"I've just broken the Geneva convention"
Discussion
A lot of folk here spouting ROE etc like its a blanket rule. How many of you knew that ROE is subjective and depends on where you are? ROE is different all over Afghanistan dependent on population type and focus of reconstruction vs interdiction or disruption.
In Lashkar Gah, Kabul and Kandahar its a very strict ROE that pretty much stops you from shooting anything, even if you're being shot at. This is due to the density of population and risk to non-combatants (50cal generally doesnt stop with the first thing it hits). Obviously if the situation justifies it you can hose down any f
ker who doesn't 'wish you good health' (so long as you've first given a verbal or visual warning, fired a mini-flare at them, then fired a couple of warning shots into the ground to their front), ie suicide bomber, VBIED etc. Whilst i was in Lash we had very few opportunities to use weapons in accordance with the ROE and when we did it was only for the above situations. Frustrating when faced with 'dickers' and fighting age men carrying weapons.
Down south around the Fish-hook / Garmsir (2006 / 2007 when i was there) the rule was you could shoot anything that moved, or didn't move but looked suspect. You could drop bombs on shadows if you thought it was worth it and even kill people asleep in their beds if you came across them on patrol. Reason for this rule was because the area was deemed to be clear of innocents and anybody seen in the area was sure to be IF / AQ. This did change when the yanks took over the area as they rebuilt the town and the locals moved back in. Places like Sangin, Musaqala and Nowzad in the earlier days were also a free for all shoot-em-up before the reconstruction took place. Not so now.
I believe now most areas are covered by strict ROE but some of the more remote areas of operation and places further south than Garmsir still have a pretty slack ticket. It really depends what the job is in that area and what the intel says about who you might meet.
In Lashkar Gah, Kabul and Kandahar its a very strict ROE that pretty much stops you from shooting anything, even if you're being shot at. This is due to the density of population and risk to non-combatants (50cal generally doesnt stop with the first thing it hits). Obviously if the situation justifies it you can hose down any f
ker who doesn't 'wish you good health' (so long as you've first given a verbal or visual warning, fired a mini-flare at them, then fired a couple of warning shots into the ground to their front), ie suicide bomber, VBIED etc. Whilst i was in Lash we had very few opportunities to use weapons in accordance with the ROE and when we did it was only for the above situations. Frustrating when faced with 'dickers' and fighting age men carrying weapons. Down south around the Fish-hook / Garmsir (2006 / 2007 when i was there) the rule was you could shoot anything that moved, or didn't move but looked suspect. You could drop bombs on shadows if you thought it was worth it and even kill people asleep in their beds if you came across them on patrol. Reason for this rule was because the area was deemed to be clear of innocents and anybody seen in the area was sure to be IF / AQ. This did change when the yanks took over the area as they rebuilt the town and the locals moved back in. Places like Sangin, Musaqala and Nowzad in the earlier days were also a free for all shoot-em-up before the reconstruction took place. Not so now.
I believe now most areas are covered by strict ROE but some of the more remote areas of operation and places further south than Garmsir still have a pretty slack ticket. It really depends what the job is in that area and what the intel says about who you might meet.
I don't support his actions but i can sympathise with certain aspects of the situation they were in. Pretty sure it's not an isolated case and ranks from all services are probably deleting thier hard drives off the back of this.
I was a Royal Marine. 1998 to 2008
Served in Afghanistan, Iraq and various other places.
Yeah, 'war is hell'.
I was a Royal Marine. 1998 to 2008
Served in Afghanistan, Iraq and various other places.
Yeah, 'war is hell'.
Edited by ecain63 on Tuesday 10th December 08:26
V8 Fettler said:
The courts generally regard it as a crime committed by the defeated forces. The ferocious fighting between the Canadians and the SS in Normandy did indeed arise from retaliation. It is a myth that WW2 in the west was some form of gentlemen's combat fought between gentlemen, Anzio was reported to be every bit as nasty as Stalingrad, albeit on a smaller scale.
I don't get the argument of its been done before so we should let him off with it.If you car was nicked would you be perfectly happy if plod popped round and said
"Cars have been stolen before so we are just going to ignore your car being stolen"
Vipers said:
I wonder how you would cope seeing your comrades being killed, their limbs hung up as trophies, easy to say sitting at home and say things "Failing of professionalism" and some bloody judge saying they insurgents should be treated with dignity and humanity.
Quite possibly I'd perform very poorly. In fact I probably would - I wouldn't expect to be competent in a field where I've had very little training. Most of the soldiers I've met have impressed a level of respect that I have for few others - almost entirely because of their ability to control their aggression.I'm sure that is very tricky to do after seeing your mates killed, which is why, as Derek Smith said quite some time ago, we should condemn the act, not the man. Showing him the understanding he deserves doesn't mean pretending what he did was okay.
Edited by paranoid airbag on Tuesday 10th December 12:01
McWigglebum4th said:
V8 Fettler said:
The courts generally regard it as a crime committed by the defeated forces. The ferocious fighting between the Canadians and the SS in Normandy did indeed arise from retaliation. It is a myth that WW2 in the west was some form of gentlemen's combat fought between gentlemen, Anzio was reported to be every bit as nasty as Stalingrad, albeit on a smaller scale.
I don't get the argument of its been done before so we should let him off with it.If you car was nicked would you be perfectly happy if plod popped round and said
"Cars have been stolen before so we are just going to ignore your car being stolen"
ecain63 said:
A lot of folk here spouting ROE etc like its a blanket rule. How many of you knew that ROE is subjective and depends on where you are? ROE is different all over Afghanistan dependent on population type and focus of reconstruction vs interdiction or disruption.
In Lashkar Gah, Kabul and Kandahar its a very strict ROE that pretty much stops you from shooting anything, even if you're being shot at. This is due to the density of population and risk to non-combatants (50cal generally doesnt stop with the first thing it hits). Obviously if the situation justifies it you can hose down any fker who doesn't 'wish you good health' (so long as you've first given a verbal or visual warning, fired a mini-flare at them, then fired a couple of warning shots into the ground to their front), ie suicide bomber, VBIED etc. Whilst i was in Lash we had very few opportunities to use weapons in accordance with the ROE and when we did it was only for the above situations. Frustrating when faced with 'dickers' and fighting age men carrying weapons.
Down south around the Fish-hook / Garmsir (2006 / 2007 when i was there) the rule was you could shoot anything that moved, or didn't move but looked suspect. You could drop bombs on shadows if you thought it was worth it and even kill people asleep in their beds if you came across them on patrol. Reason for this rule was because the area was deemed to be clear of innocents and anybody seen in the area was sure to be IF / AQ. This did change when the yanks took over the area as they rebuilt the town and the locals moved back in. Places like Sangin, Musaqala and Nowzad in the earlier days were also a free for all shoot-em-up before the reconstruction took place. Not so now.
I believe now most areas are covered by strict ROE but some of the more remote areas of operation and places further south than Garmsir still have a pretty slack ticket. It really depends what the job is in that area and what the intel says about who you might meet.
Extremes in variation|In Lashkar Gah, Kabul and Kandahar its a very strict ROE that pretty much stops you from shooting anything, even if you're being shot at. This is due to the density of population and risk to non-combatants (50cal generally doesnt stop with the first thing it hits). Obviously if the situation justifies it you can hose down any f
ker who doesn't 'wish you good health' (so long as you've first given a verbal or visual warning, fired a mini-flare at them, then fired a couple of warning shots into the ground to their front), ie suicide bomber, VBIED etc. Whilst i was in Lash we had very few opportunities to use weapons in accordance with the ROE and when we did it was only for the above situations. Frustrating when faced with 'dickers' and fighting age men carrying weapons. Down south around the Fish-hook / Garmsir (2006 / 2007 when i was there) the rule was you could shoot anything that moved, or didn't move but looked suspect. You could drop bombs on shadows if you thought it was worth it and even kill people asleep in their beds if you came across them on patrol. Reason for this rule was because the area was deemed to be clear of innocents and anybody seen in the area was sure to be IF / AQ. This did change when the yanks took over the area as they rebuilt the town and the locals moved back in. Places like Sangin, Musaqala and Nowzad in the earlier days were also a free for all shoot-em-up before the reconstruction took place. Not so now.
