PDA

View Full Version : Marines prosecuted for killing insurgent


Pages : [1] 2

mtoroshanga
7th Nov 2013, 18:07
Am I alone in wondering at the stupidity of this case being broadcast, resulting in the undermining of our troops in the field and giving yet more indication of how stupid our leaders are,tree hugging and save the black squirrel are bad enough but we have the cowardly mau mau scum suing the government for so called similar incidents. Lets get real and support the boys on the ground.;

500N
7th Nov 2013, 18:13
Not sure the leaders have much choice once they know about it but
I know where you are coming from.

Since you are talking about stupidity, go back one step.
The trooper who filmed it needs his head read.

tony draper
7th Nov 2013, 18:16
Our enemies must be laughing their cocks off at our stupidity.:suspect:

DX Wombat
7th Nov 2013, 18:21
Whether you like it or not the Geneva Convention is there for a purpose and blatant contravention of it cannot be tolerated or condoned. That is not to say I think they are guilty I do not have all the evidence before me. The only ones who really know are the soldiers themselves and any decision regarding guilt will be made by a jury which has had the evidence presented to it.

haughtney1
7th Nov 2013, 18:22
Not sure the leaders have much choice once they know about it but
I know where you are coming from.

Since you are talking about stupidity, go back one step.
The trooper who filmed it needs his head read.

Perfectly summarised, stoopid as stoopid does.

Easy to sit here and debate morality and rules of war, on the ground it's a different story, but filming? or at the very least keeping a record? dumb, dumb and even dumber.

500N
7th Nov 2013, 18:36
Yes, the enemy might be laughing at us but DX put it in words
better than I did.

"Whether you like it or not the Geneva Convention is there for a purpose and blatant contravention of it cannot be tolerated or condoned."

I am not saying I blame them for doing whatever they did but
Jesus, talk about putting a noose around your own neck.

tony draper
7th Nov 2013, 18:44
Welcome to fight night
Our man in the red corner will of course follow the Marquess of Queensberry rules,hello! the chap in the blue corner appears to be carrying a machete.

500N
7th Nov 2013, 19:07
So he pulls out a gun and shoots the guy in the head ;)

Don't take a knife to a gunfight !


(Marquess of Queensberry rules cease to exist once
he pulls out the machete !)

SASless
7th Nov 2013, 19:07
It is time for the Troops to Stack Arms....and tell the Commanders either they agree to fight a War or send the Lads and Lasses home to their families.....like tomorrow!:mad:

pigboat
7th Nov 2013, 19:47
The trooper who filmed it needs his head read.

Anatomically a little lower, and it needs to be kicked.

tony draper
7th Nov 2013, 19:57
Perhaps they are not allowed to switch off their helmet camera rather like apparently they are not allowed to kill the enemy when the opportunity arises.
:uhoh:

Sailor Vee
7th Nov 2013, 20:10
From what I gather, helmet-cams are not routinely used. More likely it was at the request of some media, so why didn't he just erase the recording? Plus why is the *richardhead* keeping a diary which others had access to?

rgbrock1
7th Nov 2013, 20:27
Tony D wrote:

Our enemies must be laughing their cocks off at our stupidity.

Said enemies have no cocks. They're all pussies!!!! :}:}:}

Tankertrashnav
7th Nov 2013, 21:12
Am I alone in wondering at the stupidity of this case being broadcast, resulting in the undermining of our troops in the field

My wife said she was surprised this was all happening in the public eye, but I said I thought that courts martial, like civilian courts, have to be open to the public, except if there are considerations of national security, official secrets etc. I may be wrong, but I doubt if there was ever any legal way this court martial could have taken place in secret.

I'm thankful I don't have to sit in judgement on these guys. This sort of thing has been going on since the Ug tribe took on the Og tribe with stone axes, and I think it always will. Shakespeare made much of the French killing English prisoners after Agincourt, but anyone who thinks that we haven't done the same in every conflict before or since is deluding themselves.

Andu
7th Nov 2013, 21:20
If any of the touchy feelie brigade took the time to read Antony Beevor's excellent book on the Normandy landings, they'd be running after more than a few 90 year old+ ex-squaddies. Not too many Germans wearing an SS collar patch made it back to the rear, particularly (but not only) if they were captured by the Poles.

doubleu-anker
7th Nov 2013, 21:21
SASless

Couldn't agree more with your post!

By keeping with the GC, we are creating an uneven playing field, to the enemies delight and to the detriment to our boys.

Do you honestly believe the enemy gives a toss about the GC??!!

What about public opinion I hear you ask. Well let the public do the fighting, then. When they loose, they can fight them at home.

Cacophonix
7th Nov 2013, 22:25
Remember Breaker...

The fukker was hanged, so should be these knuts...

Caco

onetrack
7th Nov 2013, 22:36
The execution should have been carried out Taliban style - an interview with a trussed prisoner - then unceremoniously beheaded with a blunt knife - all filmed in fine detail - and the video sent directly to the Taliban leaders and their supporters, with a warning that anyone who supports the Taliban, gets the same treatment.

To the pussies who would exclaim that this is totally unacceptable, I'd say - you fight fire with an oxy-acetylene blowtorch turned up to 3000 degrees. After all, it's war - and they started it, and there should be no reason why we can't play by their rules.

The Geneva Convention is merely a gentlemans agreement between gentleman fighters. We're not dealing with gentlemen, we're dealing with some of the most ruthless scum the world has ever seen, who believe that shooting 14 yr old schoolgirls and killing thousands of civilians indiscriminately, are quite acceptable methods to achieve their warped terrorist aims.

We need more General Pattons in todays world, and less pussies amongst our political and military leaders.
Once war has commenced, only the most ruthless side wins. Patton would have wiped out most of Afghanistan and Nth Pakistan by now.
The Axis Powers were ruthless to us, but the Allies were more ruthless in return - and we won.
We didn't win WW2 by pussyfooting around and constantly apologising to an eternally nosey media. During WW2, the media supported 100% what we did.

Cacophonix
7th Nov 2013, 23:01
The execution should have been carried out Taliban style - an interview with a trussed prisoner - then unceremoniously beheaded with a blunt knife - all filmed in fine detail - and the video sent directly to the Taliban leaders and their supporters, with a warning that anyone who supports the Taliban, gets the same treatment.

Believe me fellah there are members of my family that would gladly use your advice against you Aussi wasters...

Caco

gingernut
7th Nov 2013, 23:04
Am I alone in wondering at the stupidity of this case being broadcast, resulting in the undermining of our troops in the field

It's war, but in this blatant display of contravention, then, action has to be taken.

I'm a little concerned that the charge is murder, as this generally takes common sense away from the equation.

Anyone taken a walk around Selly Oak or Headley Court lately ?

doubleu-anker
7th Nov 2013, 23:06
Cacophonix

I have been meaning to ask you this a while. Are you a Cocoa?? A straight yes or no would suffice.

Cacophonix
7th Nov 2013, 23:10
My family are Afrikaans and we fought against you and then with you. All in all, now, you people disgust me...

Caco

500N
7th Nov 2013, 23:15
Caco

Are we too right wing for you ?

doubleu-anker
7th Nov 2013, 23:16
Afrikaans. Well you could even be a vanilla, such were the classifications, all those years ago.

Cacophonix
7th Nov 2013, 23:38
Are we too right wing for you ?

Nope mate... I fought with the so called right wing and they are as much pussies as anybody who has had a grenade shoved up his arse...

Caco

SASless
7th Nov 2013, 23:53
Andu,

Had an Uncle who camped throughout France and Germany in the mid Forties.....who was MIA for almost Three Weeks during the Bulge.

When asked if his unit had ever captured any SS.....his reply was "Not for long!".

He did not talk of his time during War....but did do so with me in private shortly before I deployed to Vietnam the first time.

BenThere
8th Nov 2013, 00:04
I liked Cutis Lemay's view of warfare - "You kill the enemy until he doesn't want to fight anymore. If you're not willing to do that, don't go to war in the first place."

ROEs counter that wisdom. If we attack the source and soul of the enemy, including the unfortunate civilians in proximity to the military targets, the end result would be victory for us, peace on earth, and ultimately fewer casualties on both sides.

bcgallacher
8th Nov 2013, 00:29
This is a sad case - if the facts are as stated these Marines are guilty as charged. The killing itself was pointless,they should have been courtmartialed for utter stupidity for doing it in front of a live camera - the person with the camera should have faced the same stupidity charge for not getting rid of whatever the video was recorded on.Now they are looking at prison and ruined careers -I can only shake my head in sorrow.

Brian Abraham
8th Nov 2013, 04:44
It's war, but in this blatant display of contravention, then, action has to be taken.i love it when people are so black and white with regard to what happens on the battlefield.

WWII, New Guinea, there were very few Japanese POWs, ask yourself why.

SASs comment re WWII, allied troops were lured into the open by Germans carrying a white flag, lured into the killing field where the allies were decimated. No wonder from then on they didn't take prisoners.

A real life scenario I'm familiar with you might give an answer to.

An elite four man team has been deployed deep behind enemy lines on a sneaky pete operation, during the course of which they have taken a number of prisoners they wish to take home with them on the helicopter extraction. Unfortunately the helo is unable to lift them all. Making two trips is not possible, some have to be left behind to face whatever. What do you do to resolve the problem?

John Hill
8th Nov 2013, 05:03
Onetrack wrote "After all, it's war - and they started it, and there should be no reason why we can't play by their rules. "

I am missing a bit of vital information, just when did this war start?

bosnich71
8th Nov 2013, 05:58
As I understand it this 'prisoner' was initially seriously wounded by fire from a helicopter. Had he been killed outright the pilot/gunner/crew of said helicopter would no doubt have been highly praised for doing their job and saving the Marines from dangers posed to them.
Unfortunately the P***k was only seriously wounded, although probably mortally, so he was finished off. Immediately his 'killers' instead of being praised for their efforts by one and all now get charged with murder.
Sounds a lot like what used to happen in Aden when permission from some a******e in Whitehall had to be asked for permission to fight back something which led to a whole heap of squaddies being murdered one day in Crater. Mitchell then of course told the politicians where to stick the G.C. and casualties amongst the troops fell whilst those amongst the other side rose.
Moral of the story,if you are going to fight a war.. whether john Hill agrees or not that is what it is.... then kill more of the other side than they do of you.

sitigeltfel
8th Nov 2013, 06:34
I am missing a bit of vital information, just when did this war start?

It all kicked off around 570AD, with the birth of a certain individual in Mecca.

John Hill
8th Nov 2013, 06:48
So it is all the fault of the Muslims eh? How convenient..... hey, hang on a minute. If they are the ones causing all the problems how come the wars are always at their place? Dont they every go anywhere and attack anyone?

Effluent Man
8th Nov 2013, 06:51
Well,there is New York I suppose.

On the OP an old friend of mine was in Normandy and he saw Canadian troops slitting the throats of captured Hitler Youth.Apparently this was a reprisal for some Canadian troops killed just ouside Caen.I suppose the glib answer is don't get caught.

Oktas8
8th Nov 2013, 06:52
What do you do to resolve the problem?

In ancient times one would cut their Achilles' tendon (foot soldiers) or cut off their dominant hand's thumb (archers) or some similar piece of the body. So they can never be soldiers again, but can go back to their families.

It is possible that the GC has something to say about that though...

John Hill
8th Nov 2013, 06:56
Yes, New York, I expect a lot of people think that was the start of the war.

Andu
8th Nov 2013, 07:50
WWII, New Guinea, there were very few Japanese POWs, ask yourself why.I had an elderly neighbour back in the 80's who I was chatting to about the Kokoda campaign, (a campaign he was intimately involved in).

He made two comments I remember. "Don't you believe all that shit about the Japs never surrendering. Lots of them surrendered."

His second comment might explain the first. "The Japs were utter animals. We beat them by being even worse animals."

My father was in New Guinea later in the war (9th Div Commandos; Finchafen). He was bitter about any Japanese of his own age he saw right into old age. The young ones didn't bother him, but he'd seen, first hand, evidence of his friends who had fallen into Japanese hands being cannibalised, and whenever he saw a Japanese of his own age, he'd say "I wonder what you did in the war."

Irrational? Possibly. But no less real for him.

