Marine found guilty of murder

[buck]

I'm happy with the verdict because the evidence supported the outcome.

 

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.

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.

You might find that it's people like you who are out of step with contemporary thinking.

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.

 

 

If he couldn't stand the heat no one was forcing him to stand in the kitchen.

I'm not sure who's suggested that, what he was charged and convicted of was murder.

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 ----------

 

 

Just so we're clear, you believe the Japanese and Germans were right to execute allied soldiers they'd taken them prisoner?

I don't think the people who generated the rules of conduct, The Geneva Convention, were stupid. Quite the opposite. People of conscience and humanity, and certainly not idiots.

[boyfriday]

I don't think the people who generated the rules of conduct, The Geneva Convention, were stupid. Quite the opposite. People of conscience and humanity, and certainly not idiots.

 

I never suggested that was the case buck, in fact quite the opposite.

[angos]

No it isn't. They're the ones being shot at. They're obviously going to be against life-threatening restrictions placed upon them.

But they are the experts and they disagree with you and the non experts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, of course, their highly experienced military superiors.

Many disagree with the restrictive rules of engagement.

 

Then they are wrong because the tactics are not new - as I have explained on this thread.

No they are not, you are wrong.

 

Ok then; tell me, preferably with none of your usual slippery nonsense, what leads you to believe this.

That would be the increase in casualties.

 

---------- Post added 17-11-2013 at 15:05 ----------

 

Do you have anything to back that up?

There is plenty of information to back it up.

 

 

 

There's nothing new about this provision. The same would apply to a homeowner faced with an intruder in his home, he can't just blow him away without reason (or without facing the consequences of his actions).

Its ridiculous to compare a war to a burglary.

 

 

 

I think you're happier about it because it gives you something to incessantly moan about.

 

Another stupid comment, its a forum, and the point of a forum is to descuss the topics people create.

[boyfriday]

But they are the experts and they disagree with you and the non experts.

I think their military superiors are the 'experts' and have trained to be so and are able to consider the larger picture..

 

Many disagree with the restrictive rules of engagement.

They shouldn't join the military then.

 

No they are not, you are wrong.

Evidence please?

 

That would be the increase in casualties.

You'd see a far greater increase in British casualties if we didn't secure the trust and confidence of the indigenous population first.

 

There is plenty of information to back it up.

Evidence please.

 

Its ridiculous to compare a war to a burglary.

Indeed, higher standards should apply on the battlefield where highly trained professional soldiers are able to employ lethal force in foreign environments where they might encounter large numbers of civilians.

 

Another stupid comment, its a forum, and the point of a forum is to descuss the topics people create.

I was responding to your stupid comment, in kind.

[angos]

I think their military superiors are the 'experts' and have trained to be so and are able to consider the larger picture..

 

They shouldn't join the military then.

 

Evidence please?

 

You'd see a far greater increase in British casualties if we didn't secure the trust and confidence of the indigenous population first.

 

Evidence please.

 

Indeed, higher standards should apply on the battlefield where highly trained professional soldiers are able to employ lethal force in foreign environments where they might encounter large numbers of civilians.

 

I was responding to your stupid comment, in kind.

 

You mean someone like Lieutenant Jimmy Clark , a platoon commander who recently returned from a tour of Afghanistan.

 

 

 

British soldiers in Afghanistan are being forced to act as bait in an attempt to draw the Taliban into opening fire, a serving platoon commander has alleged.

 

Soldiers are risking their lives to get round strict rules of engagement that allow them to shoot only if they are being attacked or are in "imminent danger".

 

The Taliban are increasingly exploiting the rules by hiding weapons in undergrowth near patrol routes – meaning British forces cannot act against them until they actually pick up their guns.

 

The claims are made by Lieutenant Jimmy Clark , a platoon commander who recently returned from a tour of Afghanistan.

 

 

The momentous verdict sent shockwaves through the Armed Forces, with troops saying the man, who can be identified only as Marine A, had been ‘hung out to dry’.

 

 

Its interesting that you think the sergeant whom had completed six tours of Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan, shouldn't have been serving in the armed forces.

[boyfriday]

You mean someone like Lieutenant Jimmy Clark , a platoon commander who recently returned from a tour of Afghanistan.

 

 

 

British soldiers in Afghanistan are being forced to act as bait in an attempt to draw the Taliban into opening fire, a serving platoon commander has alleged.

 

Soldiers are risking their lives to get round strict rules of engagement that allow them to shoot only if they are being attacked or are in "imminent danger".

 

The Taliban are increasingly exploiting the rules by hiding weapons in undergrowth near patrol routes – meaning British forces cannot act against them until they actually pick up their guns.

 

The claims are made by Lieutenant Jimmy Clark , a platoon commander who recently returned from a tour of Afghanistan.

 

 

The momentous verdict sent shockwaves through the Armed Forces, with troops saying the man, who can be identified only as Marine A, had been ‘hung out to dry’.

 

I wouldn't regard a low ranking officer as a military 'expert'. Besides which what he says has no bearing on what Marine A did or his reasons for doing so.

 

Its interesting that you think the sergeant whom had completed six tours of Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan, shouldn't have been serving in the armed forces.

 

You claim he's unable to accept the rules and by his actions he's demonstrated that, so it sounds like he made a poor career choice.

