Cambridge Batch Red Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 War is war. If marine A had been more accurate with his shooting - the Taliban terrorist would have been dead anyway. Bad things happen on the battlefield. Marine A put his life on the line everyday for us and this is how he is repaid. Maybe we should have napalmed the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 War is war. If marine A had been more accurate with his shooting - the Taliban terrorist would have been dead anyway. Bad things happen on the battlefield. Marine A put his life on the line everyday for us and this is how he is repaid. Maybe we should have napalmed the country. I notice that world Policeman Tony Blair and his New Labour Party are not on trial at the Hague for sending Marine A to Afghanistan. Battle hardened Marine A was just doing his job in very difficult circumstances in an enemy alien country that's already taken the lives of hundreds of his comrades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 Marine A has to abide by the Geneva rules of engagement sadly war is no longer war. If he does not pose a threat then cuff him, ridiculous I know. And for your information I think Afghanistan was justified war, for too long the Taliban had been playing a dangerous game. Implementing their own strict made up version of Islam, training terroists and at the same time shipping heroin to the world had to stop. Iraq was a different kettle of fish and was a vanity project for Bush Jnr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flaxbourton Red Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 Out of interest, do the Taliban use the Geneva rules of engagement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 Out of interest, do the Taliban use the Geneva rules of engagement? of course not neither generally do the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 of course not neither generally do the USA. God Bless the military of the mighty USA and our Marines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted November 8, 2013 Report Share Posted November 8, 2013 War is war. If marine A had been more accurate with his shooting - the Taliban terrorist would have been dead anyway. Bad things happen on the battlefield. Marine A put his life on the line everyday for us and this is how he is repaid. Maybe we should have napalmed the country. Imagine your disgust if video had been found of a couple of Taliban militants doing the same to a severely wounded British soldier. If we're going to go over there a profess to be ridding Afghanistan of a violent, amoral ruler, we can't really be seen to not hold our troops to the standards we seek to uphold I do have some sympathy for the marine in question given the things he's likely to have seen, experienced, etc. but the audio shows that he did what he did in full knowledge that it was wrong and he has to face the consequences of that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Out of interest, do the Taliban use the Geneva rules of engagement? Nope, they can dress up as Afghan army and shoot us of they like, sucks to be civalised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screech Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 It's war, they were trying to kill him when he was alive, they found him alive and killed him. What a shitty way to treat this soldier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Our forces reach the highest standards and can hold their heads high. The actions of Marine A are both illegal and immoral and go against the standards set when he wears that uniform. He deserves his time. I would say though, as the enemy combatant was hit by a high calibre armour piercing round, I suspect he was pretty close to death anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eco Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Don't think it would send out a particularly good message if we freed him, aren't us Brits meant to take the moral high ground ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiale Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Strange that us and the USA are assassinating people daily using drones, causing lots of direct and indirect injuries and deaths to threats and innocents alike - and it is deemed OK.... Yet a soldier with no risk of injuring others, killing a person known to be a threat cleaner than any drone strike and he's charged with murder.... What a warped world we live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Hitler Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Marine A has to abide by the Geneva rules of engagement sadly war is no longer war. If he does not pose a threat then cuff him, ridiculous I know. And for your information I think Afghanistan was justified war, for too long the Taliban had been playing a dangerous game. Implementing their own strict made up version of Islam, training terroists and at the same time shipping heroin to the world had to stop. Iraq was a different kettle of fish and was a vanity project for Bush Jnr. Nope, the Geneva convention only applies to wars between two legitimate governments. Insurgent forces or terrorists are not covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Can no one see the distinction whatsoever? I will admit I don't know the full facts (none of us do), but from what the recording sounded like, it was in a very calm situation, with plenty of other options. Shooting someone in a battlefield, in the middle of shots being fired everywhere? That's understandable imo, needs must, and it's a method of self-defence. Shooting someone in a calm situation, where it's not an issue of self-defence, and where you can easily take an alternative point of action? That's outright murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Nope, the Geneva convention only applies to wars between two legitimate governments. Insurgent forces or terrorists are not covered. Indeed. Theoretically, you could the States could have shot all of those Guantanamo "insurgents" as mercenaries - ideological ones, but still mercenaries - are not protected by the Geneva Convention. Nor are armies that do not wear a uniform and attack then blend into the population and profess themselves "civillians". We voluntarily apply the GC in conflicts such as Afghanistan, but technically it does not apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiale Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 We also have a very lose term in insurgent. We seem to supply it anyone we do not like, whether armed or not. When a building is taken out with dozens of people they are insurgents.. Not a couple of armed men , and innocent friends / family. Somewhere along the line life's in certain countries have become very cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 9, 2013 Report Share Posted November 9, 2013 Before people are too judgmental over marine A, read this about what they had to endure, add to that the uncaring way the government treat these guys and job losses. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2493892/Taliban-hung-mates-body-parts-trees-months-hell-Horrific-testimony-Marines-fighting-Death-Valley.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northamptonshire Red Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/4246911 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers-ran-away Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 It's disgusting that he was even arrested. Should the army have there weapons taken away an replace then with bean bag guns just Incase we hurt any poor Taliban soldier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foghornred Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 The Taliban don't follow the Geneva convention so why should we, its like fighting with an arm tight behind you back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 The Taliban don't follow the Geneva convention so why should we, its like fighting with an arm tight behind you back.Exactly. All bets off if the opposition are not signed up to it. Surely it is null and void. I am sure he did the bloke a favour considering he got ripped apart with fire from the air. Especially as the taliban are known for boobytrapping their own to kill the opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 The most sense I've seen on this was from a Brigade Commander who served in Bosnia, who argues the guy did wrong but a life sentence in what were extreme conditions seems heavy. 5 years more appropriate. I'd be interested to see another reference to the body parts in trees stuff. Not heard that and sceptical of anything Daily Mail says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 We're better than them morally, at least that's the message that has been preached. Now I appreciate he's probably seen stuff that I just couldn't deal with, and the stresses and strains upon him both mentally and physicaly more than I could imagine. However he has shot someone who was by the point he found him, out of any fight. Kick the injured guys gun away, a quick cable tie to the hands and at least he has a chance of some aid, and my even improve relations between the two sides. If you come across a man who is injured and your in a group so outnumber him greatly, and your decision is to put a bullet in him, that's murder. If we are better than the Taliban, we must act as such. Otherwise we're just as bad and what's the point in the whole war. Any soldier who goes to war with the ultimate aim of peace not being his overriding motive is in the wrong career. How not to generate peace is to kill in cold blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Mosquito Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 We're better than them morally, at least that's the message that has been preached. Now I appreciate he's probably seen stuff that I just couldn't deal with, and the stresses and strains upon him both mentally and physicaly more than I could imagine. However he has shot someone who was by the point he found him, out of any fight. Kick the injured guys gun away, a quick cable tie to the hands and at least he has a chance of some aid, and my even improve relations between the two sides. If you come across a man who is injured and your in a group so outnumber him greatly, and your decision is to put a bullet in him, that's murder. If we are better than the Taliban, we must act as such. Otherwise we're just as bad and what's the point in the whole war. Any soldier who goes to war with the ultimate aim of peace not being his overriding motive is in the wrong career. How not to generate peace is to kill in cold blood. The injured Taliban could have been a suicide bomber strapped with explosives so our intrepid soldier made the right call in putting some bullets into him so as to disable his ability to detonate any explosives. From your argument we should have sent Policemen to Afghanistan and not soldiers. As a soldier you kill or risk being killed - why should Marine A have been required to make legal judgements in the battle scenario he was in? Marine A having to serve a prison term brings further shame on our judicial system well known for its bullshit and persecution of football supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oops Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 The injured Taliban could have been a suicide bomber strapped with explosives so our intrepid soldier made the right call in putting some bullets into him so as to disable his ability to detonate any explosives. From your argument we should have sent Policemen to Afghanistan and not soldiers. As a soldier you kill or risk being killed - why should Marine A have been required to make legal judgements in the battle scenario he was in? Marine A having to serve a prison term brings further shame on our judicial system well known for its bullshit and persecution of football supporters. Please don't compare serving Royal Marines to football supporters. I take it that you mean BOTH parties have been equally hard-done-by in the past at the hands of our judicial system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 The injured Taliban could have been a suicide bomber strapped with explosives so our intrepid soldier made the right call in putting some bullets into him so as to disable his ability to detonate any explosives. From your argument we should have sent Policemen to Afghanistan and not soldiers. As a soldier you kill or risk being killed - why should Marine A have been required to make legal judgements in the battle scenario he was in? Marine A having to serve a prison term brings further shame on our judicial system well known for its bullshit and persecution of football supporters. If they were worries about him being a suicide bomber why not just stand back? While the footage hasn't been released, it appears likely that they were pretty close to the bloke when they shot him if such judgements can be made about the nature of the killing, so they obviously weren't that concerned Like I said before; I have a great deal of sympathy for the soldiers involved given what they must have been through, but we can't go over there claiming to free the people from the yoke of tyranny and then allow our soldiers to behave like that, regardless of the mitigating circumstances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 The most sense I've seen on this was from a Brigade Commander who served in Bosnia, who argues the guy did wrong but a life sentence in what were extreme conditions seems heavy. 5 years more appropriate.I'd be interested to see another reference to the body parts in trees stuff. Not heard that and sceptical of anything Daily Mail says. i'm sure you will find if you read it, this was introduced as part of the defence evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 The injured Taliban could have been a suicide bomber strapped with explosives so our intrepid soldier made the right call in putting some bullets into him so as to disable his ability to detonate any explosives. From your argument we should have sent Policemen to Afghanistan and not soldiers. As a soldier you kill or risk being killed - why should Marine A have been required to make legal judgements in the battle scenario he was in? Marine A having to serve a prison term brings further shame on our judicial system well known for its bullshit and persecution of football supporters. Then you walk away and he may be saved by his own side or another more caring group. As respect to Police in Afghanistan instead of soldiers, there should be no one in Afghanistan but aid givers. Marine A should have to make the correct decision because it's his job. And before the whole tirade of it's a hard job I appreciate the stresses and strains are above and beyond what I'm ever likely to face, but at the end of the day he signed the dotted line, he agreed to his T&Cs and knew the consequences. If you listen to the audio released he knows he was wrong as he asks the others to keep quiet about it. If a British soldier had been injured, then executed where he lay, you'd be outraged. The man he killed may have been a father, a husband, and definitely someones son. If you pull a trigger it must be the only choice. He clearly had a choice. Leave him or help him, don't shoot him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screech Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 We're better than them morally, at least that's the message that has been preached. Now I appreciate he's probably seen stuff that I just couldn't deal with, and the stresses and strains upon him both mentally and physicaly more than I could imagine. However he has shot someone who was by the point he found him, out of any fight. Kick the injured guys gun away, a quick cable tie to the hands and at least he has a chance of some aid, and my even improve relations between the two sides. If you come across a man who is injured and your in a group so outnumber him greatly, and your decision is to put a bullet in him, that's murder. If we are better than the Taliban, we must act as such. Otherwise we're just as bad and what's the point in the whole war. Any soldier who goes to war with the ultimate aim of peace not being his overriding motive is in the wrong career. How not to generate peace is to kill in cold blood. Well of course we are as bad as them. We are in their country killing them. We have been killing people in cold blood in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq by drone strikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 Well of course we are as bad as them. We are in their country killing them. We have been killing people in cold blood in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq by drone strikes. I've never quite figured out why people feel drone strikes are less morally acceptable than air strikes or artillery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.