"I've just broken the Geneva convention"
Discussion
TheSnitch said:
Generally speaking, people engaged in a ''mercy killing'' do not accompany it with the words:
I agree, but we've only heard the audio. I wasn't trying to excuse the killing or any of those involved, but one officer did treat the injured and subsequently killed chap.convicted marine said:
"There you are, shuffle off this mortal coil, you 
. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us."
. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us."A chap that had doused himself in flammable liquid died after being tasered in Devon a few months ago. The IPCC came out with four possible scenarios that could include the use of the taser and the subsequent death, so I was just hypothesising, pondering what may have happened when that insurgent was killed. As headcams were trialled there it's a real shame with hindsight that those officers there weren't equipped with headcams as like in this conviction of the Royal Marine, the evidence would be there and the IPCC wouldn't have be suggesting four possible scenarios.
I'm not sure if I've gone too off thread there as the military and police both have powers, laws and weapons and require our trust and respect and in each incident someone died after the use of weapons. I maybe ploughing a headcams are beneficial furrow.
Edited by carinaman on Saturday 9th November 03:07
Chimune said:
desolate said:
tom2019 said:
Why should only one side play by the rules?
It's the rules we are fighting for. So if we break them why bother?How can we oust the taliban from Afghanistan given the support from within Pakistan, a place we give aid to?
We give aid to Pakistan a country that supports the taliban while quibbling about killing those that could have been funded, armed and supported from Pakistan? It's like some dated US foreign policy in terms of irrational wrong headedness.
We give aid to Pakistan a country that supports the taliban while quibbling about killing those that could have been funded, armed and supported from Pakistan? It's like some dated US foreign policy in terms of irrational wrong headedness.
pete a said:
Wow there are a lot more cus cus eaters here than I imagined, it's war , they are trained to kill and dumped the other side of the world to kill Taliban ,
How and when is clearly spelt out in training and orientation exercises before they go,together with the rules of engagement which they all get issued with. This guy acted as judge jury and executioner, which is way above his remit,and he clearly knew it both before and after he shot him, disgrace to the badge.Edited by berlintaxi on Saturday 9th November 07:22
He was a fool, he could have got away with it - "he was still alive and reached for his weapon, so I shot him in the face". Discussing it was stupid. I can understand why he did it though. Unless you've been in that position I don't think any of us have the right to judge.
Also, we have signed up to the Geneva Convention, I don't believe the taliban have.... we have to abide by the rules we set. Having said that, I'm sure this happens quite often. I believe this only came to light because the Police had other reasons to take a look at the videos on the laptop, so someone outside of the Marines got involved.
Also, we have signed up to the Geneva Convention, I don't believe the taliban have.... we have to abide by the rules we set. Having said that, I'm sure this happens quite often. I believe this only came to light because the Police had other reasons to take a look at the videos on the laptop, so someone outside of the Marines got involved.
pete a said:
Wow there are a lot more cus cus eaters here than I imagined, it's war , they are trained to kill and dumped the other side of the world to kill Taliban , then they kill one at the wrong moment and you lot are all "that's really not the spirit of things dear chap, we like our killing done nice and sportingly on our behalf"
I'm not a cus cus eater and I didn't realise it was simply a sport?It's called Murder.
Let me spell that out for you.
The soldier shot a defenceless man through the chest and killed him.
He didn't shoot him in a battle.
His actions were clear.
He committed murder.
Does that help?
And if I sound patronising, I'm simply joining your club.
HoHoHo said:
Derek Smith said:
Condemn the actions but accept that the soldier might not have been a monster before the war. He might be a product of circumstances and experience.
Interesting post Derek.Your last sentence begs the question - are we supporting our soldiers in their time of need, what do we need to do to help them?
God only knows what some of these guys (and women) have seen
Zeeky said:
HoHoHo said:
Derek Smith said:
Condemn the actions but accept that the soldier might not have been a monster before the war. He might be a product of circumstances and experience.
Interesting post Derek.Your last sentence begs the question - are we supporting our soldiers in their time of need, what do we need to do to help them?
God only knows what some of these guys (and women) have seen
I was simply referring to soldiers in this instance.
I don't see what the fuss is about. He should be commended for destroying the enemy so thoroughly. For being resolute and merciless when other men would cower.
Maybe if the Geneva Convention didn't have our soldiers crawling about in the field like a bunch of scared Boy Scouts the enemy would think twice about having at them.
Maybe if the Geneva Convention didn't have our soldiers crawling about in the field like a bunch of scared Boy Scouts the enemy would think twice about having at them.
The soldier also knew it was murder, stated on tape that it was murder by referencing the breaking of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of injured patients. His colleagues also supported his action and covered them up.
So what has happened to the two other marines? If this was done on the streets of London they would be facing murder charges under joint enterprise. I hope they are kicked out.
I'm ex forces myself and I do not support these guys. The fact that they've kept the film to show colleagues what they did makes me very angry. It smacks of an acceptance of this behaviour. Makes you wonder how many other videos are out there.
Kill the enemy in battle. Never stoop to their level.
Makes you wonder how premeditated this whole thing was.
So what has happened to the two other marines? If this was done on the streets of London they would be facing murder charges under joint enterprise. I hope they are kicked out.
