:40

  Originally posted by iveco:

  Have you watched Courage Under Fire yet? The decisions of the commander might not be the best ones. THey are after all human and therefore error-prone.

  no.
  
  so what happened? the commanders are killed by their subordinates?
• iveco

  9 Feb 06, 16:41

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  no.
  
  so what happened? the commanders are killed by their subordinates?

  One tank got destroyed by friendly fire.
• Icemoon

  9 Feb 06, 16:43

  Originally posted by hisoka:

  the competent officers, warrent officers and sergeants lor.
  
  or are you saying all officers are incompetent??

  in the first place, if an officer is THAT incompetent, he wouldn't get to lead the troop?
  
  
• HENG@

  9 Feb 06, 16:45

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  Utility theory mah. If our nation is compromised, then I rather the "murderers" be protected.

  HOW will the nation be compromised?
  
  we're talking about useless white horses here who cannot even be bothered to be useful officers while serving as NSF. U think we should protect them so they can lead the nation to ruin in future?
  
  Besides u must be delirious if u think the people protecting them were doing so for the sake of the nation. These people only think of themselves 1st, the nation 2nd. Protecting them was a purely personal move.
• Icemoon

  9 Feb 06, 16:45

  Originally posted by LazerLordz:

  Agreed.
  
  I also believe that sovereignty should have no say if crimes are committed against humanity or like cases of murder.Orders from a state have no legal weight in a court of law in this case, as cited from the Nuremberg Trials.
  
  In war, each commander must realise the gravity of the situation and always remember to check the validity of the command issued down.War Crimes Tribunals are not made for show, and when you fight a war, you'd better think of how you can come out of it legally unscathed too.
  
  

  are junior enlisted men protected?
  
  'cos like only the senior enlisted and commissioned officers took the blunt of the blame. If you are only a chao PTE maybe they won't bother to track you down during the Trials
• HENG@

  9 Feb 06, 16:46

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  in the first place, if an officer is THAT incompetent, he wouldn't get to lead the troop?
  
  

  thats what u think. This is SAF, not USAF.
• Icemoon

  9 Feb 06, 16:47

  Originally posted by HENG@:

  HOW will the nation be compromised?
  
  we're talking about useless white horses here who cannot even be bothered to be useful officers while serving as NSF. U think we should protect them so they can lead the nation to ruin in future?
  
  Besides u must be delirious if u think the people protecting them were doing so for the sake of the nation. These people only think of themselves 1st, the nation 2nd. Protecting them was a purely personal move.

  'cos you mentioned the Official Secrets Act. So I'm saying the matter ke da ke xiao.
• Icemoon

  9 Feb 06, 16:50

  Originally posted by HENG@:

  thats what u think. This is SAF, not USAF.

  if you're talking about white horses .. most likely they will not be field officers? 'cos the original discussion was about subordinates killing their commanders.
• HENG@

  9 Feb 06, 16:50

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  'cos you mentioned the Official Secrets Act. So I'm saying the matter ke da ke xiao.

  hey its the official secret acts, so what? national laws can always be misused for personal affairs. So even if its the official secrets act, it doesn't have to be something that compromises the nation, just something that compromises 2 someones and the people who covered up for them. And those someones and their protectors can f*cking rot in hell. I think they forgot the oaths they took to uphold justice and bring honour to the nation.
• HENG@

  9 Feb 06, 16:51

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  if you're talking about white horses .. most likely they will not be field officers? 'cos the original discussion was about subordinates killing their commanders.

  maybe u haven't realised that quite a lot of non-white horses who come out of officer sch in singapore are quite... useless as well. good officers here are damn rare.
• Icemoon

  9 Feb 06, 16:55

  Originally posted by HENG@:

  maybe u haven't realised that quite a lot of non-white horses who come out of officer sch in singapore are quite... useless as well. good officers here are damn rare.

  that's the point!
  
  most officers, by your definiton, will be considered incompetent. So do we kill them all?
• HENG@

  9 Feb 06, 16:57

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  that's the point!
  
  most officers, by your definiton, will be considered incompetent. So do we kill them all?

  or do we let them lead their men into ambushes and slaughters and lose the war? i thought u were quite happy to protect murderers if it helps the nation?
  
  hey in a war if their men decide to kill them, too bad. who ask them to be incompetent.
• hisoka

  9 Feb 06, 17:00

  Originally posted by Icemoon:

  in the first place, if an officer is THAT incompetent, he wouldn't get to lead the troop?
  
  

  are you sure you are singaporean??
  
  anyway i say kill the incompetent ones. average ones still ok. it might seem to be alot but if you compare to the men that will die if we allow them to lead...........
  
  of course the best is to just relieve them of their command but isit possibe????
• babymac13

  9 Feb 06, 17:35

  What if the ememy points a gun on your loved ones, forcing you to surrender and submit yourself to them?
  
  Will you bear to see them died in your eyes?
• Shotgun

  9 Feb 06, 17:45

  that scenario is rather unlikely lar... machiam like war movie like that.
  
  Maybe i might assume a super hero identity as the punisher to seek vengeance, or just wear pointy ear masks and black underwear on the outside, become batman.
• Icemoon

  9 Feb 06, 20:45

  Originally posted by babymac13:

  What if the ememy points a gun on your loved ones, forcing you to surrender and submit yourself to them?
  
  Will you bear to see them died in your eyes?

  Then you surrender lor!
  
  Afte that desert them.
• Icemoon

  9 Feb 06, 20:51

  Originally posted by hisoka:

  are you sure you are singaporean??
  
  anyway i say kill the incompetent ones. average ones still ok. it might seem to be alot but if you compare to the men that will die if we allow them to lead...........
  
  of course the best is to just relieve them of their command but isit possibe????

  If anyone can suka suka shoot their own OC, then trust me no officer or senior enlisted will dare to take over.
  
  Why? 'cos they might be the next one to get shot!