boyfriday Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 The man that the marine shot, would have rejoined the fight once he was recovered enough to fight. That isn't why he was shot though. So question, if he had been given medical treatment and survived, what should we have then done with him, Guantanamo Bay for the rest of his life or let him go? The same as happens to other Afghan prisoners of wars, it was hardly a unique experience facing the marines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 The stupid comment of yours saying he was "killed for fun". He was involved in attacking coalition forces who were no doubt responsible for coalition deaths and injuries, he was also a member of one of the most barbaric branches of Islam who slaughter all and sundry in the name of their religious beliefs, these people execute POWs, women, schoolgirls in fact anyone upon the flimsiest of excuses. There's not a deal I can say here other than what BF has said already, except perhaps that you appear to still be missing the point by a country mile. You say that this guy who was murdered by the marine was all sorts of dreadful things - and you appear to think that British servicemen should sink to the depths of depravity shown by him and some of his colleagues. It's madness to think that way, it's utterly bizzarre. What makes us better than the likes of the Talibs is that we have standards of decency, even in battle. Why you would want to throw that away is simply beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peer Gynt Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 All those who seem to think this murder was acceptable (just, even) ought to be asking themselves the above questions. . After you've walked a mile in their shoes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jmack Posted November 11, 2013 Author Share Posted November 11, 2013 We cant have our soldiers go around like some wild mob, killing and maiming as they please. That's why this marine must be punished. It's quite simple actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 No different at all and I'm not going to follow your attempts to blur and distort what's actually a very simple question. Is it acceptable for prisoners of war to be summarily executed by their captors or is it not? I say not. Its a sensible approach to war because prisoners take up valuable resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jmack Posted November 11, 2013 Author Share Posted November 11, 2013 After you've walked a mile in their shoes! I've never walked in the shoes of the people who killed Alan Greaves. I can still say its wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 That isn't why he was shot though. Did they give a reason for shooting him? The same as happens to other Afghan prisoners of wars, it was hardly a unique experience facing the marines. That didn't answer the question. If he had been given medical treatment and survived, what should we have then done with him, Guantanamo Bay for the rest of his life or let him go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 Its a sensible approach to war because prisoners take up valuable resources. Wrong. It's actually a sensible approach to take prisoners and treat them well, as in encourages others to surrender and not to fight to the death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 What makes us better than the likes of the Talibs is that we have standards of decency, even in battle. We aren't better than the Taliban, we just have a different set of values. ---------- Post added 11-11-2013 at 17:47 ---------- Wrong. It's actually a sensible approach to take prisoners and treat them well, as in encourages others to surrender and not to fight to the death. No it doesn't and the reason it doesn't is because the man still fighting has no idea how prisoners are treated until he becomes one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peer Gynt Posted November 11, 2013 Share Posted November 11, 2013 So you agree with the Nazis and Japanese killing our POWs during the last World War? After all it was their military's job to kill our boys, and they were only doing their job? I do not think what the Nazi's and Japanese did was right, and so as an extension what this RM did must also be wrong. The Nazis didn't kill POWs as a matter of rule the vast majority of Allied POWs many of whom were held for most of were well treat as far as POW camps went. The Japanese did not sign up to the Geneva convention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.