Some of the the troops who took Goose Green (or was it Mt Tumbledown?) were charged with killing prisoners immediately after taking the position. Only someone who has never been in combat could think it even mildly unusual that men, their blood and their emotions up to a degree no one who has never been in combat could ever hope to understand, would have trouble coming down from that state as defending troops - who were killing their comrades only minutes before - throw down their weapons and surrender.

I'm not saying it's right, but it's what happens - and has happened since Ogg first picked up a rock and clocked Ugg over the head with it. Campbell's dragoons went berserk for four days after Colloden, killing (and much more) every man, woman and child they encountered. The same would be true after every battle before and since.

Watching our political elite and our so-called 'liberal intelligentsia' hog-tie our troops in the myriad bindings of Political Correctness is, quite literally, watching our current society commit suicide.

Jack Nicholson's Marine Colonel character's speech in 'A Few Good Men' comes immediately to mind.

onetrack
8th Nov 2013, 09:00
John Hill - You've obviously just woken from a Rip Van Winkle sleep - and sitigeltfel has nailed the distant origins of this war - but AFAIC, the commencement of this current Islamic war on the West started in Oct 1979, when 52 American diplomats were held hostage in Iran under conditions that don't even approach Gitmo - and they were held hostage, and treated with total and ruthless brutality, for a total of 444 days.

IMO, that hostage-taking and brutalising of unarmed civilians would be good enough reason to launch a full-scale war against the country of these Islamic scumbags - but the U.S. held off, fortunately for Iran.

In the following years, the rise of brutal and terrorism-aligned "Islamic Jihad" groups was a feature of the 1980's and 1990's, culminating in the over-arching rise of Al-Qaeda - which like a Medusa-style head - continues to form new branches with new adherents, fully committed to a murderous, ruthless, and violent overthrow of any Western nation, that does not subscribe fully to Sharia Law.

Until we beat these scumbags to a standstill and destroy every part of their indoctrination of their dumb followers - the West, and Westerners, will continue to face great perils from these murderous zealots.

late-joiner
8th Nov 2013, 09:07
My wife said she was surprised this was all happening in the public eye, but I said I thought that courts martial, like civilian courts, have to be open to the public, except if there are considerations of national security, official secrets etc.

That is correct. For the UK, courts martial are normally open to the public and the press are normally there.

Thomas coupling
8th Nov 2013, 09:09
What a pleasant thread this is...............................:rolleyes:

RequestPidgeons
8th Nov 2013, 09:27
Yes, gucking frunts (spoonerism intended!) and a rooi nek!

:ugh:

VP959
8th Nov 2013, 09:59
The whole concept of "fairness" in warfare has always been very deeply flawed, as the reality has pretty much always been that warfare is never fair, and is never played by a consistent set of "rules".

Sure there are tales of individuals showing apparent honour, by not killing an unarmed opponent, but many have been over-dramatised by fiction and the media over the years.

The truth is that warfare is a dirty and often very confusing and traumatic activity, one where rational thought is superseded by raw emotion at times. I don't condemn the actions of these marines, they probably acted more honourably and humanely than their opponents would have done.

Their major error was to not only record the event, but to keep a copy of that recorded where it could be discovered. That was just gross stupidity, but unfortunately that won't be the charge they face.

tony draper
8th Nov 2013, 10:23
I'm surprised the hand wringers dont demand they be handed over to the taliban or whatever brand of the bearded filth he belonged.:suspect:

Anthill
8th Nov 2013, 10:52
Military necessity is often ruthlessly pragmatic. :ooh:

500N
8th Nov 2013, 11:23
The Breaker ?
Why worry abut something that occurred 110 years ago ?
Plenty of other more recent examples.

In any case, he lived and was thought to have been in the Northern Territory
for many years afterwards ;) I think it is mentioned in Tom Cole's book,
Hell West and Crooked.


Re these Marines, wasn't the guy armed when they found him ?
And why didn't they shoot him then. Once dead, no one can deny
your story that he raised a rifle at you.

rgbrock1
8th Nov 2013, 11:33
onetrack wrote:

The execution should have been carried out Taliban style - an interview with a trussed prisoner - .......

Onetrack, you da man! Are you sure you weren't a U.S. Army Ranger in a former incarnation?! :}:}:}

SASless
8th Nov 2013, 12:25
Remember the three US Navy SEAL's who were accused of striking the "Butcher of Fallujah" after his arrest during an Operation one night in Iraq?

They denied the allegations made by the Terrorist and despite no proof they had in any way harmed the guy (assumed violation of the GC Accords), they demanded a trial by Court Martial and were all found Not Guilty.


This is how bad it has gotten within the US Military.....and all the more reason for our War Fighters to "Stack Arms"!


Heroes hit with charges for capturing most-wanted terrorist | Fox News Video (http://video.foxnews.com/v/2814332253001/heroes-hit-with-charges-for-capturing-most-wanted-terrorist/?intcmp=obnetwork)

If dispatching Enemy Wounded is a violation of the GC.....why do we not charge Attack Helicopter Pilots who take second or third shots at plainly wounded Enemy Fighters?

Why do we limit this kind of reaction to just Infantry Soldiers?

I am old fashioned I guess....once you engage the Enemy....you kill them....to the last Man unless they surrender without resistance. They resist....they die.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_ztfPLaStg

rgbrock1
8th Nov 2013, 12:32
SASless:

I remember that travesty quite well and was aghast when it was brought to the light of day.

The 'not guility' verdict of those fine soldiers was a given as everyone involved knew all along that was the case. But they were betrayed, simple as that.

There is a book about this whole shamefull episode called 'Honor and Betryal: The Untold Story of the Navy SEALs Who Captured the "Butcher of Fallujah" And The Shameful Ordeal They Later Endured'.

In essence, on the word of a sniveling terrorist in Iraq who claimed the SEALs beat him up whilst being held captive, the SEALs were arrested, forbidden any kind of contact with their fellow SEALs. Their commanders demanded that they sign a letter of confession which they refused to do and demanded a courts martial.

What a load of shit that was and causes one to wonder just whose side some of our so-called commanders are on.

rgbrock1
8th Nov 2013, 12:34
SASless wrote:

If dispatching Enemy Wounded is a violation of the GC.....why do we not charge Attack Helicopter Pilots who take second or third shots at plainly wounded Enemy Fighters?

Why do we limit this kind of reaction to just Infantry Soldiers?

You know as well as i do that it is always the ground-pounders or mud eaters who get the shaft/green weenie whenever the shit hits the fan. 'Twas always this way and always will be.

doubleu-anker
8th Nov 2013, 14:02
One found guilty, the other twp acquitted.

Apparently he had the video stored on his laptop and the cops found out about it, on a search on an unrelated matter.

"Rules are rules, laws are laws but they don't win wars"

MagnusP
8th Nov 2013, 14:03
Yep, the lunatics have, in fact, taken over the asylum.

BBC News - Marine guilty of Afghanistan murder (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24870699)

Tankertrashnav
8th Nov 2013, 14:21
Lets hope that the JAG determines the shortest term before release that he can - not sure how long that might be, but this has to merit the minimum that can be legally given.

tony draper
8th Nov 2013, 15:01
The news stated that the Jury is made up of seven military personel,what would be the make up of these Juries? all officers and gentlemen or would there be a spear carrier or two?
Not being snotty just curious.
:uhoh:

Dak Man
8th Nov 2013, 16:19
There is stoopidity in these events on so many levels.

He's been made an example of, he's thrown his previously distinguished career away for a moment of egotistical madness.

I couldn't give a stuff if he murdered Terry Taliban or if he was already dead, his [Terry's] intent was to kill the enemy and therfore he was a legitimate target. However the stoopidity of Sgt A's subsequent actions was only ever going to result in one thing - his conviction, as a result of his stoopidity.

Like most things, it's only illegal (or against the GC in this case) if you get caught - he did - more fool him.

SASless
8th Nov 2013, 16:51
Lets hope that the JAG determines the shortest term before release that he can - not sure how long that might be, but this has to merit the minimum that can be legally given.

The linked article states the Minimum Sentence is Mandatory Life in Prison.

VP959
8th Nov 2013, 16:58
But the minimum sentence and the shortest time to release are different things. One can be sentenced to life imprisonment but have a consideration for parole period of just a year or two. The sentence doesn't change, life means life, it's just that the prisoner can be released on parole at some earlier date.

Being on parole is not, of course, the same as having served a sentence, as at any time the individual can find themselves back in prison for a violation of parole conditions.

4mastacker
8th Nov 2013, 17:06
Mr D wrote:

The news stated that the Jury is made up of seven military personel,what would be the make up of these Juries? all officers and gentlemen or would there be a spear carrier or two?
Not being snotty just curious.


Tony, IIRC, the "jury" is called a "Board' and is made up entirely of commissioned officers who have sat on previous trials as 'officers under instruction'. There is the president of the board who is the senior officer plus a Judge Advocate who is a properly qualified legal beagle. From my own experience when I was dicked to be court orderly, it's really the Judge Advocate who runs the trial.

I'm sure some of our more distinguished JBers, who will have sat on one of these boards could give you some more ins and outs of the process.

Dak Man
8th Nov 2013, 17:20
Bas, If I had been the SNCO on that patrol there is no way on God's earth would there be any camera of any type in th eposession of any man under my command, I'd have been home free now, just in time for dinner & medals and not facing a life stretch.

As I said it's sheer egotistical stoopidity.

If Sgt A had wanted to be a film star he should have joined the Paras.

John Hill
8th Nov 2013, 17:20
Onetrack wrote :-
John Hill - You've obviously just woken from a Rip Van Winkle sleep - and sitigeltfel has nailed the distant origins of this war - but AFAIC, the commencement of this current Islamic war on the West started in Oct 1979, when 52 American diplomats were held hostage in Iran under conditions that don't even approach Gitmo - and they were held hostage, and treated with total and ruthless brutality, for a total of 444 days.

IMO, that hostage-taking and brutalising of unarmed civilians would be good enough reason to launch a full-scale war against the country of these Islamic scumbags - but the U.S. held off, fortunately for Iran.

In the following years, the rise of brutal and terrorism-aligned "Islamic Jihad" groups was a feature of the 1980's and 1990's, culminating in the over-arching rise of Al-Qaeda - which like a Medusa-style head - continues to form new branches with new adherents, fully committed to a murderous, ruthless, and violent overthrow of any Western nation, that does not subscribe fully to Sharia Law.

Until we beat these scumbags to a standstill and destroy every part of their indoctrination of their dumb followers - the West, and Westerners, will continue to face great perils from these murderous zealots.


I think you have perfectly demonstrated the depth of ignorance all to frequently demonstrated by others when discussing this "WAR ON TERRA".

This murder of a prisoner (alleged) occurred in Afghanistan which is not Iran and the victim was a member of the Taleban which is not Al-Qaeda.

The war with the Taleban started when dickheads bombed the country of Afghanistan. Up until that time the Taleban were intent on matters internal to Afghanistan only.

500N
8th Nov 2013, 17:24
I wouldn't want to be the guy who filmed it and then didn't delete the footage afterwards. He will live with this for the rest of his life, stupid idiot.

Dak Man
8th Nov 2013, 17:34
I wonder if Terry's corpse will appear in the 2014 "Corps" (love the irony) calendar - it's inevitable or it would be if I was still on board that ship.

SASless
8th Nov 2013, 17:48
The war with the Taleban started when dickheads bombed the country of Afghanistan. Up until that time the Taleban were intent on matters internal to Afghanistan only.

OH....Really!

Bit myopic view of things I would suggest.

That we did too little and stayed too long is correct but the kickoff is not at all as you describe.....the match was arranged well ahead of the opening kickoff.

doubleu-anker
8th Nov 2013, 17:50
Bit of selective amnesia there, John.

The US clobbered Afghanistan (Taliban) because they were harboring OBL. Here was the chief honcho of the outfit that master minded, then ordered 911. Just to refresh your memory.

The mossies.

Look at 90% of the trouble spots in the world. There is one common denominator. I think even you can work that out.

Dak Man
8th Nov 2013, 17:54
Look at 90% of the trouble spots in the world. There is one common denominator.

RGBROCK1..or Tony Blair maybe?

goudie
8th Nov 2013, 17:54
What a wretched business this war in Afghanistan has been.
Hundreds of our young men killed or made limbless, fighting with inadequate and unsafe equipment from vehicles to aircraft, and for what?
Now a battle hardened sergeant makes a split second wrong decision, which has him facing life imprisonment. Yes I know all about 'Geneva Convention' 'Rules of Engagement' etc etc but the whole damned business leaves me with a feeling of despair, at the needless waste.

Dak Man
8th Nov 2013, 17:57
When you join units like the Royal Marines you believe wholeheartedly (and somewhat naively) that you are entering an elite world.

Infact you are there to serve and possibly die for an elite that you will never be invited to be a member of.

AtomKraft
8th Nov 2013, 17:59
Indeed Goudie.

It's all gone so swimmingly.

rgbrock1
8th Nov 2013, 18:35
goudie:

I kind of understand your sentiments about the Afghan War but there was a reason for it: the Taliban housed bin Liner who was responsible for 9/11. (And a lot more.) The Taliban refused to hand bin Liner over so it was deemed necessary to remove the Taliban. (Who are nothing more than a band of thugs anyway.) The goal was also to get to bin Linder, dead or alive. It is a known fact that he was in Afghanistan for a time after 9/11 right up to the battle of Tora Bora. After that, no one knew where the hell he was. And it was only until a few years ago when it became apparent that he was being supplied safe haven by our erstwhile "allies", Pakistan. (Who, of course, knew nothing about his presence in their country. Even if he lived a stone's throw from the confines of Pakistan's largest military academy.) From that point on, the draw down in Afghanistan kicked in.

So, I don't believe the sacrifices by our men and women in arms was a waste.

What was a waste was taking our eyes off the ball in Afghanistan and levelling them at Iraq. The Taliban could very well have been permanently defeated had we not done so, I believe that. But since we decided to expend effort (wasted effort) in Iraq, the Taliban simply pranced back in.

It's only a matter of time before Hamid Karzai is removed from office by the Taliban, his head cut off and the latter restake their claim as "leaders" of Afghanistan. THAT would be a waste and a shame. Both of which could have been avoided had it not been for the Iraqi fiasco.

Andu
8th Nov 2013, 19:46
rgb, your last paragraph is about as sure to occur as any prediction about the future can ever be. All our young men have bought us is time. By their sacrifice, they've delayed the inevitable world wide battle that will have to fought against these people.

So in short, thanks to those who fought in Afghanistan over the last ten years, it will be our sons or grandsons who will have to fight for our society's survival and not us in the next five to ten years.

radeng
8th Nov 2013, 22:15
I usually figure I'm a liberal.

The Taliban are not a uniformed recognised army. Neither are they strictly civilians. So to my mind, they fall outside the Geneva Convention, and therefore deserve to be summarily executed if captured.

A good Taliban is a dead one.

Stop wasting time prosecuting the people who are fighting - although it is questionable to my mind if taking a Taliban prisoner other than for interrogation before summary execution is justified.

After all, that is putting them on the same level as they treat prisoners.

Every dead Taliban fighter is another degree of safety for the west.

SASless
8th Nov 2013, 22:45
Radeng,

Absolutely spot on old Lad!:ok::ok::ok::ok:

We need far more Liberals as you!:D

gingernut
8th Nov 2013, 22:51
It's war, but in this blatant display of contravention, then, action has to be taken. i love it when people are so black and white with regard to what happens on the battlefield.

WWII, New Guinea, there were very few Japanese POWs, ask yourself why.

SASs comment re WWII, allied troops were lured into the open by Germans carrying a white flag, lured into the killing field where the allies were decimated. No wonder from then on they didn't take prisoners.

A real life scenario I'm familiar with you might give an answer to.

An elite four man team has been deployed deep behind enemy lines on a sneaky pete operation, during the course of which they have taken a number of prisoners they wish to take home with them on the helicopter extraction. Unfortunately the helo is unable to lift them all. Making two trips is not possible, some have to be left behind to face whatever. What do you do to resolve the problem?

Never been on a battlefield, thank god, but have been involved in dealing with the result. Can't be black and white though.....just concerned about what's mandatory.

John Hill
8th Nov 2013, 23:59
rgbrock1 wrote
.... the Taliban housed bin Liner who was responsible for 9/11.

Except the attacks on Afghanistan began before 9/11.

500N
9th Nov 2013, 00:02
The attacks on the US started before 9/11 which people seem to forget.

Dak Man
9th Nov 2013, 00:05
Someone remind me again when the Crusades took place?

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 00:18
The attacks on the US started before 9/11 which people seem to forget.

What some people forget, probably never even knew, the Taleban did not attack America until after they were attacked.

SASless
9th Nov 2013, 03:21
Hill.....just what is your point? You keep throwing out your choice factoids without making any comment remotely worth considering.

If you are trying to troll.....you need to sharpen your hooks before you go fishing.

Around these parts....one brings something to the table or finds themselves parked away in the Peanut Gallery.

Solar
9th Nov 2013, 03:43
There is no doubt in my head anyway that Terry got what he deserved/needed and it was sheer ego/stupidity that has resulted in what I consider a travesty, this can only undermine in the long term the army's effectiveness.

What I do see though is this common thread among the younger types to be constantly putting what I class as private stuff in the public domain through the plethora of web sites now available.
Makes no sense to me whatsoever.
I realise that this was not posted but the fact that it was retained at all is daft and you could bet that it would only be a matter of time before it was posted somewhere.

Doesn't say much for the numbskulls that found it either mind you.

500N
9th Nov 2013, 03:55
It will be interesting to see what this does to the use of cameras on Ops.

Even if "nothing" happened, you don't know that someone might see something
in it at a later date.

Rule no 1 has always been if you are going to do something, don't take photos
but it is now going to be no cameras, period.

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 04:00
SASless, the plain fact is the war in Afghanistan was not the choosing of the Afghans and that includes the Talebes. They are the victim in this and I am not surprised they are determined to put up a fight.

The whole recent international relations with Afghanistan has been a shocking display of murderous hypocrisy at the highest levels. The apparent willingness for rank and file citizens and military members to enthusiastically embrace this abhorrent behaviour should shock all empathetic onlookers except that we are all becoming chronically innured to it.

500N
9th Nov 2013, 04:06
John

They harboured OBL, they knew damn well what they were doing.
Stop apologizing for them.

"was not the choosing of the Afghans"

Neither were the English in WWII, or the Yanks, or even most of the people
of Europe but shyte happens.


They should have shot him when they found him with a weapon
and not photographed it, then it would have all been done and dusted.

"we are all becoming chronically innured to it."
No, we are sick of troops being sent into combat and being told they
can't shoot someone with a weapon until they are shot at themselves.

A dead Enemy combatant can never be released through
some crap deal later on to appease some ******.

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 04:10
So what if OBL choose to live in Afghanistan? Other countries harbour terrorists and think nothing of it, the difference is that the Taleban were seen to be easy meat.

BTW, there are such things as agreements relating to extradition of persons wanted to face justice for criminal actions, there were requests made to Afghanistan and responses were made but military attacks do tend to derail such negotiations.

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 04:11
Troops do not get to make the rules, if they find the rules of their job too onerous they should choose other employment, they are volunteers are they not?

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 04:18
I have seen enough of Afghanistan and met enough Afghans (including Talebes) to feel no ill will towards them but then I was not carrying a gun the several times I visited there.

Whatever, I am done with this topic.

500N
9th Nov 2013, 04:22
They are classed as enemy combatants, not criminals.

Criminals generally don't go around blowing up embassies for the purpose of killing people.

If terrorists were just criminals, why not let the Police handle it in various countries. They don't.

"Other countries harbour terrorists and think nothing of it,"

And more often than not they get caught in the end (or taken out)
and / or the country suffers because of it.

A lot to be said for the way Israel tracks down people who have done harm
and takes them out once and for all.

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 04:26
I said I was through with this topic so why do you respond to what I wrote?

500N
9th Nov 2013, 04:29
Because I was writing while you wrote and posted that and didn't see it.

OK, be done with it, we'll keep discussing it without you.

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 04:35
Because I was writing while you wrote and posted that and didn't see it.

OK, apologies tendered.

John

BenThere
9th Nov 2013, 04:55
A lot to be said for the way Israel tracks down people who have done harm and takes them out once and for all.

Israel's back has been against the wall since 1967. They can't afford to lighten up as their entire society, culture, heritage and ethnicity is at imminent risk at all times.

The techniques Israel has, out of necessity, developed should be the pathway the rest of us just in the past few decades coming under Islamist attack should study, and perhaps adopt.

The standing off of 6 million Israelis against the relentless aggression and hatred of a billion Muslims, with the blistering defeats dealt them when attacked, is something to admire and emulate.

beamer
9th Nov 2013, 07:25
The Marines in the field must be really impressed by the politically correct comments of their senior Commanders both past and present:mad:

Good luck to all those out there, its a war.

500N
9th Nov 2013, 07:39
Julian Thompson didn't sound too politically correct
when he said he wouldn't condemn the man.

VP959
9th Nov 2013, 07:40
The thing that gets me here is that the enemies were are up against aren't playing by the Geneva Convention "rules", they don't even acknowledge they exist.

The Taliban have an ethos that includes blowing up schools that are trying to educate their own people's children and publicly beheading (with a blunt knife) anyone who doesn't accept their extreme views.

Sure the action of Marine A was morally wrong under the rules that we've set ourselves (the Geneva Convention), but was it morally wrong under whatever rules the Taliban operate under? I doubt it. If the situation was reversed, and marine A was lying wounded in a field, would the taliban fighter have administered first aid or would he have shot him dead?

I think we all know the answer to that question.

The idiocy here was to film the event and keep the recording. I doubt this was a unique occurrence, either, it's just one that made it into the public gaze via the stupidity of the recording being kept and found.

500N
9th Nov 2013, 07:52
I think John Hill might be living on another planet.

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 08:01
I told you I was done with this topic yet now you choose to talk about me? Very poor form.

4mastacker
9th Nov 2013, 08:04
500N wrote:
I think John Hill might be living on another planet.

...or he might a better fisherman than he was given credit for. ;)

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 08:09
Very poor form nonetheless.:rolleyes:

500N
9th Nov 2013, 08:14
Just because you don't want to take part in the conversation
doesn't mean we have to stop commenting on what you wrote.

It's a bit like belting someone in the and then saying they
aren't allowed to do likewise :rolleyes:

If you don't want us to comment, delete them, otherwise
don't waste your breath, I'll comment on what you wrote
as and when I see fit, whether you are here or not.

Poor form, more like thin skin on your part.

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 08:20
You make personal remarks about me living on another planet, perhaps I do as I certainly find the views expressed by many here quite alien, but I cant really be sure about that as even less have the intestinal fortitude to post their location or even names.

VP959
9th Nov 2013, 08:23
I've just been reading a bit of the evidence that marine A put forward in his defence. It included the fact that the taliban had been recovering the body parts of his colleagues who'd been blown up by their IEDs and stringing them from trees as trophies.

I see we have a defender of the taliban here. I wonder how anyone with sound moral judgement can expect the actions of the taliban, such as these, to be ignored, and not to raise thoughts of retaliation?

I'd argue that the treatment of the seriously wounded taliban fighter (who'd been hit by 30mm cannon fire from an AH-64, so was undoubtedly in a very serious condition) could be seen as humane. After all, it's what we do to our pets when we feel compassion over the pain and suffering that they are unlikely to ever recover from.

ExRAFRadar
9th Nov 2013, 08:25
John - thought you had finished with this conversation ?

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 08:31
I am no longer discussing the topic as apparently the war, the people and the country being discussed in on another planet from the one I witnessed and experienced. But when people talk about me that's another matter.

bosnich71
9th Nov 2013, 08:58
John ... you should go on Twatter with your views, it would suit you down to the ground. :bored:

KelvinD
9th Nov 2013, 09:11
This thread is showing some depressing attitudes, including the animosity toward John Hill. His sin was to state some facts. As one who has experienced similar situations (see Bosnich's post re Aden), I have some views. Regardless of what some may think, the Taliban never started a war. They were a collection of toe rags, no doubt. In fact, they were at one time, our heroes (or has that memory been erased?). The reason given for attacking the country was the harbouring of terrorists such as Bin Laden. Well, who harboured and financed IRA terrorists for many years? As for those who would ridicule the Geneva Convention, think on this. Without that convention, a lot of very nasty people would have walked free following WW2. Nuremberg was all about contravention of the Convention. As for the boot neck in the news today; I can see where he was coming from and can understand it to a degree. On the other hand, if we expect the Geneva Convention to protect our forces, then it has to apply both ways. I once witnessed a Royal Marine very ostentatiously observing the Convention while in Aden. The world's news was there, at the behest of the United States who were busy whipping up anti-colonialism against the UK. During a fight with terrorists, a local was shot in the neck and was leaking pretty badly. Having spotted a TV news crew nearby, filming events, this Marine whipped a seat cushion out of the back of his Land Rover, picked up the terrorist's head by the hair, set the cushion beneath the head and dropped him on to it. He then turned to the TV crew and said "Geneva Convention mate. I have to make my wounded prisoner as comfortable as possible". He then stood by and watched the terrorist bleed to death. Good man, in my view! I suspect this would have worked just as well in the current incident. Bosnich; I was there during the incidents to which you refer. Nobody had to ask Whitehall for permission; the Governor was the idiot who decreed that our lads couldn't use heavy weapons against the terrorists as they didn't possess anything heavier than rifles. When this piece of unpleasantness broke out, nobody sought permission to fire upon those who had killed all the RCT lads on their way back from the desert. All the troops nearby reacted properly and opened fire appropriately. I was also there when Mad Mike re-took Crater and, if memory serves me, only one Abdul was killed. He was stupid enough to raise a weapon. Tomorrow (Sunday) I shall be at the Cenotaph with the Aden Veterans and I can guarantee the conversation will turn to this Marine and the whole Afghanistan mess. In previous years, nobody in this group of veterans has supported the idea of our going into that country and the same is felt re the invasion of Iraq. And then the conversation no doubt will run along the lines of "and who was the knob who decided it would be clever to have these helmet cams?". Anyone remember the video footage coming out of Viet Nam? We used to fall about laughing at US troops being ambushed over and over, usually accompanied by some dope smoking and a Jimi Hendrix sound track. Never saw the Aussies fall for such tricks. And yet, we never learn. In Viet Nam there was a lot of playing for the media. And it seems this is still going on. Finally, re the court martial; it seems grossly unfair to me that a board is made up of Ruperts and Rodneys. I thought the idea was a "jury of your peers"?

Cacophonix
9th Nov 2013, 09:37
SASless, the plain fact is the war in Afghanistan was not the choosing of the Afghans and that includes the Talebes. They are the victim in this and I am not surprised they are determined to put up a fight.

The whole recent international relations with Afghanistan has been a shocking display of murderous hypocrisy at the highest levels. The apparent willingness for rank and file citizens and military members to enthusiastically embrace this abhorrent behaviour should shock all empathetic onlookers except that we are all becoming chronically innured to it.


John Hill makes some very trenchant points here that are worth considering. If one considers the history of recent (over the last 30 years) volt-faces in Western support in Afghanistan, his points have a strong ring of veracity for me.

Britain's recent role in this benighted country is a dubious one that was endorsed by even more dubious political types (vide. Blair).

Mr Hill's opinion deserves to be heard methinks!

Edited to say - Even if I personally don't agree with many of his opinions.

Caco

Cacophonix
9th Nov 2013, 09:47
Finally, re the court martial; it seems grossly unfair to me that a board is made up of Ruperts and Rodneys. I thought the idea was a "jury of your peers"?

Military justice might be compromised by the so called class tendency but all in all this jury called it right.

Some of the posters here wouldn't recognise the Geneva Convention if it bit them on the arse.

Caco

racedo
9th Nov 2013, 11:34
I kind of understand your sentiments about the Afghan War but there was a reason for it: the Taliban housed bin Liner who was responsible for 9/11. (And a lot more.) The Taliban refused to hand bin Liner over so it was deemed necessary to remove the Taliban. (Who are nothing more than a band of thugs anyway.) The goal was also to get to bin Linder, dead or alive. It is a known fact that he was in Afghanistan for a time after 9/11 right up to the battle of Tora Bora. After that, no one knew where the hell he was. And it was only until a few years ago when it became apparent that he was being supplied safe haven by our erstwhile "allies", Pakistan. (Who, of course, knew nothing about his presence in their country. Even if he lived a stone's throw from the confines of Pakistan's largest military academy.) From that point on, the draw down in Afghanistan kicked in.

Prior to 9/11 US was handing money to the Taliban knowing full well that OBL was in country.

I have always seen Afghanistan as a CIA clusterfcuk which Carter and Brzezinski screwed up in the 70's.

Geneva Convention there for a reason and either countries respect it or make a clear unambiguous statement that they don't. Coming up with terms to justify why Geneva Convention can be ignored does nobody any favours.

SASless
9th Nov 2013, 11:39
John Hill earns his promotion.....into the Peanut Gallery....rear row center.

papajuliet
9th Nov 2013, 13:01
If the logic of this Court Martial is followed shall we now see some surviving veterans of WW2 at risk of charges for the same "offence"? From what my late father in law [ infantry....N.Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normandy through to Germany] used to say there were many instances of such incidents. There was one distinction, SS prisoners were handed over to the Poles.
Fortunately the most zealous prosecutor should find it difficult to find evidence from all those years ago.
Slightly digressing, does anyone remember a Boer war veteran being interviewed on TV some years ago [ well it would have to be]? He told, with some relish,how they used to bury their prisoners up to the neck, in the soil, then smear their heads with honey - it wasn't,I suspect, quite what the BBC expected to hear in a live interview!

A A Gruntpuddock
9th Nov 2013, 13:15
I hope that the lads remember that their cameras were lost due to enemy action next time this happens.

Once clear evidence reaches a court, the outcome is almost inevitable.

On the plus side, does this mean that Obama can now be held responsible for the innocents killed by drone strikes?

SASless
9th Nov 2013, 13:27
Wait a minute.....I thought you lot simply loved and adored Welfare Man....after all he is a Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize as you recall. Did not the Germans produce a 200,000 strong crowd praising the guy?

Why you want to put him into the Dock over a few thousand Drone Strikes?

500N
9th Nov 2013, 13:42
John

I am just across the water from you, that big Island with a teet on it where Kiwis attach themselves to suck benefits from the Australian Gov't.

I am in Melbourne in case you hadn't seen my loc before I changed it.
FYI, i only changed it from Aus during a left versus right discussion.


If you are offended by me saying you are living on another planet,
then you are seriously thin skinned. If you have come back with
a good comeback, some serious banter of the military type,
not a problem.

Robust discussion and comment is not a problem for most on JB, that is what JB is for and it is far more tolerated here than elsewhere on the forum.

racedo
9th Nov 2013, 14:26
I've just been reading a bit of the evidence that marine A put forward in his defence. It included the fact that the taliban had been recovering the body parts of his colleagues who'd been blown up by their IEDs and stringing them from trees as trophies

Difficult to verify veracity of this, I figure were it correct it would have emerged a lot sooner than as defence in a case like this.

Maybe my mind views it as, when an IED goes off, Taliban wish to get well away from an area as quick as possible because they know there will be a heavy follow on.
Of course this could be wrong but unless you have a very substantial ambush in wait and overwhelming odds then Taliban staying around only invites one outcome.

Tankertrashnav
9th Nov 2013, 16:47
Finally, re the court martial; it seems grossly unfair to me that a board is made up of Ruperts and Rodneys. I thought the idea was a "jury of your peers"?


Well I always understood that "Ruperts" were army officers, and as far as I know this board consisted of Royal Navy and Royal Marines officers, which seems appropriate when three Royal Marines were being tried.

If you are suggesting that the men should have been tried by a court martial board made up of Royal Marines NCOs this would entail a major shift in practice and a rewrite of the regulations. Currently courts martial are tried by officers who have attended a number of courts martial as officer under instruction (I recall doing three, but I never sat on a board), supervised by a Judge Advocate, who is of course an experienced lawyer.

Characterising experienced officers in this way smacks of inverted snobbery. We may not like the way this has all turned out, but once the decision had been made to charge them, looking at the evidence there was no way there was ever going to be another verdict, although the two other guys may consider themselves lucky they were not charged with lesser offences. As it is they can walk away and thank their lucky stars.

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 16:58
I am just across the water from you, that big Island...We call that the West Island, it is our penal colony
..... with a teet on it where Kiwis attach themselves to suck benefits from the Australian Gov't. ...except that Kiwis are not eligible for benefits when they go to Australia


If you are offended by me saying you are living on another planet,
then you are seriously thin skinned. No, I am offended by your abandoning all you have ever learned in the way of critical thinking and taking up the doctrines of Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld.

SASless
9th Nov 2013, 17:59
How many Trials does an Officer have to observe before being able to act a Juror for chrissakes?

Can not a British Serving Officer not have the mental acumen to listen to the Testimony and Analysis of Physical Evidence presented by the Prosecutor and Defense and arrive at a fair just decision without "training'?

Or....is this Officer under Instruction a process where ensuring a Guilty Verdict is always arrived at?

doubleu-anker
9th Nov 2013, 18:03
John, Christchurch, as you know is a mess. If terrorists were responsible and not the earthquake, would you harbor the same views??

What troubles me is the apparent need for B, or was it C, to store the video evidence on his computer. What did he have in mind, blackmail, at a later date? I cant see it being out of perverse pleasure in reminiscing, as he must have seen enough killing to last a life time.

radeng
9th Nov 2013, 18:16
As the Taliban ignore the Geneva Convention, why should it apply to NATO forces?

Personally, were I running Afghanistan, Taliban membership would mean a mandatory, summary execution. They are as deadly and as useful as smallpox or polio or tuberculosis bacillus.

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 18:23
John, Christchurch, as you know is a mess. If terrorists were responsible and not the earthquake, would you harbor the same views??

Rather difficult to say old chap, you see all the destroyed cities I have seen (not many, count them on one hand) have been destroyed by military forces not what one would call 'terrorists', and of course one destroyed by earthquake.

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 18:30
As the Taliban ignore the Geneva Convention, why should it apply to NATO forces?
Can Japanese hunt whales if the whales fail to sign the ICRW conventions? NATO countries signed the Geneva Conventions and they are the ones bound by it.


Personally, were I running Afghanistan, Taliban membership would mean a mandatory, summary execution..
Then what would you do? Hand the country over to the 'lawful government'?

Dont forget that the Taleban only got to power in Afghanistan because they were more acceptable than the offered alternative.......................guess who they were? The same guys who make up the 'lawful government'.:rolleyes:

doubleu-anker
9th Nov 2013, 18:34
Fair enough. The terrorists destroyed a large part of NY and slaughtered thousands of innocents in the process. Can you blame the US for retaliating?

The US is far from perfect but let us not forget, if it wasn't for there intervention in the pacific during WW2, the people of Aust and NZ would be speaking Japanese now.

4mastacker
9th Nov 2013, 18:38
I get the impression that hanoijane is posting under another guise. Might be wrong though. :hmm:

doubleu-anker
9th Nov 2013, 18:42
Tokyo Rose??

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 19:08
Fair enough. The terrorists destroyed a large part of NY and slaughtered thousands of innocents in the process. Can you blame the US for retaliating?


You need to reload your memory banks, America fired 70 or so cruise missiles at someone living in Afghanistan and they sent a dozen guys with box cutters to retaliate, such a kick up the arse the self appointed leaders of the free world are still blubbering about it more than a decade later.

The US is far from perfect but let us not forget, if it wasn't for there intervention in the pacific during WW2, the people of Aust and NZ would be speaking Japanese now.

Lets also not forget that America was happy enough to stand on the sidelines while the British Isles faced invasion and had they fallen to the Germans how long before NZ and Australia faced the Kriegsmarine and where would America had been then? I am sure you know that Japanese forces got much closer to America than they ever go to NZ. Besides, had it not been for the Dutch the battle of Midway might have been a totally different story.

goudie
9th Nov 2013, 19:12
Besides, had it not been for the Dutch the battle of Midway might have been a totally different story.

Well, that's a new one!

rgbrock1
9th Nov 2013, 19:28
The Dutch were at the battle of Midway..? WTF.? How did they get there., by swimming?
No, it wasn't the Dutch, it was the Eskimos.

Andu
9th Nov 2013, 19:36
Besides, had it not been for the Dutch the battle of Midway might have been a totally different story.Waiting with bated breath for all the details John. Was the Dutch Navy on the grassy knoll just north of the American fleet's position?

4mastacker
9th Nov 2013, 19:43
When Van Dieman was sailing round the world doing explory things, he came across a pile of sand in the middle of the Pacific and said 'Nah! Not worth it" and left if for someone else to discover and claim. If he had claimed it for the King of the Netherlands then it would have become Dutch territory which Mr Hitler would have taken over during that bit of nastiness in 1939/40. Midway would then have become German territory. As Japan and Germany were bezzers, there would have been no need for the Japanese to attack Midway and therefore the battle would never have taken place. So JH is quite correct when he says:...had it not been for the Dutch the battle of Midway might have been a totally different story.. ;)

pigboat
9th Nov 2013, 19:46
The poor Taliban. No one understands them.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02693/Malala-Yousafzai-_2693776b.jpg

..If he had claimed it for the King of the Netherlands then it would have become Dutch territory which Mr Hitler would have taken over during that bit of nastiness in 1939/40. Midway would then have become German territory. As Japan and Germany were bezzers, there would have been no need for the Japanese to attack Midway and therefore the battle would never have taken place. So JH is quite correct when he says:

By the same logic, if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.

doubleu-anker
9th Nov 2013, 19:50
4mastacker

Well I'll be damned! Anyway whose side are you on?! :}

course_profile
9th Nov 2013, 20:06
On the surface I was quite expecting to have a great deal of Sympathy for Marine A. After reading what evidence had been made public I realised I now felt that he deserves the punishment he will now receive.

The bit that changed it for was the conversation he has at the end of the video where he coerces the younger Marines not to dob him in. He is quite candid that he broke the Geneva Convention with out his blood being up. He also abuses his position as an NCO and puts pressure on the young lads to protect him. He knows that makes them complicit & he knows it goes against what they have been trained to do. Those words sounded like the soft words of bully making it clear that he is not to be crossed.

I'm all for hard men doing a rough job on my behalf but I listened thinking I wouldn't want my son to go to war being 'led' by the kind of man who showed such contempt for his subordinates.

I'm sorry to say but justice has been served here.

500N
9th Nov 2013, 20:45
John (Hill)

"No, I am offended by your abandoning all you have ever learned in the way of critical thinking and taking up the doctrines of Bush, Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld."

Funny, quite a few on here would say that the left are far more lacking in critical thinking and just repeat their ideology verbatim without thinking through the practicalities of it all.

racedo
9th Nov 2013, 21:53
How many Trials does an Officer have to observe before being able to act a Juror for chrissakes?

Can not a British Serving Officer not have the mental acumen to listen to the Testimony and Analysis of Physical Evidence presented by the Prosecutor and Defense and arrive at a fair just decision without "training'?

Or....is this Officer under Instruction a process where ensuring a Guilty Verdict is always arrived at?

Question is what evidence do you have to suggest that ?

Is not the process more likely to have Jurors actually questioning all the evidence. Rather than in the public domain where friends have sat on Juries where 2 members made it clear they would NEVER convict someone because he was same skin colour as they were and cared nothing of what evidence was offered.

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 22:16
Waiting with bated breath for all the details John. Was the Dutch Navy on the grassy knoll just north of the American fleet's position?

Much better than that mate, the Dutch held the Japanese advance for a month or so and were the first to make headway with cracking the Japanese JN-25 naval code.

John Hill
9th Nov 2013, 22:18
Funny, quite a few on here would say that the left are far more lacking in critical thinking and just repeat their ideology verbatim without thinking through the practicalities of it all.

Who are the "Left" and are there any of them here?

Tankertrashnav
9th Nov 2013, 23:02
Or....is this Officer under Instruction a process where ensuring a Guilty Verdict is always arrived at?


As I recall it was quite the reverse. As young fire-breathing gung-ho officers, those of us under instruction were far more likely to give the accused a hard time than the actual board members. I attended one court martial in Hong Kong where two RAF servicemen were accused of assaulting and wounding some (European) civilians who had invited them back for a drink. After the court had decided they were guilty, we officers under instruction were asked what sentence we would award, had we been on the board. We went for 12 - 24 months imprisonment, which rather shocked the president of the board, who awarded them 84 days detention.

Dont confuse board members with jurors - the latter play a listening role, and may only ask written questions through the judge. Court martial board members play an active part in conducting the trial, questioning the accused, etc, hence the need for some instruction before being thrown in at the deep end.

bosnich71
10th Nov 2013, 04:09
Ref. John ... the reason I commented about him was because he said he was going and not coming back, and then did.
Actually now that he appears to have returned permanently I hope that he stays. I like Kiwis ....Honest .
Except for that bloody dance thingummy that they do before a rugby match. But having said that the video of the Kiwi troops doing it at the funeral of three of their mates was a 2 handkerchief job, at least.

bosnich71
10th Nov 2013, 04:18
Regards the make up of boards (?) of a court martial wouldn't it be in the interest of fairness that if zobbitts decide the guilt, or otherwise, of the lower ranks then shouldn't the reverse be also applied, i.e. the other ranks sit in judgement on the 'Officers and Gentlemen" given that we all live in a P.C. world now ? :)

bosnich71
10th Nov 2013, 04:38
Kelvin D ... thankyou for your comments ref. Aden etc. As an ex R.A.F. person my only knowledge of the problems in Aden come second hand from those who were there.
From what I have been told some of the squaddies killed in Crater were alive after the initial ambush and were butchered while the Army waited for the order allowing them to go in and attempt to save some of them. Mitchell at least made Crater a safer place by ignoring the old duffers who believed in following the G.C. and as a result saved not only the lives of other British army personnel but locals as well.
One thing that always grated with me during the IRA years was that nearly always after a terrorist incident, on the British mainland, the police/intelligence services would usually say something to the effect that they had, " raided the homes of known I.R.A. sympathisers". Always went down well with the locals in Coventry that did. The priest at my local R.C. church was one such sympathiser. To be fair to the authorities they did eventually sort him out. Good job really as he was found to have a bit of jelly down in his cellar.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if you want our troops to fight with reference to the G.C. then only send them to fight those who have also signed it and let the rest of the third world Neanderthals sort their own s**t out themselves

crewmeal
10th Nov 2013, 06:13
And when it's all over guess who will try and broker deals with the Talaban try and fail to negotiate peace get paid handsomely. yes you've guessed it Tony Blair!

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 06:16
Ref. John ... the reason I commented about him was because he said he was going and not coming back, and then did.

I said I was done with the topic regarding the alleged murder of the Talebe but I was not about to slink away while I was being discussed.

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 06:21
And when it's all over guess who will try and broker deals with the Talaban try and fail to negotiate peace get paid handsomely. yes you've guessed it Tony Blair!

The time for doing deals with Mullah Omar and his boys is long gone and even if by some miracle a favourable deal could now be done one would never be sure that one of the alphabet agencies would not sabotage it.

It would have been a different story prior to August 1998 when OBL's head could have been had on a plate for a tin trunk full of low denomination notes.

bosnich71
10th Nov 2013, 07:23
J.H. ..... "I was not going to slink away".
fair enough my attention span is quite short these days, well really it's always been short .... my attention span that is.

doubleu-anker
10th Nov 2013, 09:56
John

Do you condone the murderous acts of the cowards with the box cutters, on 911?

Straight answer please. Yes of no.

SpannerInTheWerks
10th Nov 2013, 14:38
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if you want our troops to fight with reference to the G.C. then only send them to fight those who have also signed it and let the rest of the third world Neanderthals sort their own s**t out themselves

The trouble is that in the present day there aren't that many signatories to the GC that we're currently fighting - nor would want to.

Modern day wars are unfortunately often in the Third World - and they usually sort their s**t out by genocide - not something your average GC signatory wants to stand by and watch from the sidelines.

So we get involved.

The irony is that there is a very thin line - on the one side it's perfectly legal to fire 139 cannon shells at the enemy, yet on the other a soldier is court martialled and will be imprisoned for firing the 140th round.

Had the air gunner fired the 140th round there would have been no action taken. But a Royal Marine seeking the same result steps over the line.

If the Afghan had been able to shoot Marine A instead, would he have been Court Martialled?

The price for being 'civilised' is a high one.

racedo
10th Nov 2013, 15:30
The trouble is that in the present day there aren't that many signatories to the GC that we're currently fighting - nor would want to.

Modern day wars are unfortunately often in the Third World - and they usually sort their s**t out by genocide - not something your average GC signatory wants to stand by and watch from the sidelines.

So we get involved.

The irony is that there is a very thin line - on the one side it's perfectly legal to fire 139 cannon shells at the enemy, yet on the other a soldier is court martialled and will be imprisoned for firing the 140th round.

Had the air gunner fired the 140th round there would have been no action taken. But a Royal Marine seeking the same result steps over the line.

If the Afghan had been able to shoot Marine A instead, would he have been Court Martialled?

The price for being 'civilised' is a high one.

But who is supplying all these wars ?

Mac the Knife
10th Nov 2013, 15:51
"....the killing came to light when police investigating other matters found the video on a soldier’s laptop."

I wonder what the "..other matters.." were?

I wonder by what right they were searching his laptop?

I wonder who decided "take matters further"?

Mac

[Of course once it's all in the open it's unfortunately Game Over for this squaddy]

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 16:52
Do you condone the murderous acts of the cowards with the box cutters, on 911?

No. (Stupid question, I dont condone the killing of anyone.)

doubleu-anker
10th Nov 2013, 17:13
No I don't think it a stupid question. I wouldn't have been surprised had you said yes, such has been the content of your posts in this thread.

If "no" was from the heart I feel as though we have something to work with John.

What a shame they have broken up Guantanamo.

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 17:32
It is one thing to recognise someone's motivation for doing something but quite another to condone it.

Now a question for you doubleu-anker, straight answer if you please, do you condone the American bombing of Afghanistan in 1998?

bosnich71
10th Nov 2013, 20:03
Spanner ... your comments ref. the 140 rounds etc. was exactly what I attempted to say earlier, i.e. if the helicopter gunner had finished him off it would have been job well done.

radeng
10th Nov 2013, 20:10
I do not believe that you can class Taliban as something that can, in view of their total anti-social proclivities, be allowed to live. Thus, in my view, any Taliban, should be executed immediately unless wanted for interrogation - after which, execution should be mandatory.

Taliban count with smallpox, polio and TB - should be eradicated.

So the guy should get a medal.

The Taliban don't subscribe to the Geneva Convention. Neither do the virus of smallpox or the bacteria of TB. Treat them all the same.

I'm a liberal - in some things.

doubleu-anker
10th Nov 2013, 20:18
John, in answer to your question.

Yes.

500N
10th Nov 2013, 20:19
John (Hill)

You obviously didn't support the US in reacting to the US embassy bombings.

I agree with radeng, they should be eradicated, either on the battlefield
or once any information has been obtained.

radeng
10th Nov 2013, 20:22
500N

You a liberal too?

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 20:24
You obviously didn't support the US in reacting to the US embassy bombings.

It was the wrong reaction, morally wrong, legally wrong, failed in its objective and just plain stupid to boot.

racedo
10th Nov 2013, 20:25
I do not believe that you can class Taliban as something that can, in view of their total anti-social proclivities, be allowed to live. Thus, in my view, any Taliban, should be executed immediately unless wanted for interrogation - after which, execution should be mandatory.

Taliban count with smallpox, polio and TB - should be eradicated.

So the guy should get a medal.

The Taliban don't subscribe to the Geneva Convention. Neither do the virus of smallpox or the bacteria of TB. Treat them all the same.

I'm a liberal - in some things.

So should anybody who has cooperated or funded Taliban be arrested as well ?

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 20:28
I do not believe that you can class Taliban as something that can, in view of their total anti-social proclivities, be allowed to live.

That is exactly what they think of you and yours so one could say that you have become like them, which if I am not mistaken was their objective from the get go (to kill you or to make you like them).

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 20:30
So should anybody who has cooperated or funded Taliban be arrested as well ?

Ha ha! The consequences of doing that would be too interesting for words.

500N
10th Nov 2013, 20:30
Then you wouldn't have liked what the french did in Aukland Harbour ?

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 20:31
The incident was very educational for a lot of people.

radeng
10th Nov 2013, 20:33
and so John Hill, I want them dead rather than me dead.

Like Polio, smallpox, tuberculosis etc....

500N
10th Nov 2013, 20:36
Yes, especially the French on how not to do some things
if you want a deniable operation.

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 20:37
It is curious that you choose polio, smallpox and TB for your analogy when the Taleban used to cooperate with WHO immunisation programmes.:hmm:

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 20:42
Terrorists none the less and some given sanctuary in other countries. What should we do about that?

For example, Louis Pierre Dillais, should we send a hit team to where he is skulking?

radeng
10th Nov 2013, 20:45
Unless I am much mistaken, the people doing the polio immunisations were targeted by the Taliban....

tony draper
10th Nov 2013, 20:52
Well we will probably have that ability soon,to create a racially targeted virus,something that homes in on the minute differences in our DNA,such as the one that allows them to grow large daft beards frinstance,goodbye the sand people.
:E

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 21:54
Unless I am much mistaken, the people doing the polio immunisations were targeted by the Taliban....

Only partly mistaken, in the years before the invasion the Taleban and the Northern Alliance would have a truce each year when the immuniser crews would do their rounds. But once foreign armies appeared on the scene the immuniser crews were seen to be including spies and from then on all bets were off.

John Hill
10th Nov 2013, 21:56
...such as the one that allows them to grow large daft beards frinstance..
Thats called testosterone and I am sorry if you didnt get your share..

fitliker
11th Nov 2013, 02:19
So many children are no longer immunized against Small Pox ,hat if an out break occurs it will rage out of control and kill most of the worlds population under twenty five. The generation that was not immunized as the disease was thought to be eradicated.

bosnich71
11th Nov 2013, 03:16
Some wise words from Colonel Tim Collins about this case in the Daily Mail this morning. I would urge everyone to read them, they may make some of you consider the rights and wrongs. J. Hill excluded naturally.

500N
11th Nov 2013, 03:27
What a brilliant article.

For quick access here is a hotlink.

Don't sacrifice this man on the altar of political correctness: COLONEL TIM COLLINS says the convicted Marine deserves some understanding | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2499079/Dont-sacrifice-man-altar-political-correctness-COLONEL-TIM-COLLINS-says-convicted-Marine-deserves-understanding.html)

Blacksheep
11th Nov 2013, 07:11
There was a documentary last night about the return to civilian life. It showed the effects of combat on men - not all wounds are visible from the outside. I knew a chap medically discharged from the Parachute Regiment. Chris was working as a painter and painted our house in Barton. He was suffering purely psychological injuries he received at Crossmaglen where he was blown up twice - once in the ambush itself and a second time when the survivors were clearing casualties. There wasn't a mark on him that you could see, but the damage was permanent, nonetheless.

Who knows what the sergeant who shot the insurgent had been through and how that affected him mentally? In my opinion he wasn't properly represented and did not, therefore, receive a fair trial.

VP959
11th Nov 2013, 07:12
The major problem we have is that the politically correct huggy fluffs have absolutely no idea of what happens on the ground in a war like this. The majority of those calling for a harsh sentence for marine A will have never experienced anything like the horrors of his tour in Afghanistan, will have never been faced with a moment where the raw emotion of revenge could overcome training and self control, and will be wholly unable to understand how a skilled and well-trained soldier could make an error of judgement such as this.

Col Collins words sum up well the case for leniency for marine A, he committed a serious crime, but was subject to mitigating circumstances that, thankfully, the vast majority of us will never have to suffer. Those arguing for the harshest sentence could do with being exposed to a day in the life of marine A on patrol, perhaps they may then have a better understanding of how raw human emotion can sometimes overcome the best training in the world.

tartare
11th Nov 2013, 07:28
I could not agree more with this post.
As brutal as it may seem to civilians - how can we judge a man who's probably seen many mates killed or mutilated and is confronted with a wounded enemy combatant who he summarily executes.
I've always wondered why there is still extensive classification of some of the things that went on during WW2.
Understandable but publicly unacceptable `War crimes' by allied soldiers in the heat of battle perhaps - even now decades later too grim or horrible for public consumption?
Have no doubt that what we saw/heard here is something that has happened countless times already, and will again.
If I was Terry Taliban and had tried to off a squaddy or two and then got caught after being wounded, I'd fully expect to get a bullet between the eyes.
For example, who of us know how we'd really react if our mate was reduced to a few splinters of bone and flesh right next to us and then we caught the guy that did it?

VP959
11th Nov 2013, 07:54
Not really applicable in this case is it?, the plonker in question had a camea running so we EVERY idea what is happening.

It was Murder, simple as that, Its all fine and dandy saying its reality in war but you have to appreciate that the propoganda fed to the masses says WE are better than THEM, if you can't keep up that impression, then it alls fall apart

Absolutely applicable. This marine (in his own evidence of mitigation, repeated in the article by Col Collins quoted above) had seen the limbs of his blown up oppos tied to trees as taunts by the people he was fighting.

I commend anyone who can keep feelings of revenge completely at bay when faced with the sort of tactics the taliban were using every day against him and his mates.

Let's transfer this to a hypothetical scenario here in the UK. You and your best mate are out for the night when your mate gets brutally killed right in front of your eyes by a thug. The thug runs away, you give chase. When you catch the thug he's fallen and is immobile. You have a choice - give him first aid or get revenge with his own weapon.

The majority would, hopefully, put revenge to one side, but if one did kill for revenge, could the cold blooded murder of a best mate not be seen as valid mitigation that should reduce his sentence?

I don't think anyone here is arguing that what marine A did was right, or that he was not guilty of murder, just that his actions were understandable to a degree, and his sentence should reflect the extraordinary stresses imposed on the human psyche by this type of conflict.

John Hill
11th Nov 2013, 08:11
...........deleted by me.............

Blacksheep
11th Nov 2013, 08:35
This marine ... had seen the limbs of his blown up oppos tied to trees as taunts by the people he was fighting.

I commend anyone who can keep feelings of revenge completely at bay when faced with the sort of tactics the taliban were using every day against him and his mates.Exactly my point. These soldiers were being subjected to psychological warfare and then we see the result. I do not condone his action, but his punishment must take account of his mental condition. Indeed, his representation at his trial seems to have lacked rigour and a jury trial with a better defence lawyer may have had a different outcome.

500N
11th Nov 2013, 08:52
Lone

"and how the gung ho warmongers defend there sides actions even when they are as abhorrent as the enemies"


So, the Apache pilot putting 30mm rounds through the guys chest / body
or the soldier on the ground 5 minutes earlier shoting him with the SA80
is all OK but god help if he is shot with a 9mm through the chest afterwards,
espcially when he was going to die anyway.

Yes, he broke the laws as they were, I wonder if it would have been viewed
as quite so heinous if he had shot him as soon as he was found withe a weapon ?

No wonder our troops are so screwed up when they come back.

tony draper
11th Nov 2013, 09:01
Wasn't there a case in the Falklands after the surrender where a Argentinian Soldier was on fire and burning alive and was shot by a British Soldier to put him out of his misery? don't remember the details now but I remember reading or seeing a news item on TV.
How would the legal system regard something like that?
:uhoh:

500N
11th Nov 2013, 09:03
What about the Argies who shot the 2 or 3 Paras under a white flag ?

I don't think you could question anyone delaying the cease fire
after an attack on a position after that occurring.

VP959
11th Nov 2013, 09:11
Asymmetric warfare has always been a way to screw up those who have had to fight with one hand tied behind their back by a set of gentlemanly rules laid down in Geneva years ago.

I've a mate who was manning a checkpoint in the Six Counties back in the depths of the troubles. One of their problems was kids who'd nicked cars and were out joyriding, and who'd then obviously not want to stop at a checkpoint for a vehicle check. Generally they used a bit of judgement and just let the joyriders through, reporting it to the RUC to deal with later.

On one occasion a joy rider thought it'd be a jape to drive straight at the check point at speed, firing what seemed to be a pistol out the window as the car approached. My mate and his oppos returned fire, within their ROE, and one of the two kids in the car was killed. The pistol turned out to be a starting pistol, the kids were around 15 or 16 and had just stolen the car for a lark.

Even now, 30 odd years later, my mates still in a mess over the fact that it was his gun that most probably killed this innocent teenager. He was exonerated of any crime, but that hasn't helped his mental state, his life has been a heap of crap, living with this guilt, ever since he was pensioned out on grounds of health.

It's not helped by the fact that the kids family keep raking up the murder of their child from time to time in the media, seeking revenge for what they see as cold blooded murder and a murderer who got away (in their eyes) scot free.

Tankertrashnav
11th Nov 2013, 09:21
This thread has now entered a phase of what Jerry Fitt, the Northern Irish SDLP politician called "whataboutery" where each side justified its own actions by remarks such as "well what about what the IRA did at X" or "what about the UDA did at Y". This is ultimately futile.

My own opinion differs from the hard line being put by the CDS who has said there should be no leniency for marine A. I personally think that Blacksheep and others have it just right - the sergeant's state of mind has to be taken into consideration.

Incidentally although the CDS has no authority over the Judge Advocate who will be deciding the tariff, I think it is nevertheless very ill-advised for someone in such an influential and powerful position to have come out publicly in this way.

Edited to say this post is not in response to the previous one by VP959: I have nothing but sympathy for the soldier referred to.

course_profile
11th Nov 2013, 09:45
Has any evidence been presented about Marine A's mental state?

I haven't seen any in the news backing up any calls for clemency.

500N
11th Nov 2013, 09:53
I am surprised the CDS has come out with what he said, unless now
Marine A has been found guilty he can speak publicly. But it still
surprises me that he has.

bosnich71
11th Nov 2013, 10:01
An Uncle of mine went through the campaigns in Nth.Africa, Sicily and on into Italy. It was in Italy that his best mate who he had joined up with and fought side by side with was killed by a mortar round.
Uncle Archie was medically discharged from the army because of his mental condition and never uttered another word for the rest of his life. He had great trouble eating and drinking as he had lost control of some of his faculties. He didn't come home a hero but he was only one of many who suffered from his experiences for the rest of his life.
Things are never black and white.

beamer
11th Nov 2013, 11:12
Breaker Morant - Closing Argument - YouTube


I know this is just a film but some of the sentiments expressed have a chilling sense bearing in mind recent events.

G-CPTN
11th Nov 2013, 13:02
Marine A must face justice, but the law has its limits in warfare - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10439808/Marine-A-must-face-justice-but-the-law-has-its-limits-in-warfare.html)

Cacophonix
11th Nov 2013, 13:09
I know this is just a film but some of the sentiments expressed have a chilling sense bearing in mind recent events.

Can't speak for the film but I do know in certain quarters it is thought that Mr Morant got the rough end of justice but there are many in South Africa who believe that he got his just deserts...

Moral relativism is an interesting phenomenon and one that is generally despised when it is used to justify crimes against one's own people and embraced when one is supporting one of one's own.

Caco

500N
11th Nov 2013, 13:12
Caco

The "push" to have the Breaker cleared didn't get very far in the last few years
and seems to have now died.

Cacophonix
11th Nov 2013, 13:24
The "push" to have the Breaker cleared didn't get very far in the last few years and seems to have now died.

No pardon for Breaker Morant | The Stump (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/thestump/2012/05/09/no-pardon-for-breaker-morant/)

Caco

Dak Man
11th Nov 2013, 13:36
If the book is not proverbally thrown at him it may further radicalise the "thousands" (Dir of MI5's words) homegown terror plotters and probably be a recruitment banner for more of the blighters, it's the rock and the hard place.

VP959
11th Nov 2013, 13:38
Whilst remembering those that gave their lives to defend our nations this morning, a thought came to me about the term I've used, and which is used a lot to describe most of the recent conflicts we've been involved with, asymmetric warfare.

It's a relatively new form of warfare, one where one side plays by a set of rules that have been internationally agreed, including the right to life for a surrendered prisoner, attempting to minimise harm to non-combatants and generally behaving in accordance with the moral standards that we, in the West, have agreed.

The other side in this asymmetric war respects none of those rights and considers any action to be justified as an act of war, including killing civilians and prisoners and displaying mutilated body parts of their victims as taunts to their enemy.

Reading that article linked above from the torygraph, I found myself (for the first time ever) agreeing with Boris. If we are engaged in a conflict where our opponents show no recognition for international law or agreements on the humane treatment of prisoners, why should we?

I know there is an argument that suggests this is the start of the slippery slope towards barbarism, but is it? We don't have a problem with state sanctioned assassination on foreign territory, in fact we don't even protest significantly when other states choose to murder their own citizens on our own territory.

I'm not for one moment saying that the actions of marine A were lawful or even acceptable, but they were, in my view, entirely understandable.

We, the public that voted in the politicians that made the decision to send marine A to war in Afghanistan, sent him on this path to his own demise. We placed him in an environment where his enemies behaved with a degree of barbarism that many here would find terrifyingly traumatic. We are indirectly responsible for the actions of marine A, as it was us that put him in that situation and then expected him to behave with a degree of honour that only a very a few could sustain for long. We should not be surprised to find that, after long exposure to a barbaric enemy, marine A should have felt the need for unlawful revenge. Who here has not felt even a momentary wish to get revenge for a perceived wrong?

rgbrock1
11th Nov 2013, 13:40
The psychological impacts of warfare on the minds of the men and women fighting has never been, is not, and never will be given the attention that is so desperately needed by those affected.

I know for myself I had a very hard time dealing with the sounds of choppers and fireworks for many years after my 3-day stint in Grenada. Not that I went head case or anything like that but I was known for hitting the dirt on occasion.

I know my father who was in a percursor US Marine Recon unit fought in Korea and rarely talked about his time there. But according to my mother, his combat experience "changed him in a big way."

My maternal uncle was with the U.S. Army 101st airborne and jumped during D-Day at Utah Beach as well as at the battle of the Ardennes. (Battle of the Bulge). I do recall him often speaking of his friends he lost over there and how it had remained with him for life.

And then there is my nephew who lost both his legs to an IED at the 2nd battle of Fallujah (sp?) in Iraq in 2004 who, to this day, has some very, very serious mental issues. Fortunately his mother, my sister, is seeing to it that he receives the proper care. He is doing better but he is a ghost of the young man he was before having his legs blown off.

My point being? Combat affects anyone who has experienced it in as many ways. Some can deal with the aftermath, others have a hard time with it and there are others who never deal with the aftermath. Although the Royal Marine being charged may have stepped over the line I can empathize with him and find it a travesty that he is being taken to task for the incident in question. (The guy with the helmet-cam, on the other hand, should be courts martialed for stupidity.)

StressFree
11th Nov 2013, 13:49
This whole matter is a disgrace, what would have been the outcome if the Apache gunner had fired another burst at the insurgent and finished him off?

We are fighting a dirty war in Afghanistan, against a difficult enemy, there are no easy answers but I consider this issue most troubling......

Marine A was a decent servant of this nation, a man of great committment to our country.

I see little value to anyone in locking him up. Clearly he breached rules, but its so easy to judge him from the comfort of an armchair in the UK.

:sad:

Cacophonix
11th Nov 2013, 14:07
This whole matter is a disgrace, what would have been the outcome if the
Apache gunner had fired another burst at the insurgent and finished him off?


That would have been legal.

I have to beg to differ with your thesis. What happened afterwards was cold calculated murder that was done in full understanding of the law and the breach of the Geneva convention (listen to the audio). Moreover the guy lied at the Court Martial.

He knew the law and had time to calculate what he was doing. This was no in the heat of battle moment. He deserves a long time inside to consider what he did.

You may not like the enemy. There is not much to like about them but that doesn't excuse the murder of a wounded defenceless man.

Caco

StressFree
11th Nov 2013, 14:28
Caco,

I agree with your sentiment but we were'nt there, we we're the folks who had been under persistent attack for a long period. I'm not seeking to excuse the actions of Marine A but maybe trying to explain them. He obviously crossed the line, but what good will come from imprisoning him for life?

I see little benefit to anyone. I'm a humanist and value human life but this is a battlefield, its a naive view that says that normal standards of behaviour exist in every forum.

So it's OK for the Apache gunner to have fired a few more rounds and killed the Talebe but a single shot to finish him off is now murder?

I'm struggling with this one. I know prisoners have rights but would he have survived anyway if we hadn't gone to search for him, 30mm rounds are fairly severe so if they had just walked away he would most probably died anyway.....

Not a valid excuse I admit but a practicality.

It's difficult I know as we all want the best standards, but in life some things aren't always straightforward.

All the best.

Cacophonix
11th Nov 2013, 14:56
It's difficult I know as we all want the best standards, but in life some things aren't always straightforward.

Now I can only agree with that sentiment StressFree.

Undoubtedly the court martial will take account of this chap's military record. He clearly had previously been an asset to his unit (he had been promoted to sergeant etc.). Ultimately one just has to trust in the law and hope justice is done (not that it always is).

I must say that even though we clearly disagree on many things your courteous demeanour and thoughtful responses make me apt to be think more temperately and for that I thank you.

Caco

goudie
11th Nov 2013, 15:01
'' Right then chaps. you're mission is to go out there and kill as many of those nasty Taliban terrorists as possible. They are extremely evil with no respect for human life and will try to kill or maim you by any foul means possible. They totally dis-regard the Geneva Convention so try not to get taken prisoner 'cos they'll do very nasty things to you.
Now, although we want you to kill as many as possible, you must do it by our rule book, if you don't then you will be subjected to the full weight of the Law, with no mitigating circumstance permitted, whatsoever.
Right then off yer go and er...best of luck.''

VP959
11th Nov 2013, 15:03
How does the US legal system deal with this type of situation?

We in the UK seem to have become servants of the more extreme side of the human rights brigade within the EU and so seem almost to be afraid of our own shadow over anything that could conceivably have been a breach of the Human Rights Act.

Clearly the actions of marine A did breach that act and the Geneva Convention, but I am damned certain that the US have committed similar acts of killing on foreign soil that were also breaches of those rules as they apply to war.

Bin Laden is a good example. He was a mass murderer, who had instigated the most appalling terrorist attack ever seen. However, what was the legal basis that allowed a US assassination squad to invade the territory of a non-combatant country and kill him in cold blood? Not saying this was wrong, morally (it wasn't, in my view) but was it any different to marine A firing a single 9mm round into a (probably dying) taliban terrorist, at least in principle?

DX Wombat
11th Nov 2013, 15:06
I saw that part of the Andrew Marr programme and at no point did General Houghton say that the soldier should not be shown clemency. What he did say was:
There is a due process that will lead to a sentencing.It's for that process to determine whether any form of clemency should be shown in the sentencing

500N
11th Nov 2013, 15:20
VP

I think a number of US Soldiers have been charged over unlawful killings in Iraq.
Can't remember the verdicts.

rgbrock1
11th Nov 2013, 15:23
Not meaning to add to one side or the other in this discussion, however:

Article 12 of the Geneva Convention mandates that wounded and sick soldiers who are out of the battle should be humanely treated, and in particular should not be killed, injured, tortured, or subjected to biological experimentation. This article is the keystone of the treaty, and defines the principles from which most of the rest the treaty is derived,[12] including the obligation to respect medical units and establishments (Chapter III), the personnel entrusted with the care of the wounded (Chapter IV), buildings and material (Chapter V), medical transports (Chapter VI), and the protective sign (Chapter VII).

500N
11th Nov 2013, 15:28
rgb

"who are out of the battle"

I remember having a discussion on when "out of the battle" occurs.

As you assault up the hill do you kill the wounded ?

Is "out of the battle" when the Pl Cmd calls re org and
you go into defensive positions and consolidate ?

As I said before, if they had shot him when they found him with
an AK47 and a grenade, would that have been legal ?

Cacophonix
11th Nov 2013, 15:29
Article 12 of the Geneva Convention mandates that wounded and sick soldiers who are out of the battle should be humanely treated, and in particular should not be killed, injured, tortured, or subjected to biological experimentation.

This article is the keystone of the treaty, and defines the principles from
which most of the rest the treaty is derived,[12] including the obligation to
respect medical units and establishments (Chapter III), the personnel entrusted with the care of the wounded (Chapter IV), buildings and material (Chapter V), medical transports (Chapter VI), and the protective sign (Chapter VII).

There it is in black and white. Either we, as nominally civilised people, attempt to abide by the law or we become barbarians and behave as badly as our enemies who eschew such niceties.

Caco

tony draper
11th Nov 2013, 15:31
Surely that falls down on the fact the Taliban are not soldiers they are guerrillas,irregulars,insurgents, they belong to no official army, there had been no recognized declaration of war on their part.

Dak Man
11th Nov 2013, 15:33
- or on ours...........

StressFree
11th Nov 2013, 15:40
Caco,

I appreciate that, I really do. The best part of a free society is that we can have these discussions, we'll not always agree but the fact we can openly debate is a testament to the strengh of our society, thats a priviledge that many fellow humans don't have.

Thanks again, it's good to see that decent people are around.

Best regards.

rgbrock1
11th Nov 2013, 15:50
As much as I can empathize with the actions of the Royal Marine in question, empathize to a certain degree, as signatories to the Geneva Conventions we are bound by the articles contained in the treaties, legally.

I would also say that although the Taliban are not technically an "army" with "soldiers" they can indeed be loosely considered as such.

As soldiers in a Western army we have not only a legal obligation but a moral one as well. Granted, the Taliban are ruthless, cunning and nasty little savages who evoke memories of the 4th Century in their behavior. But we have to take the moral high ground somewhere. We are duty-bound to do so. Without duty, honor and integrity we have nothing else and we consequently become like those savages we are fighting.

Again, I can somewhat empathize with the Marine. But he failed in his moral obligation, as well as legal, to assist the wounded Taleb. It may seem repugnant to us to do so, but honor and integrity demand it. If nothing else.

Lightning Mate
11th Nov 2013, 16:06
A Royal Marine is your friend.

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu82/Lightning_29/london-300x3003_zps6c253cdd.jpg

500N
11th Nov 2013, 16:12
LM

And not a Policeman in sight !!!

ChrisVJ
11th Nov 2013, 16:18
Is it not also an article of the Geneva Convention that a 'soldier' to whom these niceties are to be extended be in uniform with identifying insignia?

I do think the GC is a valid and necessary code but I think it requires both sides of a conflict, not just one side and other third parties, to abide by it to be useful. If one side doesn't, then surely all bets should be off.

I also have a problem with people who live in comfort making the decisions for those who are doing the fighting. (And yes, it was always so, but it doesn't make it right.)

StressFree
11th Nov 2013, 16:20
LM,

Powerful images, and a disgrace to any religion that approves of these acts.

At this period of remembrance I remember Lee Rigby, cut down in his prime by cowards, Lee Rigby RIP.

goudie
11th Nov 2013, 16:21
Either we, as nominally civilised people,

If we were civilised people we would not be killing people in the first place.
What we 'civilised people do is to pay someone ie soldiers to do the killing for us, but as we insist they kill according to 'the rules', that makes it ok.

Breathtaking hypocrisy, in my view.

rgbrock1
11th Nov 2013, 16:28
It doesn't matter if the "enemy" is clad in a uniform or running around stark naked. And it certainly does NOT matter if the enemy adheres to the tenets of the GC. Those who are signatories to the GC are bound to do so legally. And, in my opinion, morally as well.

Like I wrote earlier: the Taliban , for example, might be repugnant to us in everything they do and stand for. (Barbarism in the 21st Century). But we are not them. And we stand for something much higher. It would behoove us to act that way on the fields of battle.

500N
11th Nov 2013, 16:32
War is only going to get messier with the use of Private contractors.
You only have to look at some of the videos available on line to see
including the infamous "baiting" one although haven't delved into
it to see if it is true.

goudie
11th Nov 2013, 16:36
. And we stand for something much higher.

Right is on our side? Well perhaps the Taliban feel the same way, so much so they don't give shit how they achieve it.

Mac the Knife
11th Nov 2013, 16:37
Hopefully we have advanced since 1209 and the massacre at Beziers..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_at_B%C3%A9ziers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnaud_Amalric

Mac

:cool:

BenThere
11th Nov 2013, 16:53
OK, so next time you're assaulted on the mean streets by a low-life assailant with a knife or gun, limit your response to slaps on the face with an open hand, like a gentleman, and that only after due warning in a language your attacker can fully comprehend.

500N
11th Nov 2013, 16:54
Lone

No, I was asking a genuine question.
IMHO, my scenario is legal.

So it would be interesting to know why they didn't do it then instead of moving the person and doing it later.

rgbrock1
11th Nov 2013, 16:54
goudie wrote:

Right is on our side? Well perhaps the Taliban feel the same way, so much so they don't give shit how they achieve it.

Well, I don't know if right is on our side but it certainly isn't on the side of the Taliban. Not with a group who blows up historical Buddhist statues (Buddhas of Bamiyan), shoot a girl in the head because she was calling for reforms so girls could get an education in Afghanistan, behead a woman who cheated on her spouse, etc. Those actions, and many more like them, are far from my definition of "right."

Dak Man
11th Nov 2013, 16:54
I believe that similar happened in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and the Falklands (I've spoken to an eye witness from Goose Green). It's not a new phenomena- far from it, but what we have now is worlwide social networking coupled with cheap reliable vid cams and media intrusion into what really goes on in a shooting war.

It goes on, it's always gone on, the Gurkas for example.......Sgt. A is being made an example of, be in no doubt, it pacifies the Muslim World and appeases the politicians but it will do diddly squat to shorten / end ops in the Stan and elsewhere, it's just a media exercise to claim the virtual moral highground.

rgbrock1
11th Nov 2013, 16:55
BenThere wrote:

OK, so next time you're assaulted on the mean streets by a low-life assailant with a knife or gun, limit your response to slaps on the face with an open hand, like a gentleman.

If i was assaulted on the streets by a scum bag with a knife or gun there would be no limits AND said scum bag would certainly not lie there, afterwards, merely wounded. :ok:

BenThere
11th Nov 2013, 16:59
The stock answer is, "Then you're no better than he is."

500N
11th Nov 2013, 17:00
"merely wounded".

Mortally wounded ? ;)

Mac the Knife
11th Nov 2013, 17:13
"...it pacifies the Muslim World.."

No it won't. Doesn't look as though anything will.*

"...and appeases the politicians..."

What do they really care?

"..but it will do diddly squat to shorten / end ops in the Stan and elsewhere,..."

Agree

"...it's just a media exercise to claim the virtual moral highground."

No it isn't. It is a firm statement that this sort of response is unacceptable, whatever the provocation and circumstances.

Marine A knew perfectly well it was out of order, which is why he told his mates to keep shtum.

Yes, these things happen and will go on happening, particularly in an asymetrical conflict but recording it and even worse, keeping it as a souvenir was truly stupid.

Mac

:cool:

* even if they were to annihilate Israel seems like they'd still be slaughtering each other and anyone else who disagreed with them.

:(

BenThere
11th Nov 2013, 17:14
I was trying to evoke thoughts about the effect of ROEs constraining our soldiers in terms civilians could relate to. I think it's too easy for many to pass judgment on soldiers' conduct while sitting comfortably away from the action, our lives not in danger.

If I were King I would decree that once the enemy violates Geneva, those constraints go out the window. If he shoots from a mosque, the mosque is no longer protected - that sort of thing. If he has just killed your best friend, don't capture him, kill him, and feel free to shoot him in the crotch before you do - get the idea?

Lightning Mate
11th Nov 2013, 17:29
There is no prize for coming second.

SHOOT TO KILL !

goudie
11th Nov 2013, 17:35
BenThere I'm right with you on that one. All this crap about rules is a bloody farce for the PC brigade.


The rule of war is, there ain't no rule. Kill as you will.

rgbrock1
11th Nov 2013, 17:42
Oh, I whole-heartedly agree with shooting to kill. But we aren't discussing about shooting an enemy combatant to death (or blowing his ass up) but with a combatant who was wounded and not yet dead.

And, yes, there are indeed "rules" in warfare. Or should it be quite alright to go into some little dorf in Afghanistan and mow down the entire family of an "insurgent"? No, I didn't think so.

VP959
11th Nov 2013, 17:50
You're right, Ben There, far, far too many of the huggy fluffs have absolutely no comprehension of the impact of ROEs, nor do they have any comprehension of the sheer bloody terror of coming under fire.

If some of these huggy fluffs ever came close to experiencing the wide range of emotions experienced in battle perhaps they'd understand that the ability of the human brain to continue to function rationally and follow normal moral guidance is impaired.

Although being critical of our monarchy is a national pastime, I believe that their willingness to put themselves at the sharp end and experience at least some of the experience of war makes them valued advisers to our government (if only they would listen). I have no time for HRH Prince Andrew, having had the misfortune to be in close proximity to him for a few months, but at least he was good at his job (when flying) and didn't flinch from doing his duty when required down south. The same goes for Prince Harry, who's sheer professionalism as a soldier, who has done whatever was needed when required, has undoubtedly given him a more balanced and rational view of the world.

The world would be a far better place if our leaders and politicians took heed of the advice they might get from those with direct experience of some recent conflicts. Perhaps then they might see that applying normal civvy rules of conduct are inapplicable in the type of conflicts we now seem to engage in.

Cacophonix
11th Nov 2013, 18:03
Kill as you will.

Well, in your mind perhaps but fortunately the British Army seems inclined to stick with the basis of international law so there is some cause for hope on this battered but sceptered isle after all!

Caco

G-CPTN
11th Nov 2013, 18:07
The problem here was the keeping of damning evidence (including a spoken confession be the perpetrator).

The SAS (one hopes) would have been more circumspect.

500N
11th Nov 2013, 18:09
Caco

I think they have gone the other way, away from the law in protecting the enemy combatants. Who else has ROE's like NATO where you can't fire on someone until fired upon ?

500N
11th Nov 2013, 18:11
VP

I think you can add Prince Phillip to that list.

I didn't realise but after Prince Charles was born, he had to go off to do his
Naval Duty and left HRH at home with the children.

Cacophonix
11th Nov 2013, 18:16
Who else has ROE's like NATO where you can't fire on someone until fired upon?

Well that's an interesting point but it really has no bearing on the essentials of this particular case 500N...

Caco

goudie
11th Nov 2013, 18:43
In a much less serious scenario can any one imagine playing a sport ie rugby, whereby one side ignores all the rules, commits foul after foul but aren't penalised for it. Then a member of the side, playing according to the rules, commits one foul and get's sent off. The rule abiding side do, of course, lose the match!
As I said, a far less serious situation but the principle's the same.

Lightning Mate
11th Nov 2013, 19:13
...the British Army seems inclined to stick with the basis of international law

AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM !!

Nervous SLF
11th Nov 2013, 19:40
I wonder what the people defending this guilty verdict will say when the next be-heading of a westerner appears.
As far as I am concerned war is war and anything goes to win it. These taliban don't have the guts to wear uniform,
they dress in civilian clothes and during past wars they would have been shot as spies anyway.
If those taliban scumbags can't take ( and it has been shown that they can't ) they should commit suicide.

radeng
11th Nov 2013, 19:54
When this kerfuffle started, I remember seeing a report where a Muslim went to the hospital in Birmingham, taking some grapes to a wounded soldier ( when the wards were open).

he asked " When you recover, will you go back and kill some more of my Muslim brotherhood Taliban?"

the solder replied, "Yes, if I have to"

The Muslim said "Then kill at least two more of the bastards for me!"

Oh dear! So non PC....

Cacophonix
11th Nov 2013, 20:20
will say when the next be-heading of a westerner appears

The civilised man would wish for justice to prevail and for our governments etc. not to kneejerk into precipitate action that will only undermine us as civilised humans and render us as stupid and barbaric as our enemy while not adding one iota to any hope of 'victory'..

Pissing on Korans and extra judicial killings of insurgents etc. does nothing to win this 'war' and is frankly shameful to the person who committed the crime, his/her regiment, the relevant nation while also giving succour to the enemy...

Caco

Cacophonix
11th Nov 2013, 20:42
These taliban don't have the guts to wear uniform

The Taleb (as you know) are a loosely affiliated group of tribesmen under different leaders, combined under local strong men or commanders, their religion and a common hatred of people they perceive to be invaders in their land...

They are not a regular army, will never wear uniforms not least because such a tactic would be totally contrary to their tactic of asymmetrical warfare against a vastly technologically superior enemy...

These people may be many things, brutal, medievally backward even but for the most part I suspect there are very few cowards amongst them...

For all our bluster, our commanders on the ground know that the Taleb will be there on the ground well after our troops have declared victory and left.

Caco

bosnich71
12th Nov 2013, 02:56
Caco ...." for all our bluster ..... the Taleb will be there on the ground well after our troops have declared victory and left".
Exactly and that is why the West should stay out of all third world s**t fights and let the Neanderthals sort it out themselves.
The only problem being is that, whether we, Britain etc., go to these places to help or not the B******s will all want to come and live in U.K. Funny that.

Mac the Knife
12th Nov 2013, 03:43
".......a loosely affiliated group of tribesmen under different leaders, combined under local strong men or commanders, their religion and a common hatred of people they perceive to be invaders in their land..."

They licked the British in 1842 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_retreat_from_Kabul

You'd have though people would learn....

First Afghan War - Battle of Kabul and Retreat to Gandamak (http://www.britishbattles.com/first-afghan-war/kabul-gandamak.htm)

Mac

:8

John Hill
12th Nov 2013, 04:42
From "A Study in Scarlet"....

Near the further end a low arched passage branched away from it and led to the chemical laboratory.This was a lofty chamber, lined and littered with countless bottles. Broad, low tables were scattered about, which bristled with retorts, test-tubes, and little Bunsen lamps, with their blue flickering flames. There was only one student in the room, who was bending over a distant table absorbed in his work. At the sound of our steps he glanced round and sprang to his feet with a cry of pleasure. "I've found it! I've found it," he shouted to my companion, running towards us with a test-tube in his hand. "I have found a re-agent which is precipitated by hoemoglobin, and by nothing else." Had he discovered a gold mine, greater delight could not have shone upon his features.

"Dr. Watson, Mr. Sherlock Holmes," said Stamford, introducing us.

BenThere
12th Nov 2013, 07:14
Have you converted, Caco? Shalom/Salaam.

Cacophonix
12th Nov 2013, 10:15
Have you converted, Caco? Shalom/Salaam.

Well Ben my maternal grandfather was Jewish so the Shalom is apposite and, no, I have not joined a mosque! ;)

Noting the realities in Afghanistan is not to favour the Taliban but to try and understand why we seem to be losing our wits and the lives of young people in Afghanistan for so little return on our investment in blood, treasure and our souls...

Caco

Lightning Mate
12th Nov 2013, 10:19
...why we seem to be losing our wits and the lives of young people in
Afghanistan for so little return on our investment in blood, treasure and our
souls...

That's because of the politicians who make these decisions.

They do not possess the attributes you state.

Blacksheep
12th Nov 2013, 12:29
They licked the British in 1842 But we returned and inflicted a huge genocide upon them in revenge. Of course, nobody in the British establishment had ever visited Geneva at the time, so it wasn't against the rules back then.

Mac the Knife
12th Nov 2013, 13:44
"But we returned and inflicted a huge genocide upon them in revenge."

A huge genocide?

A big statement for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Afghans were hanged in the Bala Hissar* (see - The Truth about the British and the Bala Hissar and the Second Anglo Afghan War (http://www.garenewing.co.uk/angloafghanwar/articles/balaHissar.php)) and elsewhere no doubt, but there was nothing even remotely approaching a "genocide" during the campaign.

Indeed, this would have completely negated British aims.

"Afghanistan occupied an anomalous position in the British Empire. The British did not seek to colonize it or conquer it. Rather, they sought to install a sovereign who would be sympathetic to British interests, allow the British to control Afghan foreign policy, and forbid Russia from entering its borders."
(see Zarena Aslami, ?The Second Anglo-Afghan War, or The Return of the Uninvited? | BRANCH (http://www.branchcollective.org/?ps_articles=zarena-aslami-the-second-anglo-afghan-war-or-the-return-of-the-uninvited))

I don't know about the present or the future, but I find it intensely irritating when folk pop up and make extravagant claims about what is in this case a very well documented past, without even a modicum of historical knowledge or research.

Mac

:*

*in response to the slaughter of Cavagnari and his embassy (see - DEFENCE OF THE KABUL RESIDENCY (http://glosters.tripod.com/guides.htm))

mtoroshanga
13th Nov 2013, 15:59
Frankly I feel he should have switched off the camera and stood on the scums throat so doing us all a favour!!