"I've just broken the Geneva convention"
Discussion
tom2019 said:
HoHoHo said:
We are civilised and treat human beings with respect.
They are not and don't.
And your point is?
I think the point is some dont deserve respect.They are not and don't.
And your point is?
If you wish to live in a society with that mindset that's fine.
I would suggest most wouldn't, and I for one am happy with the latter.
tom2019 said:
HoHoHo said:
We are civilised and treat human beings with respect.
They are not and don't.
And your point is?
I think the point is some dont deserve respect.They are not and don't.
And your point is?
blueg33 said:
So who judges which individual deserves respect? For all anyone knows that particular insurgent was only fighting because his family are under threat, and if he saw a wounded British soldier he might just apply some first aid and then go. Would that mean he still deserves to be executed?
Its simple if you treat other people with respect then you deserve respect. HoHoHo said:
odyssey2200 said:
If the roles had been reversed, would the insurgent have treated the soldier in accordance with the GC or would he have been executed on video for the brothers?
We are civilised and treat human beings with respect.They are not and don't.
And your point is?
What they did was wrong, no idea how I would have reacted or what I'd turn into after a spell of action and enemy contact. (probably would just have been in a ditch pissing my pants and crying like a baby) as I'm no hero. The whole thing saddens me, war is nasty and makes cold bloodied killers out of men.
We cannot expect to put our forces in these situations and not be ready for some of this stuff to happen, doesn't make it right just predictable.
We cannot expect to put our forces in these situations and not be ready for some of this stuff to happen, doesn't make it right just predictable.
tom2019 said:
blueg33 said:
So who judges which individual deserves respect? For all anyone knows that particular insurgent was only fighting because his family are under threat, and if he saw a wounded British soldier he might just apply some first aid and then go. Would that mean he still deserves to be executed?
Its simple if you treat other people with respect then you deserve respect. The answer is - that you are not in that position and neither were the marines in question, otherwise their defence would have been much more robust.
The Marines are not Judge, Jury and Executioner. Your supposition that the insurgent derserved to die means that you believe that you are in a position to to make that judgement.
I suggest that you are not in that position and neither were the marines, otherwise the court martial would have had a different outcome.
Edited by blueg33 on Friday 8th November 20:27
BBC News said:
In one conversation between Marine A and C about shooting the man, one serviceman is overheard asking "Anyone want to give first aid to this idiot?" before another replies loudly "Nope."
In another, Marine C was heard asking A if he should shoot the man in the head, but Marine A said that would be too "obvious".
Those are not the actions of someone acting in the heat of the moment. This enemy combatant was lying in a field after being hit by Apache gunfire, who knows what he was thinking - but to have three grunts come up, discuss if they should bother helping him then to all intents and purposes, execute him... I can see why the jury came to their decision.In another, Marine C was heard asking A if he should shoot the man in the head, but Marine A said that would be too "obvious".
The thing is, I'm no leftie either - I wholeheartedly support our Armed Forces, the vast, overwhelming majority of whom are doing a hard job in horrible circumstances that I couldn't even begin to imagine, but - as with everything, there are one or two bad ones, and going by everything that has been released so far, it sounds like the three of these were out for blood and this wounded Afghan was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Mr Happy said:
Those are not the actions of someone acting in the heat of the moment. This enemy combatant was lying in a field after being hit by Apache gunfire, who knows what he was thinking - but to have three grunts come up, discuss if they should bother helping him then to all intents and purposes, execute him... I can see why the jury came to their decision.
The thing is, I'm no leftie either - I wholeheartedly support our Armed Forces, the vast, overwhelming majority of whom are doing a hard job in horrible circumstances that I couldn't even begin to imagine, but - as with everything, there are one or two bad ones, and going by everything that has been released so far, it sounds like the three of these were out for blood and this wounded Afghan was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I have to agree. Our armed forces have a certain mandate and I support our armed forces and respect the job they do, even if I dont agree with the political decisions behind the conflicts they are sent into. The thing is, I'm no leftie either - I wholeheartedly support our Armed Forces, the vast, overwhelming majority of whom are doing a hard job in horrible circumstances that I couldn't even begin to imagine, but - as with everything, there are one or two bad ones, and going by everything that has been released so far, it sounds like the three of these were out for blood and this wounded Afghan was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
However the mandate of our armed forces does not cover cold blooded murder of unarmed, injured, enemy combatants.
Regardless of whether you think the enemy combatant would have done the same in a similar situation. Regardless of whether you think they deserved it. Our armed forces are duty bound to abide by the geneva convention (the rules of which our nation helped to forge and which we have agreed to fully abide by).
blueg33 said:
How do you know that the man who was murdered did not deserve respect? How are you in a position to make that judgement?
The answer is - that you are not in that position and neither were the marines in question, otherwise their defence would have been much more robust.
The Marines are not Judge, Jury and Executioner. Your supposition that the insurgent derserved to die means that you believe that you are in a position to to make that judgement.
I suggest that you are not in that position and neither were the marines, otherwise the court martial would have had a different outcome.
They are part of an organisation that carry barbaric punishments to anyone who opposes them if they felt so strongly about respecting people they would have nothing to do with that organisation would they?The answer is - that you are not in that position and neither were the marines in question, otherwise their defence would have been much more robust.
The Marines are not Judge, Jury and Executioner. Your supposition that the insurgent derserved to die means that you believe that you are in a position to to make that judgement.
I suggest that you are not in that position and neither were the marines, otherwise the court martial would have had a different outcome.
Edited by blueg33 on Friday 8th November 20:27
tom2019 said:
They are part of an organisation that carry barbaric punishments to anyone who opposes them if they felt so strongly about respecting people they would have nothing to do with that organisation would they?
As I said, it's about education.That's why the Taliban shot the young girl treated in the UK earlier this year, they are frightened of education.
tom2019 said:
They are part of an organisation that carry barbaric punishments to anyone who opposes them if they felt so strongly about respecting people they would have nothing to do with that organisation would they?
I jsut don't think its ever quite that simple. They are part of an organisation that holds family members as hostages, that uses propaganda to encourage people to fight foreign invaders.You cannot judge the character of one man based solely on the actions of his organisation.
Otherwise we could say that every policeman is a lying fraudster, every miner is a militant trade unionist who condones threatening company directors.
TBH you are pretty naieve if you think things are that black and white. Its precisely because they are not black and white that we have a process of trial.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff