I'm reluctant to be too judgmental about the guy who went AWOL. He may have been young, naive and unduly influenced by family and cultural pressures. He has been found guilty and justice has been done.

To digress somewhat, while I have no doubt the vast majority of Muslims do not support the Muslim lunatic fringe, it would be reassuring to see a bit more condemnation of the latter by the former. Muslim clerics, who have a good deal of influence on the followers of Islam, should be more vociferous in their repudiation of Islamic terrorism. Perhaps someone with a good knowledge of Muslim thinking could explain (without going off on a bigoted rant) why Muslim leaders tend to sit on their hands in this respect.

Another Conscientious Objector!
 

Never been in the military (slightly screwed up with the rope and plamk at OASC!) but remain in awe of those who risk all for Queen and Country. Come the hour..come the man? BM

roboalbert,

an order from higher authority should always be executed.

when should you not obey an order then?

if you believe that you have the reason to disobey one then why oh why are you in the military?

enjoy your weekend, me old mucker. when the whistle peeps, over the top we shall go!

'green on!'

isitd

:ok:

Well, I-hang-around-in-doorways, if a nice chap with SS runes on his uniform had said to you "Open ziss tin marked Zyklon B und tip it down into zat room marked 'Showers' ", would you have replied "Jawohl, Herr Obersturmbahnfuehrer, zu befehl!" and obeyed such an order without question?

Hopefully not.

Conscience? I wonder. Or did he just want to avoid sand in his shoes.

Ummm! Only a few of the smarter ones have detected that this gentlemans arguement is fallacious
This muslim objection to killing another muslim does not seem to cause too many sleepless nights for the men women and children that fill the ranks of Al Queda, Mujahadin or hezbolallah. It most certainly didn't perturb Saddam Hussain unduly did it. Should christians object to killing fellow christians ???
If one is called to active service in the event of war, you have an obligation and an onerous one at that, irrespective of whether you disagree with the fight.
Throw the book at him. Who's paying his legal bills by the way??
FEBA

Because ISITD, I think a military that thinks about and questions why it is doing something is far more likely to be a motivated and successful fighting force. Why are our armed forces so successful – generally because they aren’t a bunch of mindless drones.

Fortunately I think the scenario that Beagle gave is unlikely to happen in the British Armed Forces – although judging by your first statement you’d be quite happy if it did.

I was quite happy about doing my bit in Afghanistan and Gulf II because it was my personal belief that the Taliban and Saddam & co were a bunch of f:mad:s that needed sorting out. However, I respect someone else’s right to disagree with me. As do current regulations so I believe.

No, not all orders have to be obeyed. According to the Queen's Regs (British Army law book) - if ordered to carry out an action that breaks the Geneva Convention you must refuse to carry it out. And further to that, the defence "I was only following orders" doesn't wash in any war crimes courts....

This doesn't apply to the Muslim RAF guy, there are no excuses for his "religous grounds" decision on as far as I'm concerned.:rolleyes:

BEagle,

hindsight is a wonderful thing, no? to disobey a direct order is ok in your book then?

Robo,

afghan' and GW2 were fun, no doubt. a chance to do what we train for and more but are you saying that if you disagreed with uk defence policy (going there in the first place) you wouldn't have gone? hardly old boy.

X Quork (?)

Only losers get done for war crimes.

top tip: go to war with the 'good guys'

dont have time to hang around in them - green on, go!

isitd





:}

Every member of the armed services has not only the right but the duty to refuse to obey an illegal order. Those giving such orders should be reported.

Every member also has the duty to obey a legal order. In opting to disobey an order an individual must be certain of the legality, or not, of the order and be prepared to accept the consequences of their action, including imprisonment.

It should be noted that conscientous objection is not a remit allowing someone not to serve, only not to kill. In WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam etc objectors accepted that they should serve. They filled many posts, particularly as medics and stretcher bearers, suffering heavy casualties and received numerous decorations.

Sub Judicae
 

I think we should all be extremely careful of not commenting or pre-judging the coutcome of the DCM (referred to herein this thread). We could be accused (in thought, if not deed) of being in contempt of court.

EC

I-hang-about-in-doorways, just read the comments made by X-quork and ORAC.

Most certainly it is incorrect to obey an unlawful order - even in an aeroplane. I was once told of a Nimrod first pilot who, having overshot at Decision Height was exhorted to 'take it a bit lower next time' by the navigator captain.....THAT is an illegal order. (Fortunately he just got out of his seat and said to the stupid ar$e - "OK, all yours, you do it!". Then they diverted!).

NOT commenting on the forthcoming DCM but to say that the whole GW2 saga was greatly unpopular with much of the nation and I know many in the Armed Forces harboured doubts about the legaity of the whole thing - although of course they did as ordered. To take this to DCM seems a huge risk; if the Crown loses, what precedent will this set?

Beagle
Since war is wholly immoral and a repugnant event, how can anyone object to it on moral grounds?
FEBA

Scud-U-Like
 

It is my belief that one of the reasons that leaders of the Muslims don't become outspoken about the lunatic fringe is because should they do so then they may well become the next target. This intimidatory tactic was used in Israel/Palestine from 1948 and has been used extensively in other Middle Eastern theatres.

Additionally of course they may just secretly support any terrorist action against the non-muslim!;)

Everyone bends religious dogma to their own ends. It being a sin to kill did not stop the IRA, nor were they excommunicated neither did it stop any of the conflicts mentioned previously.

Should throw the book at the little (deleted) and then throw the proverbial key away.

Re reserve commitment, glad I did the whole lot and therefore not liable. Would hate to be called up again and sent to play in the sand.

On the war crimes question, how come some former Yugoslavian is being done for killing some civilians whilst attacking a town, yet when the Americans kill people doing the same it counts as colateral damage. (Willing to accept further instruction on the last as I only hearde a brief report on the radio)

Conscription did not take place! Therefore a volunteer.
Changes mind when time to earn taxpayers dosh.
One C.Objector.+one bullet=problem solved.
Harsh but fair:p

FEBA

You wrote:
Since war is wholly immoral and a repugnant event, how can anyone object to it on moral grounds?

Please tell me that from someoone whose handle is FEBA that my tiredness at the end of a long day has just caused me to bite and that this is what you were trying to achieve.

On the off chance however that you are actually serious I weep for education system.

VT:ok:

Oh by the way just before ISITD does indeed go go go could I point out that not only is God not stillborn oops sorry Airborne God in fact is a QHI and the he only let man create fixed wing aircraft to satisfy those who couldn't quite master the helicopter

Vortex Thing
Perhaps completing it would improve your grammar.

As a courteous response to your rude posting allow me to clarify what I was trying to say. By signing up for military service you are condoning the defence of the national interest by force, are you not? Having agreed to your obligation in this regard, is it not hypocritical to then say that you cannot meet this obligation on moral grounds?
If you are a top notch football striker should you be able to refuse to play a critical match because some of your ex team mates are now on the other side?

As far as helicopters are concerned ...................

FEBA

Re the correction of my grammar. I think you'll find that if you put the keyboard down and step back from the keyboard you will in fact see the pun. Rather like when some wag says, 'you need edumacation like wot i 'ave.'

I would rather hope that a professional pilot such as yourself would be more than able to spot humour and maybe even add some witty repartie to your reply instead of bumbling into the elephant trap that is like wot you ave done innit.

Admittedly however my misspelling of someone was not an intention and that was merely a slip of the finger.

If it was your intention to imply that you agree with the statement that you posted to BEagle i.e. war is wholly immoral and a repugnant event, how can anyone object to it on moral grounds? etc' then you have achieved that. If however you intended to imply the opposite then you have singularly failed to do so.

It is more than obvious that most of us who signed up for military service did so knowing both the pros and cons. If this is your point I agree and I am sure that many on their next period off agree also.

This, however wasn't what you wrote and it is to that to which I posted my reply. So before this turns into an English grammar forum and we break down the syntatics, pragmatics and semantics of what was actually written. How's about you try stating what it is you are trying to say and then we can get back to posting our views on how much we think this guy should or should not be strung up.

My on the fence view is that if you take the queens shilling and then refuse to fight (other than in a situation where you are given an illegal order) you should be given the suitable 2pence worth of 5.56 mm treatment but hey that's just IMHO.

The Company will retire, aaaa bout turn. Ahh I think I hear sunset being played.....

Vortex Exarticulatus
Bollox
See me after class
Much better
0/10

You know exactly what I meant, so don't try to lecture me on semantics. Neither you nor I are equipped to enter into that debate, especially you. We both agree with the cut and thrust of this thread, so rather than enter into a petty squabble, which will only serve to divert attention from the core arguement of this thread, let's go to the bar and have a pint.
;)
FEBA