[angos]

I wouldn't regard a low ranking officer as a military 'expert'. Besides which what he says has no bearing on what Marine A did or his reasons for doing so.

 

 

 

You claim he's unable to accept the rules and by his actions he's demonstrated that, so it sounds like he made a poor career choice.

 

In one incident an insurgent fired single shots at a base for 15 minutes but was not taken out by a missile as after every shot he put down his rifle knowing he could not be hit if he was unarmed.

 

A junior officer commanding a small fort in Sangin said: "It's a major bugbear for the British Army, it affects us massively. Thank God we have the ANA (Afghan National Army) here because they have different rules of engagement to us and can smash the enemy." The policy has eroded confidence in opening fire to the point that officers have to remind the men that they are entitled to shoot.

 

Some locals in Sangin have criticised the troops for "not taking out" the Taliban who intimidate and harm them.

 

"We have our hands tied behind our backs when we want to take the enemy out of the equation," said a Royal Marine corporal. "This was (Gen Stanley) McChrystal's idea but he's been sacked hasn't he."

 

However, there have been many occasions when exercising courageous restraint has saved civilian lives.

 

Lt Col Paul James, commanding officer of 40 Commando, Royal Marines, last month ruled out launching an air strike on 15 locals digging in an IED (improvised explosive device).

 

"I chose not to strike them because that would have been 15 fathers of 15 sons who would almost certainly have been driven into the insurgents' arms.

 

You could also not rule out who was foe or who was curious onlooker."

 

Major Ed Moorhouse, a Royal Marine company commander, said: "The men will question courageous restraint but it doesn't mean you don't shoot. If you see a terrorist you ruthlessly prosecute the opportunity to shoot him and I remind them of that daily."

[boyfriday]

In one incident an insurgent fired single shots at a base for 15 minutes but was not taken out by a missile as after every shot he put down his rifle knowing he could not be hit if he was unarmed.

 

A junior officer commanding a small fort in Sangin said: "It's a major bugbear for the British Army, it affects us massively. Thank God we have the ANA (Afghan National Army) here because they have different rules of engagement to us and can smash the enemy." The policy has eroded confidence in opening fire to the point that officers have to remind the men that they are entitled to shoot.

 

Some locals in Sangin have criticised the troops for "not taking out" the Taliban who intimidate and harm them.

 

"We have our hands tied behind our backs when we want to take the enemy out of the equation," said a Royal Marine corporal. "This was (Gen Stanley) McChrystal's idea but he's been sacked hasn't he."

 

However, there have been many occasions when exercising courageous restraint has saved civilian lives.

 

Lt Col Paul James, commanding officer of 40 Commando, Royal Marines, last month ruled out launching an air strike on 15 locals digging in an IED (improvised explosive device).

 

"I chose not to strike them because that would have been 15 fathers of 15 sons who would almost certainly have been driven into the insurgents' arms.

 

You could also not rule out who was foe or who was curious onlooker."

 

Major Ed Moorhouse, a Royal Marine company commander, said: "The men will question courageous restraint but it doesn't mean you don't shoot. If you see a terrorist you ruthlessly prosecute the opportunity to shoot him and I remind them of that daily."

 

Again, what does any of that compelling diatribe have to do with Marine A executing a prisoner?

[Halibut]

In one incident an insurgent fired single shots at a base for 15 minutes but was not taken out by a missile as after every shot he put down his rifle knowing he could not be hit if he was unarmed.

 

A junior officer commanding a small fort in Sangin said: "It's a major bugbear for the British Army, it affects us massively. Thank God we have the ANA (Afghan National Army) here because they have different rules of engagement to us and can smash the enemy." The policy has eroded confidence in opening fire to the point that officers have to remind the men that they are entitled to shoot.

 

Some locals in Sangin have criticised the troops for "not taking out" the Taliban who intimidate and harm them.

 

"We have our hands tied behind our backs when we want to take the enemy out of the equation," said a Royal Marine corporal. "This was (Gen Stanley) McChrystal's idea but he's been sacked hasn't he."

 

However, there have been many occasions when exercising courageous restraint has saved civilian lives.

 

Lt Col Paul James, commanding officer of 40 Commando, Royal Marines, last month ruled out launching an air strike on 15 locals digging in an IED (improvised explosive device).

 

"I chose not to strike them because that would have been 15 fathers of 15 sons who would almost certainly have been driven into the insurgents' arms.

 

You could also not rule out who was foe or who was curious onlooker."

 

Major Ed Moorhouse, a Royal Marine company commander, said: "The men will question courageous restraint but it doesn't mean you don't shoot. If you see a terrorist you ruthlessly prosecute the opportunity to shoot him and I remind them of that daily."

 

That's great. Interestingly, the correct and morally brave decision not to launch an airstrike exemplifies the way in which our forces strive to apply a higher moral standard than their enemies.

 

It strikes a strong contrast with the actions of the murderer, who killed a defenceless severely wounded man and was rightly prosecuted for it.

Lt Col James, I think, would be rightly appalled by the actions of the marine who murdered his wounded, defenceless captive.

[boyfriday]

Lt Col James, I think, would be rightly appalled by the actions of the marine who murdered his wounded, defenceless captive.

 

I'd missed that statement from Lt Col James, it's a shame he can't let the insurgents know how close they came to death and the reasons why it was avoided..that might have been a productive bit of relationship building between us and them and more importantly their 15 sons who might have heads full of hot blood.