Marine found guilty of murder

[angos]

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.

 

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).

 

 

Lets hope that the IED's these insurgents were planting haven't killed or injured some innocent people. I guess we will never know if his decision to let the insurgents live as done more good than harm.

 

A total of 11,864 civilians have been killed in the Afghanistan conflict since 2007, the U.N. mission said.

 

Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) killed the most Afghan civilians according to the UN, accounting for 41% of deaths in conflict.

 

Taliban behind 76 percent of civilian deaths in Afghanistan: UN

 

It doesn't look such a good idea to let Taliban insurgents plant IED's

[boyfriday]

Lets hope that the IED's these insurgents were planting haven't killed or injured some innocent people. I guess we will never know if his decision to let the insurgents live as done more good than harm.

 

A total of 11,864 civilians have been killed in the Afghanistan conflict since 2007, the U.N. mission said.

 

Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) killed the most Afghan civilians according to the UN, accounting for 41% of deaths in conflict.

 

Taliban behind 76 percent of civilian deaths in Afghanistan: UN

 

It doesn't look such a good idea to let Taliban insurgents plant IED's

 

 

Presumably having got them in their sights they know where they were planting them so disarmed them later. But in any event he made a judgement call between letting 15 IED planting insurgents live and creating 15 times as many who have sons who would seek retribution if he'd killed them.

 

You dont win wars by blowing up everything around you or executing prisoners indiscriminately.

[angos]

Presumably having got them in their sights they know where they were planting them so disarmed them later. But in any event he made a judgement call between letting 15 IED planting insurgents live and creating 15 times as many who have sons who would seek retribution if he'd killed them.

 

You dont win wars by blowing up everything around you or executing prisoners indiscriminately.

 

And will he have the next lot of IED's that they plant in sight, it doesn't say the men were arrested, we know they weren't killed, so presumably they are free to plant more, and he couldn't have known that they have sons. You wins wars by killing the enemy, letting them plant bombs will never win the war.

[Lockjaw]

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

 

Wrong again.

 

The people of whom you speak are merely experts in following orders and shooting people and the associated skills.

 

The experts in strategy, tactics, military planning and rules of engagement are way up the rank structure and they, it would appear, do agree with me.

 

 

Many disagree with the restrictive rules of engagement.

 

 

That's their prerogative and illustrates, perfectly, the need for orders and the reason soldiers are required to follow them. Can you imagine what would happen if orders were merely seen as a subject for debate?

 

 

 

No they are not, you are wrong.

 

 

It doesn't matter how many times you claim this, it will never be true. I have shown this earlier in the thread and, much though it irritates you, I do have some expertise in this subject.

 

 

 

That would be the increase in casualties.

 

 

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we observe the archetypal Smithy response!

 

See, Max, you and I both know that I was referring to your characteristically bizarre suggestion that I am happy about "an alarming rise in the number of casualties" and yet, still, you provided a typical diversionary response.

 

So, care to answer the question properly this time?

[buck]

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

and I never suggested you thought that was the case, we're all square.

 

---------- Post added 17-11-2013 at 14:35 ----------

 

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

That's right.In the Navy we were taught riot control which included a movie. The officer of the riot patrol would seek out one of the rioters, and instruct a sniper to shoot him dead. Then if that didn't stop the riot, shoot another, etc. etc.

[angos]

Wrong again.

Repeating that doesn't make you right.

 

The people of whom you speak are merely experts in following orders and shooting people and the associated skills.

Nonsense.

 

 

The experts in strategy, tactics, military planning and rules of engagement are way up the rank structure and they, it would appear, do agree with me.

The rules of engagement changed because of Obama, how does he fit that description.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It doesn't matter how many times you claim this, it will never be true. I have shown this earlier in the thread and, much though it irritates you, I do have some expertise in this subject.

 

You being wrong doesn't irritate me, its nothing new for you.

 

 

And here, ladies and gentlemen, we observe the archetypal Smithy response!

 

More gibberish.

See, Max, you and I both know that I was referring to your characteristically bizarre suggestion that I am happy about "an alarming rise in the number of casualties" and yet, still, you provided a typical diversionary response.

 

So, care to answer the question properly this time?

 

Again more gibberish.

[Lockjaw]

Repeating that doesn't make you right.

Nonsense.

The rules of engagement changed because of Obama, how does he fit that description.

You being wrong doesn't irritate me, its nothing new for you.

More gibberish.

Again more gibberish.

 

Well, if that isn't the response of someone who knows he's lost an argument then I'm not a former captain in the Royal Artillery.

 

Read and enjoy, folks, and watch out for a new identity coming right this way.

[angos]

Well, if that isn't the response of someone who knows he's lost an argument then I'm not a former captain in the Royal Artillery.

 

Read and enjoy, folks, and watch out for a new identity coming right this way.

 

Is there no end to the gibberish from the usual crowd.

[JFKvsNixon]

Is there no end to the gibberish from the usual crowd.

 

If you are perceiving this post to be gibberish, then it does explain a lot.

[Harleyman]

and I never suggested you thought that was the case, we're all square.

 

---------- Post added 17-11-2013 at 14:35 ----------

 

That's right.In the Navy we were taught riot control which included a movie. The officer of the riot patrol would seek out one of the rioters, and instruct a sniper to shoot him dead. Then if that didn't stop the riot, shoot another, etc. etc.

 

I remember that film. No sound, black and white showing a big crowd of people who could have been Africans or Asians waving sticks I think and looking real theatening. The training officer pointed us to the ring leader in the center of the crowd and said he would be the one to be shot

 

I doubt though that we would have been called out for riot control in any case. Malaya in 1961 was newly independent and they would have used their own police and military for such purposes. We military were there only at the pleasure of the Malayan government