soc.history.war.world-war-ii

aspqrz@pacific.net.au (Phil McGregor) wrote:
>
> "Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
>
> >So your interpretation is right, and the full inquiry of the battle by
> >the Australian government is wrong (or irrelevant) on the fundamental
> >issue of how the battle occurred.
>
> Nope. Not at all.
>
> The Senate enquiry actually says that they lied (or, at least, that
> key elements of some of their testimony isn't true or is known to be
> inaccurate in that the story changed several times) but that,
> touchingly, they trust the evidence anyway.
>
> You might actually read it.
>
> Of course, I *have* cited the relevant bits so you've already had the
> chance ... and *still* fail to grasp the key issues.

No, you haven't posted relevant quotes that show what exactly they said
that wasn't true, that rose above the level of "typical POW
misstatements", to the level of something that would suggest "evidence
of a war crime/piracy."

The 1999 report and any previous government report could have easily
come right out and stated that if they believed that should be
suspected.