Obelix Posted November 16, 2013 Share Posted November 16, 2013 In my opinion the marine simply killed an enemy combatant, one that may never have recovered from the injuries already sustained, but if he did recover would no doubt have carried on terrorising the population and attacking our forces. He'd been taken prisoner. At that point he ceased to be a combatant. By your logic the treatment meted out to POW's (ie shot after the immediate battle was won) by the Japanese was acceptable. Is that really what you think? Or Hitler's Commando orders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted November 16, 2013 Share Posted November 16, 2013 He'd been taken prisoner. At that point he ceased to be a combatant. By your logic the treatment meted out to POW's (ie shot after the immediate battle was won) by the Japanese was acceptable. Is that really what you think? Or Hitler's Commando orders? The enemy is the enemy until the war is won, unless both sides decide they no longer want to be enemies, medical attention and indefinite detention in Guantanamo Bay would have been worse than death for an Islamic insurgent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted November 16, 2013 Share Posted November 16, 2013 Because you are happy with the verdict and a jury might have spoilt your day by finding him not guilty of murder. I'm happy with the verdict because the evidence supported the outcome. Clearly he was very suited to being a marine, he was capable of killing, That isn't the only requirement in joining the military, if it were we'd send Ian Huntley, Rose West, Peter Sutcliffe and other serial killers to serve alongside our soldiers. its his superiors and their ridiculous rules that are the problem, They're not 'his superiors' rules, they're rules arrived at by negotiation and consensus over many centuries of human conflict and suffering-someone didn't wake up one morning and stick their finger in the air and decide it would be a good idea. No individual soldier has the right or authority to tear up the rule book which forms the basis of a civilised society rather than the savage mentality we walked away from for good reason. rules that are written to appease people like you, You might find that it's people like you who are out of step with contemporary thinking. I'm sure you are very happy that British soldiers are at more risk just to appease your moral stance. Quite the contrary actually-if we behave like the Taliban it merely provides succour to further atrocities they might want to commit and aids their recruitment of more cannon fodder. No he was presented with an enemy combatant and stupid rules If he couldn't stand the heat no one was forcing him to stand in the kitchen. that meant he should have changed from killer to doctor in a moment, I'm not sure who's suggested that, what he was charged and convicted of was murder. which are very unrealistic rules designed to appease people like you which also put our soldiers lives at grater risk.It's not an unrealistic expectation to just walk past the injured enemy in the road, if you don't fancy getting involved in his blood and gore. ---------- Post added 16-11-2013 at 23:07 ---------- The enemy is the enemy until the war is won, unless both sides decide they no longer want to be enemies, medical attention and indefinite detention in Guantanamo Bay would have been worse than death for an Islamic insurgent. Just so we're clear, you believe the Japanese and Germans were right to execute allied soldiers they'd taken them prisoner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angos Posted November 16, 2013 Share Posted November 16, 2013 I'm happy with the verdict because the evidence supported the outcome. So how would you have felt if a jury had heard the same evidence but acquitted him? That isn't the only requirement in joining the military, if it were we'd send Ian Huntley, Rose West, Peter Sutcliffe and other serial killers to serve alongside our soldiers. No we wouldn't have. They're not 'his superiors' rules, they're rules arrived at by negotiation and consensus over many centuries of human conflict and suffering-someone didn't wake up one morning and stick their finger in the air and decide it would be a good idea. The rules of engagement are specific to Afghanistan and are open to change. No individual soldier has the right or authority to tear up the rule book which forms the basis of a civilised society rather than the savage mentality we walked away from for good reason.War and civilised society don't really work together, war is by its very nature uncivilised, and expecting our troops to only engage the enemy after being shot at is stupid. You might find that it's people like you who are out of step with contemporary thinking. Not in my experience. Quite the contrary actually-if we behave like the Taliban it merely provides succour to further atrocities they might want to commit and aids their recruitment of more cannon fodder. I don't expect our troops to behave like the Taliban, I expect them to engage the enemy and kill them. If he couldn't stand the heat no one was forcing him to stand in the kitchen. Thats not the case, he was sent to afganistan and had no choice in the matter, one can't simply walk away from the job when they feel like it. I'm not sure who's suggested that, what he was charged and convicted of was murder. Wrongly in my opinion. It's not an unrealistic expectation to just walk past the injured enemy in the road, if you don't fancy getting involved in his blood and gore. So you would have found that more acceptable than shooting him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Any further personal attacks on other forum members and this thread will be closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 The officer in command of the Para unit which gunned down citizens of the UK in Derry, N.I on Bloody Sunday 1970 was never charged or even reprimanded for the conduct of the troops under his command nor were any of the troops Now why was that? Could it be that the Queens Regs say that if an officer is involved in a violation of the rules of war that no charges will be made? Yet if the soldier is a private like this Marine he will have his balls hung out to dry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 The officer in command of the Para unit which gunned down citizens of the UK in Derry, N.I on Bloody Sunday 1970 was never charged or even reprimanded for the conduct of the troops under his command nor were any of the troops Now why was that? Could it be that the Queens Regs say that if an officer is involved in a violation of the rules of war that no charges will be made? Yet if the soldier is a private like this Marine he will have his balls hung out to dry? The RM was a non commissioned officer. Also Bloody Sunday is a lot more complicated as both sides gave conflicting stories. It took a 12 year enquiry for the facts to establish the Paras wrong doing, and a formal apology to be made by the PM. It still remains to be seen if charges will be brought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 The RM was a non commissioned officer. Also Bloody Sunday is a lot more complicated as both sides gave conflicting stories. It took a 12 year enquiry for the facts to establish the Paras wrong doing, and a formal apology to be made by the PM. It still remains to be seen if charges will be brought. Charges will not be brought and you know it as well as I. When I was serving with the British Army in Malaya we were instructed in the procedures for riot control if called out. 1. Identify the ring leader among the rioters 2. Shoot to kill that ring leader 3. If the aforementioned action proves to be ineffective use all means including any force necessary to quell said riot. I dont think anyone on this thread has a clue what really goes on in a military environment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Charges will not be brought and you know it as well as I. When I was serving with the British Army in Malaya we were instructed in the procedures for riot control if called out. 1. Identify the ring leader among the rioters 2. Shoot to kill that ring leader 3. If the aforementioned action proves to be ineffective use all means including any force necessary to quell said riot. I dont think anyone on this thread has a clue what really goes on in a military environment Lets put this RM's actions into context. Whilst he knew that he was being filmed, he happily broke the Geneva Convention, a set if rules that he agreed uphold, and then kept that video for his future pleasure. It was keeping this video that led to his downfall, as he was only arrested when the police found the video on his hard drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 Lets put this RM's actions into context. Whilst he knew that he was being filmed, he happily broke the Geneva Convention, a set if rules that he agreed uphold, and then kept that video for his future pleasure. It was keeping this video that led to his downfall, as he was only arrested when the police found the video on his hard drive. I'd not realised that the video was on the shooter's own hard drive. I'd assumed it was on the filmer's hard drive, and was inadvertently kept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.