I'm ex forces myself and I do not support these guys. The fact that they've kept the film to show colleagues what they did makes me very angry. It smacks of an acceptance of this behaviour. Makes you wonder how many other videos are out there.
Kill the enemy in battle. Never stoop to their level.
Makes you wonder how premeditated this whole thing was.
HoHoHo said:
The soldier shot a defenceless man through the chest and killed him.
He didn't shoot him in a battle.
His actions were clear.
He committed murder.
Applying all sorts of fancy West European war rules into an AsianHe didn't shoot him in a battle.
His actions were clear.
He committed murder.
fight to the death seems strange and pointless to me.
I am sure the Taliban don't play by the same rules that we like to.
Helmand province isn't Frinton.
This kind of thing went on many times on the Eastern Front and
in the Far East in WW2.
I would have thought a far more suitable way to deal with the problem
would be for his commanding officer to have a quiet word with him
about not doing it again.
Baryonyx said:
I don't see what the fuss is about. He should be commended for destroying the enemy so thoroughly. For being resolute and merciless when other men would cower.
Maybe if the Geneva Convention didn't have our soldiers crawling about in the field like a bunch of scared Boy Scouts the enemy would think twice about having at them.
Maybe if the Geneva Convention didn't have our soldiers crawling about in the field like a bunch of scared Boy Scouts the enemy would think twice about having at them.
Zeeky said:
HoHoHo said:
Derek Smith said:
Condemn the actions but accept that the soldier might not have been a monster before the war. He might be a product of circumstances and experience.
Interesting post Derek.Your last sentence begs the question - are we supporting our soldiers in their time of need, what do we need to do to help them?
God only knows what some of these guys (and women) have seen
There is a big difference between someone who works behind the counter at the Post Office being a product of their experience and a soldier being trained to kill. After all, they have to do something that we cannot: kill on order and not self defence.
I would assume that part of the training and the experiences of war desensitises them. The difference is that in the former it is deliberate. The government trains them to do this sort of thing but only up to a point. I think the line in the sand moves irrecoverably as experiences build up. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to work out that any group of soldiers will look to themselves. The first imperative is to protect your mate.
Should you look through the scope of a rifle at some bloke 100 yards away and think that if you pull the trigger there will be children without a father, a wife without a husband, a family without income? What about the drone pilot who flies his plane into a taxi? What about the cabbie?
I don't know whether soldiers think about collateral damage when they are under attack or if their first thoughts are towards defending themselves regardless.
We ask soldiers to kill on our behalf. I can't believe that the experience of killing doesn't in some way affect a considerable percentage of them. I'm with HoHoHo in wondering what needs to be done to protect them from the fallout of their work.
dcb said:
HoHoHo said:
The soldier shot a defenceless man through the chest and killed him.
He didn't shoot him in a battle.
His actions were clear.
He committed murder.
Applying all sorts of fancy West European war rules into an AsianHe didn't shoot him in a battle.
His actions were clear.
He committed murder.
fight to the death seems strange and pointless to me.
I am sure the Taliban don't play by the same rules that we like to.
Helmand province isn't Frinton.
This kind of thing went on many times on the Eastern Front and
in the Far East in WW2.
I would have thought a far more suitable way to deal with the problem
would be for his commanding officer to have a quiet word with him
about not doing it again.
I fully understand the enemy don't play by the same rules.
However we have to and it's important that we do. We are a civilised nation, not a bunch of ruthless animals with a total disgregard for human life.
If the Taliban shot your son in this fashion and the Taliban soldier captured, would you still suggest this is acceptable and part of the game or would you want him to face a court of law and face a murder charge?
What support does Marine A need to prevent him killing someone, hors de combat and in cold blood whilst referring to the Rules that forbid it? Sensitivity doesn't appear to be relevant.
Edit:- The Taliban are bound by the same rules regarding the killing of persons hors de combat as the Allies.
Edit:- The Taliban are bound by the same rules regarding the killing of persons hors de combat as the Allies.
Edited by Zeeky on Saturday 9th November 09:03
pete a said:
Wow there are a lot more cus cus eaters here than I imagined, it's war , they are trained to kill and dumped the other side of the world to kill Taliban , then they kill one at the wrong moment and you lot are all "that's really not the spirit of things dear chap, we like our killing done nice and sportingly on our behalf"
It is war, however there are rules of war. The fact that the Taliban would not comply does not mean we should not. We are supposed to be fighting for what is right, and that means doing what is right and just. Indeed, we should be whiter than white.
However that said, I believe we lost all ability to claim any moral superiority when Guantanamo Bay exists.
Jasandjules said:
It is war, however there are rules of war.
The fact that the Taliban would not comply does not mean we should not. We are supposed to be fighting for what is right, and that means doing what is right and just. Indeed, we should be whiter than white.
However that said, I believe we lost all ability to claim any moral superiority when Guantanamo Bay exists.
I do not feel that we should demand of our soldiers that they are whiter than white, merely conform to the laws and sops. We've already put extraordinary demands on them. Risking their lives and health. We can't ask them to maintain unreasonable standards of conduct. White, I think, is enough.The fact that the Taliban would not comply does not mean we should not. We are supposed to be fighting for what is right, and that means doing what is right and just. Indeed, we should be whiter than white.
However that said, I believe we lost all ability to claim any moral superiority when Guantanamo Bay exists.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff