angos Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Maybe because his peers came to the same conclusion. He wasn't convicted and tried by keyboard worriers but professional soldiers. I doubt they would have convicted if the man at the time posed a threat. With respect to Halibut's claim it is a little more credible than... The insurgent, who was armed with an old AK47, ammunition and a grenade, had been seriously injured following an attack by an Apache helicopter, which fired 139 30mm anti-tank rounds at him. You give the seven-strong board, consisting of officers and non-commissioned officers, to much credit. Clearly the Apache pilot wanted to kill him, the marine just finished the job already started, he was found guilty to appease people like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 War is not a free for all. The Taliban may fight it like a free for all, but the British Armed Forces certainly do not. It this discipline that gives us the advantage, it's professionalism has led us to come out on top time after time. To suggest that we should throw away hundreds of years of tradition, to fight such lowly enemy, on this day of remembrance is just plain wrong. So you believe that over hundreds of years that the British Army played strictly by the rules. Sorry, on occasions they didnt.They were probably more humane toward their captives than other armies were but they didnt wear halos over their heads either. One story told to me by an old vet was of few Canadian solders being allowed by the British guards to enter a POW compound at night and slitting the throats of several SS soldiers in reprisal for the cold blooded execution of around a dozen Canadian troops whom the SS had taken prisoner a few days before. More went on than you would believe but many such acts were hushed and covered up because the armies were in the thick of fighting and paperwork and court martials just took time and involved too many personnel who were badly needed at the front. By 1944 the British army was becoming short of replacements to the point that it was reaching near crisis proportions. That was true to a lesser degree of the US Armies also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 he was found guilty to appease people like you. Oh this is so easy.. "How was that assessment made?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 So you believe that over hundreds of years that the British Army played strictly by the rules............ No I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Armies are supposed to fight. It's only latterly that the civil-liberty campaigners have intruded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukdobby Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Then I'm sure you'd agree with me that British soldiers should continue with their proud tradition of fighting within the terms of the Geneva convention and treating the enemy wounded and dead with dignity. How do you know we have always fought within the terms or are you just guessing,the same as you say he was defenceless when he was armed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Armies are supposed to fight. It's only latterly that the civil-liberty campaigners have intruded. He wasn't tried and convicted by any civil liberty group, on the contrary he was tried by his peers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 How do you know we have always fought within the terms or are you just guessing. How do you know they haven't? You putting your hand up for a few war crimes or something? Of course there will instances where British forces have broken it but surely its something they should strive for? If we aren't bothered about playing with a straight bat, wouldn't it be easier to nuke/carpet bomb places? We wouldn't even need troops on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukdobby Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 How do you know they haven't? You putting your hand up for a few war crimes or something? Of course there will instances where British forces have broken it but surely its something they should strive for? If we aren't bothered about playing with a straight bat, wouldn't it be easier to nuke/carpet bomb places? We wouldn't even need troops on the ground. Because I never have said we havn't:loopy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 He wasn't tried and convicted by any civil liberty group, on the contrary he was tried by his peers. Yes, and it sounds a nasty case too. My point was that fighting and civil liberties do not go together all that well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.