I believe now most areas are covered by strict ROE but some of the more remote areas of operation and places further south than Garmsir still have a pretty slack ticket. It really depends what the job is in that area and what the intel says about who you might meet.
paranoid airbag said:
I'm sure that is very tricky to do after seeing your mates killed, which is why, as Derek Smith said quite some time ago, we should condemn the act, not the man. Showing him the understanding he deserves doesn't mean pretending what he did was okay.
Totally agree, condemn the act not the man. Was he did is not Ok, never will be, but it can't be easy operating in those conditions, not wishing to get to a slanging match with anyone, but I wouldn't be surprised if he is not the only to crack under strain, difference is he got caught.Edited by paranoid airbag on Tuesday 10th December 12:01
Its far too easy to be critical of someone who's under battle conditions when we civvies have no idea of what thats really like.
For all we know, mr terry taliban could have been lying on a grenade ready to blow up any first responders, ( thats been done before) how would those condemning the soldier who shot him deal with the resulting dead soldiers just because ROE are a load of crap?
For all we know, mr terry taliban could have been lying on a grenade ready to blow up any first responders, ( thats been done before) how would those condemning the soldier who shot him deal with the resulting dead soldiers just because ROE are a load of crap?
4v6 said:
Its far too easy to be critical of someone who's under battle conditions when we civvies have no idea of what thats really like.
For all we know, mr terry taliban could have been lying on a grenade ready to blow up any first responders, ( thats been done before) how would those condemning the soldier who shot him deal with the resulting dead soldiers just because ROE are a load of crap?
But its the risk you take to remain moderately human. Otherwise you would kill everyone just in case they are a threat. We could stick them all in a chamber and fill it with gas maybe.......For all we know, mr terry taliban could have been lying on a grenade ready to blow up any first responders, ( thats been done before) how would those condemning the soldier who shot him deal with the resulting dead soldiers just because ROE are a load of crap?
Do you see where it leads if we dont have rules and they aren't followed.
4v6 said:
Its far too easy to be critical of someone who's under battle conditions when we civvies have no idea of what thats really like.
For all we know, mr terry taliban could have been lying on a grenade ready to blow up any first responders, ( thats been done before) how would those condemning the soldier who shot him deal with the resulting dead soldiers just because ROE are a load of crap?
Seeing as they stopped first aid, and moved him out of sight before putting a bullet in him, you can be sure he wasn't hiding a grenade.For all we know, mr terry taliban could have been lying on a grenade ready to blow up any first responders, ( thats been done before) how would those condemning the soldier who shot him deal with the resulting dead soldiers just because ROE are a load of crap?
As someone else pointed out on this thread, killing is a consequence of war, not the aim.
I sure this isn't the first time its happened, and it probably won't be the last, but it can't be excused. He knew he was wrong, he knew what his remit was, he took the decision to do differently.
Vipers said:
I am waiting to see what Lee Rigbys killers get!
Life (unless a techincality reduces that to manslaughter), so maybe 10-12 years inside? I still can't see this being anything other than an open-and-shut case. Would like to hear the defense case being as they are claiming not-guilty - this is such a waste of tax-payer money. (Plus you know they will do the usual compensation claim for something or other)...
Annoying.
Brother D said:
Life (unless a techincality reduces that to manslaughter), so maybe 10-12 years inside? I still can't see this being anything other than an open-and-shut case. Would like to hear the defense case being as they are claiming not-guilty - this is such a waste of tax-payer money.
(Plus you know they will do the usual compensation claim for something or other)...
Annoying.
Like as in full life I'd have thought. There is no way they're getting less than minimum 30 years. (Plus you know they will do the usual compensation claim for something or other)...
Annoying.
If you want to read the defence case there are loads of newspapers doing live updates. They're openly admitting killing him and how they done it... they are merely using the court case as a platform to spout more Jihad stuff before they're locked up.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff