Our Boys Behaving Badly
Answer the question.....you are tap dancing!
You compared me to the SS....explain why you said that.
You compared me to the SS....explain why you said that.
How's that Gen.....it would seem you don't read or retain what is said in posts.
Did I not point out the contradiction between punishing Marine A....and not Apache Pilots who do the exact same thing.....killing the wounded?
If you are so adamant about killing the Enemy Wounded you would logically support my statement it would seem. As both the Marine and the Apache Pilots are killing wounded Taliban fighters.
I do wonder why you feel free to make an argument such as this....a personal attack rather than debate the issues.
Is it you don't get the Rules of the Forum just as you seem to be unable to grasp the reality of War and Politics?
Did I not point out the contradiction between punishing Marine A....and not Apache Pilots who do the exact same thing.....killing the wounded?
If you are so adamant about killing the Enemy Wounded you would logically support my statement it would seem. As both the Marine and the Apache Pilots are killing wounded Taliban fighters.
I do wonder why you feel free to make an argument such as this....a personal attack rather than debate the issues.
Is it you don't get the Rules of the Forum just as you seem to be unable to grasp the reality of War and Politics?
In my view, any comparison between SASless and the SS is invidious; it's too easy to make sweeping generalisations and tar(nish) everyone with the same brush.
To elaborate, I'm not convinced that the entire SS condoned the cold-blooded summary execution of incapacitated, unarmed POWs and the attempted concealment of such acts in the certain knowledge that they contravened the Geneva Convention and LOAC.
To elaborate, I'm not convinced that the entire SS condoned the cold-blooded summary execution of incapacitated, unarmed POWs and the attempted concealment of such acts in the certain knowledge that they contravened the Geneva Convention and LOAC.
There is an absolute and clear distinction between an Apache pilot carrying out a re-attack and this Royal Marine who committed murder.
There is clear and irrefutable evidence of Taliban getting away from Apache attacks who have returned to Helmand and carried out the fight by killing coalition soldiers. In this case, the Taliban is still a threat and is legally allowed to be re-attacked.
In the case of the Royal Marine, they went out to what they presumed to be a dead Taliban who had been legally attacked. If the Apache crew thought he was still a threat because he was trying to escape then they would have carried on the attack. The marines went out to investigate the post attack and found someone who was alive but injured, clearly not a threat and, had they followed procedures, would have been given first aid and possibly evacuated to a Hospital. This has been and will be done on countless occasions. The Royal, who clearly demonstrated on the tape that he knew what he was doing was against the GC etc, pulled the Taliban away from the PGSS and carried out what has been described by others but is in no way a legal form of a mercy killing.
This isn't just a normal war a la WW2 or Vietnam or Korea in which there was, at times, little regard for civilian casualties by any of the combatants. This is COIN centric where we are there to not only kill the Taliban but to try to leave some kind of infrastructure and rule of law, and as a result we have to play by the rules. Why you ask, because in not doing so, it would endanger the lives of many more coalition troops. I am sure that nobody would wish this but, given the media nowadays, this case damages even more our standing in Afghanistan and hinders our efforts.
Some people have described this as not a murder. Some people who really should know better given their background. They even harp on about the past where such atrocities were committed as if this is an excuse to do it now. I thought we learned about the past so not to commit further mistakes. It appears some still live in the past and refuse to learn. Thankfully, most if not all the people I have and continued to serve with in past and current conflicts do not have this kill at all costs and be damned the consequences.
I just wish that the Taliban in this case had been killed in the first instance then this sorry mess wouldn't have happened. That the Royal in question was a brave honourable soldier who served his country well is without question and I hope he and his family are well looked after. The moment he illegally committed murder, as is done unfortunately every day throughout the world by otherwise perfectly sane people who suddenly snap, he became an unfortunate statistic. Again, people will point to extenuating circumstances given the amount of ****e he will have encountered throughout his otherwise exemplary service. This is not an excuse. He is a well trained and professional SNCO who was a leader and example to those in his section.
His actions could have severely affected those under his command and could have serious repercussions for others in Afghanistan. We should not praise or condone what he did, but we should at least treat him with compassion for what was a momentary lapse in judgement that has destroyed his life.
There is clear and irrefutable evidence of Taliban getting away from Apache attacks who have returned to Helmand and carried out the fight by killing coalition soldiers. In this case, the Taliban is still a threat and is legally allowed to be re-attacked.
In the case of the Royal Marine, they went out to what they presumed to be a dead Taliban who had been legally attacked. If the Apache crew thought he was still a threat because he was trying to escape then they would have carried on the attack. The marines went out to investigate the post attack and found someone who was alive but injured, clearly not a threat and, had they followed procedures, would have been given first aid and possibly evacuated to a Hospital. This has been and will be done on countless occasions. The Royal, who clearly demonstrated on the tape that he knew what he was doing was against the GC etc, pulled the Taliban away from the PGSS and carried out what has been described by others but is in no way a legal form of a mercy killing.
This isn't just a normal war a la WW2 or Vietnam or Korea in which there was, at times, little regard for civilian casualties by any of the combatants. This is COIN centric where we are there to not only kill the Taliban but to try to leave some kind of infrastructure and rule of law, and as a result we have to play by the rules. Why you ask, because in not doing so, it would endanger the lives of many more coalition troops. I am sure that nobody would wish this but, given the media nowadays, this case damages even more our standing in Afghanistan and hinders our efforts.
Some people have described this as not a murder. Some people who really should know better given their background. They even harp on about the past where such atrocities were committed as if this is an excuse to do it now. I thought we learned about the past so not to commit further mistakes. It appears some still live in the past and refuse to learn. Thankfully, most if not all the people I have and continued to serve with in past and current conflicts do not have this kill at all costs and be damned the consequences.
I just wish that the Taliban in this case had been killed in the first instance then this sorry mess wouldn't have happened. That the Royal in question was a brave honourable soldier who served his country well is without question and I hope he and his family are well looked after. The moment he illegally committed murder, as is done unfortunately every day throughout the world by otherwise perfectly sane people who suddenly snap, he became an unfortunate statistic. Again, people will point to extenuating circumstances given the amount of ****e he will have encountered throughout his otherwise exemplary service. This is not an excuse. He is a well trained and professional SNCO who was a leader and example to those in his section.
His actions could have severely affected those under his command and could have serious repercussions for others in Afghanistan. We should not praise or condone what he did, but we should at least treat him with compassion for what was a momentary lapse in judgement that has destroyed his life.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toadstool
Also agreed. Very well said. I was nearly with you.
However.
"Some people have described this as not a murder. Some people who really should know better given their background. They even harp on about the past where such atrocities were committed as if this is an excuse to do it now. I thought we learned about the past so not to commit further mistakes. It appears some still live in the past and refuse to learn. Thankfully, most if not all the people I have and continued to serve with in past and current conflicts do not have this kill at all costs and be damned the consequences. "
This quote shows the problem.
You know those old wars, where we used to commit atrocities?
We used to win them.
These new wars where we generally obey the rules and the other side doesn't?
Not so much.
They don't think we are moral. They think we are weak.
If you are not willing to "win at all cost and be damned the consequences" then you have absolutely no business sending men like the Marine into combat.
We have nuclear weapons yet send a man to jail for shooting a bad guy!!
Talk about sending mixed signals, when it is perfectly normalised that we may have to wipe out entire cities of innocent people but bad guys with a hurty tummy are off limits!?
My honest opinion is that the rules of war are there to make the public feel happy and actually prolong war and suffering for everybody.
Some of the "greats" from the history of bad guys such as Genghis Khan had amazingly peaceful conquests and reigns due to the fact that after a couple of atrocities, nobody was willing to fight anymore.
Also agreed. Very well said. I was nearly with you.
However.
"Some people have described this as not a murder. Some people who really should know better given their background. They even harp on about the past where such atrocities were committed as if this is an excuse to do it now. I thought we learned about the past so not to commit further mistakes. It appears some still live in the past and refuse to learn. Thankfully, most if not all the people I have and continued to serve with in past and current conflicts do not have this kill at all costs and be damned the consequences. "
This quote shows the problem.
You know those old wars, where we used to commit atrocities?
We used to win them.
These new wars where we generally obey the rules and the other side doesn't?
Not so much.
They don't think we are moral. They think we are weak.
If you are not willing to "win at all cost and be damned the consequences" then you have absolutely no business sending men like the Marine into combat.
We have nuclear weapons yet send a man to jail for shooting a bad guy!!
Talk about sending mixed signals, when it is perfectly normalised that we may have to wipe out entire cities of innocent people but bad guys with a hurty tummy are off limits!?
My honest opinion is that the rules of war are there to make the public feel happy and actually prolong war and suffering for everybody.
Some of the "greats" from the history of bad guys such as Genghis Khan had amazingly peaceful conquests and reigns due to the fact that after a couple of atrocities, nobody was willing to fight anymore.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 82
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
To correct a common misconception, we are not at war with Afghanistan. We are trying to assist the elected government of the Godforsaken place in restoring a semblance of peace and stability after centuries of tribal infighting.
To correct a common misconception, we are not at war with Afghanistan. We are trying to assist the elected government of the Godforsaken place in restoring a semblance of peace and stability after centuries of tribal infighting.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Tourist, at last a balance and a line I can agree with.
Perhaps another "old war" practice we can resurrect is the banning of all personal cameras etc by military personnel whilst on duty unless specifically approved. Sadly, it seems that many youngsters today are unable to say or do anything without proudly announcing it to the world, so such a ban may prove impossible to impose.
My calling card was a bucket of sunshine so the quote "resonates" for me.
Perhaps another "old war" practice we can resurrect is the banning of all personal cameras etc by military personnel whilst on duty unless specifically approved. Sadly, it seems that many youngsters today are unable to say or do anything without proudly announcing it to the world, so such a ban may prove impossible to impose.
My calling card was a bucket of sunshine so the quote "resonates" for me.
We have nuclear weapons yet send a man to jail for shooting a bad guy!!
Talk about sending mixed signals, when it is perfectly normalised that we may have to wipe out entire cities of innocent people but bad guys with a hurty tummy are off limits!?
Talk about sending mixed signals, when it is perfectly normalised that we may have to wipe out entire cities of innocent people but bad guys with a hurty tummy are off limits!?
Gen.....you must get out more often....if you do not consider Afghanistan a War....pray tell what it takes for there to be a "War"?
You seem quite happy with Drone Attacks on Weddings....SpecOps units doing direct action raids that have the goal of killing everyone present.....embrace Attack Helicopters hunting down Enemy Combatants and popping off Cannon Rounds and Hellfire missiles at plainly wounded enemy....but for some reason take great exception to a Grunt tapping out a wounded enemy.
You compared me to the SS....yet I am the one that is equating those other killings to that of the Marine. Don't you see the contradiction between my position and yours....where I lay a more stringent burden on those pulling triggers than you do.
You seem quite happy with Drone Attacks on Weddings....SpecOps units doing direct action raids that have the goal of killing everyone present.....embrace Attack Helicopters hunting down Enemy Combatants and popping off Cannon Rounds and Hellfire missiles at plainly wounded enemy....but for some reason take great exception to a Grunt tapping out a wounded enemy.
You compared me to the SS....yet I am the one that is equating those other killings to that of the Marine. Don't you see the contradiction between my position and yours....where I lay a more stringent burden on those pulling triggers than you do.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Genstabler
Any conflict that has gone on for a decade and bankrupted our nations military, leaving us in unbelievably weakened state is a war in my book no matter what your politicians double speak may say.
Go tell the families of the dead soldiers that " it isn't a war"
Any conflict that has gone on for a decade and bankrupted our nations military, leaving us in unbelievably weakened state is a war in my book no matter what your politicians double speak may say.
Go tell the families of the dead soldiers that " it isn't a war"
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 82
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
If you have not learned the difference between war and lesser forms of armed conflict during your time in uniform, then your education has been woefully neglected. We were not at war in N Ireland but I lost a good few friends there and nearly my own life. However, I never considered bombing the Creggan.
If you have not learned the difference between war and lesser forms of armed conflict during your time in uniform, then your education has been woefully neglected. We were not at war in N Ireland but I lost a good few friends there and nearly my own life. However, I never considered bombing the Creggan.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many did old boy.
However like most comments on this forum they reflected deep held passions and grievances etc. and were known to be impossible for many reasons, legality amongst them. The same applies to the sensitive subjects of marine A and the real sh1te killers of Lee Rigby(or should I say alleged killers)) People will hold a view (I do) which is not supported by our laws, ROE and so on, . We also know that the opinions do not or may not match official thinking. To dismiss someones opinion because a "war" does not exist because our pollies have not declared the situation as such is sheer nonsense and shows an inability to think beyond the "rules". If you fully support and agree with them so be it.......if you don't do something about it.
I suspect when people refer to the Afghanistan War they are referring to the "war" with the taliban and various terrorist insurgents
However like most comments on this forum they reflected deep held passions and grievances etc. and were known to be impossible for many reasons, legality amongst them. The same applies to the sensitive subjects of marine A and the real sh1te killers of Lee Rigby(or should I say alleged killers)) People will hold a view (I do) which is not supported by our laws, ROE and so on, . We also know that the opinions do not or may not match official thinking. To dismiss someones opinion because a "war" does not exist because our pollies have not declared the situation as such is sheer nonsense and shows an inability to think beyond the "rules". If you fully support and agree with them so be it.......if you don't do something about it.
I suspect when people refer to the Afghanistan War they are referring to the "war" with the taliban and various terrorist insurgents
Last edited by Romeo Oscar Golf; 8th Dec 2013 at 17:14. Reason: semantics "valid" deleted the Gen is correct
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that British ministers happen to have not decided to call it a war due to the modern world taking time to catch up with the realities on non-state conflict matters not to me because I am intelligent and think for myself.
Note, I use the word intelligent rather than staff college educated/ reduced to regurgitating pat phrases.
Incidentally, Americans do think it is a war, albeit a war on something pronounced "terrr"
p.s.
You mention N.Ireland.
We certainly didn't win there.
Perhaps if we'd bombed....
Note, I use the word intelligent rather than staff college educated/ reduced to regurgitating pat phrases.
Incidentally, Americans do think it is a war, albeit a war on something pronounced "terrr"
p.s.
You mention N.Ireland.
We certainly didn't win there.
Perhaps if we'd bombed....
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 82
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry, old boy, but you confuse me. What is a "valid" opinion which I apparently dismiss so nonsensically? An opinion is a personal view that everyone has. It can no more be valid than it can be green. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, though some would be better advised to keep them quiet. I object to no ones opinion. I disagree with many though, and that also is my right.
Deeply held passions and grievances are the direct cause of most of the murder and mayhem throughout the world. It is civilisation with its commitment to law, order, morality and humanity which we depend on to moderate the evil that they can so often generate.
Please don't contemptuously dismiss the moral high ground either. If we do not seize and hold it, we cannot, and don't deserve to, prevail against chaos and evil.
Deeply held passions and grievances are the direct cause of most of the murder and mayhem throughout the world. It is civilisation with its commitment to law, order, morality and humanity which we depend on to moderate the evil that they can so often generate.
Please don't contemptuously dismiss the moral high ground either. If we do not seize and hold it, we cannot, and don't deserve to, prevail against chaos and evil.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 82
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist
For a self styled intelligent person you can be really obtuse! However, I find your posts very entertaining and you are never boring, which is probably more than I can say for myself, pat phrase regurgitating staff college graduate that I am.
Dare I ask you one more question. You say we didn't win, what I presume you would classify as a war, in N Ireland. What result would you have called a win?
For a self styled intelligent person you can be really obtuse! However, I find your posts very entertaining and you are never boring, which is probably more than I can say for myself, pat phrase regurgitating staff college graduate that I am.
Dare I ask you one more question. You say we didn't win, what I presume you would classify as a war, in N Ireland. What result would you have called a win?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please don't contemptuously dismiss the moral high ground either
What result would you have called a win?
staff college graduate that I am.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless... do you know what the word PRISONER means?
NONE of those men in the Apache video were prisoners... none of them had been disarmed and taken into physical custody! They were not prisoners!
The man Marine murdered HAD been disarmed and taken into physical custody! He was a prisoner!
If you can't understand that difference, then you certainly have a severe mental defect.
NONE of those men in the Apache video were prisoners... none of them had been disarmed and taken into physical custody! They were not prisoners!
The man Marine murdered HAD been disarmed and taken into physical custody! He was a prisoner!
If you can't understand that difference, then you certainly have a severe mental defect.