bullerboY Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 He should never have been brought to trial,How many soldiers are out there saying by the grace of god there go I.We have soldiers for a purpose to fight and kill our enemies,this soldier did the job he was paid to do,it is an absolute disgrace to any soldier having to be put in this position it can only weaken the forces moral and make them think twice before dispatching an enemy to another world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanl Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 The rules of engagement are too strict out there already. Google them and be shocked! I was being sarcastic actually...... He should never have been brought to trial,How many soldiers are out there saying by the grace of god there go I.We have soldiers for a purpose to fight and kill our enemies,this soldier did the job he was paid to do,it is an absolute disgrace to any soldier having to be put in this position it can only weaken the forces moral and make them think twice before dispatching an enemy to another world. Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 Its self explanatory. The explanation as how they came to that conclusion is at least conspiracy and at most a load of bovine waste. Rather than have readers second guess the inner workings of what's between your ears why not put it in type? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 Exactly! It wasn't a toe to toe scrap where the marine prevailed though Joan, the Afghan was injured and the marine executed him in cold blood. If his actions are justified there would never be such a thing as a 'prisoner of war', even Hitler's and Hirohito's armies appreciated that. It also creates difficulties for our servicemen and women as the extremists are encouraged by acts of depravity just as we are when it happens to our own. This is what the presiding judge said The harrowing footage, which was shown in court with members of the public and the media present, was not released after the presiding judge agreed to an application from the Ministry of Defence claiming that wider dissemination would be a “recruiting sergeant for extremists”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 The rules of engagement are too strict out there already. Google them and be shocked! I just did that and am not shocked. I was in the military 18 - 25 years ago (eek!) and so have some familiarity with the weapon control orders in operation during that period. In my particular part of the army the orders were: Weapons Unlimited Weapons Free Weapons Tight Weapons Hold The instructions for each were perfectly clear: Weapons unlimited: shoot everything that moves. Weapons free: shoot everything that moves unless you have positively identified it as "friendly". Weapons tight: shoot nothing unless you have positively identified it as "enemy". Weapons hold: shoot nothing unless it is shooting at you. For the vast majority of the time I was involved, including all the exercises I was involved in, the WCO was either weapons tight or weapons hold. The situation described in, for instance, this Daily Mail article is clearly weapons hold. This would seem the natural order to work under when surrounded by civilians. Not ideal but then, as many have stated on here already, war is not exactly an ideal - or simple - state of existence. So, nothing new there then. For completeness, weapons tight would be likely to be used, for instance, when you were in a defensive situation away from civilians with the possibility of attack, weapons free, when you were under all out attack and weapons unlimited when things were really, really bad. Regarding the idea of requesting permission to fire, this was covered by the weapons control order but, in these days of vastly improved, instant, communication it doesn't seem beyond the pale that a new order is in place which requires just that. I should point out that I wasn't in an infantry unit, though the orders I worked under would seem to make sense in any situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazybaby Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 What a situation to be in, it was described as the tour from hell, the troops have seen many horrific things. How hard must it be to deal with your enemy in a war situation & as soon as the bullet hits him, undergo a complete change of mindset & treat the enemy, someone who's murdered, butchered & tortured your comrades as an injured victim of war & then ensure he has medical care. I just can't imagine how I would deal with it, my heart goes out to our soldiers at what must be as well as a physical endurance beyond belief must also be a continuous mind game & one that can send you over the edge. It's said that on this tour the marines had to endure endless taunts of the most horrific nature, what does that do to a human being? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 It also creates difficulties for our servicemen and women as the extremists are encouraged by acts of depravity just as we are when it happens to our own. If you watch the news you would know that extremists need no encouragement in order to act they way they act. But if you are correct then it should clearly have never been made public, no one would have known, so no one could have been encouraged by it if it had been buried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 I'm surprised they don't issue an order that every soldier has to say to the enemy, "excuse me sir, do you mind if I just shoot you" and await his reply before shooting him....... I think your post is summed up by your signature; "Fools speak because they have to say something". ---------- Post added 11-11-2013 at 11:12 ---------- What a situation to be in, it was described as the tour from hell, the troops have seen many horrific things. They're in that situation because they chose to join the army. They're professionals and are bound by rules. They don't have to join the army and go to war. If they can't hack it then they shouldn't have joined up. Every other profession has its rules and so does the army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 What a situation to be in, it was described as the tour from hell, the troops have seen many horrific things. How hard must it be to deal with your enemy in a war situation & as soon as the bullet hits him, undergo a complete change of mindset & treat the enemy, someone who's murdered, butchered & tortured your comrades as an injured victim of war & then ensure he has medical care. These were fairly exceptional circumstances though crazybaby, not a killing during the heat of the moment shrouded in the fog of war. The victim had been hit by fire from an Apache helicopter, not the marines who were later accused of murdering him. The case came to light after 'other allegedly offensive images unconnected with Afghanistan' had been recovered from a laptop taken in for repair. The matter was reported to police who discovered scenes of another prisoner being mistreated by the marines and conversations between them on whether to kill him-this probably created difficulties for them in relation to defending the allegation of murder of the Afghan. The marines were identified, the headcam was later recovered by the police and the killing of the Afghan soldier discovered on it, during which Marine A (the shooter) is heard to say: “There you are, shuffle off this mortal coil you c***. It’s nothing you wouldn’t have done to us.” Turning to the others, he added: “Obviously this don’t go anywhere fellas. I’ve just broken the Geneva Convention.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/royal-marine-found-guilty-of-murder-for-battlefield-execution-of-injured-taliban-fighter-8930011.html His final remark is a stark admission and confirms he was aware of what his responsibilities were..this wasn't a man crazed by the demands of war who blows away his captive in the heat of the moment. ---------- Post added 11-11-2013 at 11:14 ---------- If you watch the news you would know that extremists need no encouragement in order to act they way they act. But I don't think we need to provide any encouragement to add to their number But if you are correct then it should clearly have never been made public, no one would have known, so no one could have been encouraged by it if it had been buried. Are you saying the marines should never have been brought to trial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanl Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 I think your post is summed up by your signature; "Fools speak because they have to say something". OK you win. I was always told that sarcasm is wasted on young children.....I WAS being sarcastic... ---------- Post added 11-11-2013 at 11:12 ---------- They're in that situation because they chose to join the army. They're professionals and are bound by rules. They don't have to join the army and go to war. If they can't hack it then they shouldn't have joined up. Every other profession has its rules and so does the army. If everyone stopped joining up voluntarily, then conscription would HAVE to come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.