"I've just broken the Geneva convention"
Discussion
audidoody said:
Hmmm....so that would also make the Marine's boss a 'cue cus eater".
"Brig Bill Dunham, deputy commandant general of the Royal Marines, said what the court had heard was “a truly shocking and appalling aberration”."
No but I expect to get to the rank he is at and to be allowed to comment on TV he is extremely good at being politically correct."Brig Bill Dunham, deputy commandant general of the Royal Marines, said what the court had heard was “a truly shocking and appalling aberration”."
vonuber said:
Oh dear god, I spelt cous cous incorrectly!Pistonheads because spelling matters.
McWigglebum4th said:
Hooli said:
Human rights should be earnt, scum like the dead scum forfeit theirs by their actions. I support our soldiers actions totally.
So using exactly the same logic what happened in Woolwich was justified?We shouldn't be there, it's not our fight & it's traitorous of our government to send troops who signed up to protect the realm to fight there, it's not protecting us at all. It's making things worse. However, as we are there we should wipe the scum out any way that is possible.
berlintaxi said:
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.
Have you worn the badge that you suggest he has disgraced?Edited by berlintaxi on Saturday 9th November 07:22
pete a said:
berlintaxi said:
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.
Have you worn the badge that you suggest he has disgraced?Edited by berlintaxi on Saturday 9th November 07:22
pete a said:
Have you worn the badge that you suggest he has disgraced?
Frankly, I seriously hope to God YOU didn't.Just to set the record straight, answering YES or NO, do you think it acceptable for military personnel to execute unarmed and neutralised opponents?
And we are not including hard contact situations where immediate removal of any threat, by extreme measures, is required.
Edited by TVR1 on Saturday 9th November 19:43
carinaman said:
I've been in the company of police officers that said they'd be prepared to buy their own headcams and referenced their use by other police forces abroad. In a policing situation they can cut down malicious complaints from career criminals and help provide evidence that protects and supports officers.
The cameras in the cell block cut complaints of ill-treatment of prisoners by police massively. I tried to get the stats but it was 'unavailable'. However, when there was a complaint the percentage finding of guilt went up by quite a bit. CPS would pull jobs where there was a complaint of ill treatment of a prisoner where there was no supporting evidence, such as another police officer, to say there was no assault. To be fair to the prisoners, it was normally the solicitors who cajoled them into complaining.There number of complaints of police misconduct in the area covered by CCTV dropped tremendously once they were installed. The officers often used to point the cameras out, or just mention 'you are on CCTV' if they were a little concerned about a stop. They would often ask for the camera to take a look. An additional point was that when the officer pointed to the camera only those who were up to no good would not look at it.
I would suggest that most officers would love to have CCTV on helmet. The problem arises with regards to disclosure. The time demand would be tremendous. Briefs would demand that it all be checked through and there would be no way the police could say that it was a practical impossibility to check it all through. It is bad enough with CCTV.
I'm not sure it is career criminals who make the malicious complaints, at least not in my experience. It is the nutty, those who have no idea of the powers of the police ("he grabbed hold of my arm in public"), those who consider themselves as important, those who have no idea they are on CCTV, and the career briefs.
Your help was useful and appreciated.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.
You don't happen to be a muslim, by any chance? Because if you were you could join the Taliban. They are recruiting a few good man with your exact profile. berlintaxi said:
Yes, from 1982 - 1987, what are your qualifications for commenting?
Then I Humbley respect your service and respect the fact you passed the selection process, as for me I haven't professed to hold any qualification.Look we all hold different opinions on all kind of stuff, it seems the Internet turns it all a bit feisty?
I doubt people would talk to total strangers quite as harshly in person as we do in here?
Should he have shot the Taliban chap, NO
Was it under circumstances where his mates had been dismembered and had body parts hung out of trees recently. YES
Am I bothered that he killed him. NO
Do I think we should have prosecuted him instead of making the video disappear . NO
As for war crimes I can think of a few politicians who should have a place laid up at the Hauge.
tom2019 said:
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?
tty war have to do with anything ? the geneva convention is designed to protect everyone. there is no small print.the way we have decided to construct our society, work out whats right and whats wrong, and what we think is worth defending with the lives of our servicemen - are what make the rules.
if we abandon those rules on the battlefield - the very thing we are fighting to defend, then as desolate said, whats the point?
should we have brainwashed our pilots to fly into ships when fighting the Japanese ?
should we behead captured Taliban?
of course not.
WE do the right thing. we understand that sometimes our boys do the wrong thing. they are taught exactly what the rules are and what will happen if they get caught.
this guy got badly caught -in stereo sound and hd. in todays world that means his disregard for established rules must be exposed and used to remind everyone that we are better than that.
pete a said:
berlintaxi said:
Yes, from 1982 - 1987, what are your qualifications for commenting?
Then I Humbley respect your service and respect the fact you passed the selection process, as for me I haven't professed to hold any qualification.Look we all hold different opinions on all kind of stuff, it seems the Internet turns it all a bit feisty?
I doubt people would talk to total strangers quite as harshly in person as we do in here?
Should he have shot the Taliban chap, NO
Was it under circumstances where his mates had been dismembered and had body parts hung out of trees recently. YES
Am I bothered that he killed him. NO
Do I think we should have prosecuted him instead of making the video disappear . NO
As for war crimes I can think of a few politicians who should have a place laid up at the Hauge.
p.s. your opinions are only slightly less s
t than your spelling.rohrl said:
Did you really call out berlintaxi for not "wearing the badge" without having done so yourself?
p.s. your opinions are only slightly less st than your spelling.
To clarify for you I didn't call him out or accuse him of not wearing the badge, he stated theyhad disgraced the badge, and I asked if he had worn it.p.s. your opinions are only slightly less s
t than your spelling.Despite me trying to keep things a little civil you still resort to personal insults?
Can we not differ on opinions ?
pete a said:
rohrl said:
Did you really call out berlintaxi for not "wearing the badge" without having done so yourself?
p.s. your opinions are only slightly less st than your spelling.
To clarify for you I didn't call him out or accuse him of not wearing the badge, he stated theyhad disgraced the badge, and I asked if he had worn it.p.s. your opinions are only slightly less s
t than your spelling.Despite me trying to keep things a little civil you still resort to personal insults?
Can we not differ on opinions ?
Whether or not someone has "worn the badge" or not though is not relevant and as has already been posted in this thread there are plenty of senior Marine officers queueing up to stress the point that this is not the kind of behaviour they want or expect from their men.
rohrl said:
orry. That was rude.
Whether or not someone has "worn the badge" or not though is not relevant and as has already been posted in this thread there are plenty of senior Marine officers queueing up to stress the point that this is not the kind of behaviour they want or expect from their men.
No worries, accepted gracefully.Whether or not someone has "worn the badge" or not though is not relevant and as has already been posted in this thread there are plenty of senior Marine officers queueing up to stress the point that this is not the kind of behaviour they want or expect from their men.
I've said all I want to say and don't expect to change the opinion of others, so with nothing further to add I'm out.
pete a said:
No worries, accepted gracefully.
I've said all I want to say and don't expect to change the opinion of others, so with nothing further to add I'm out.
Answer the question then, for the record.I've said all I want to say and don't expect to change the opinion of others, so with nothing further to add I'm out.
Execution of unarmed,wounded,neutralised, enemy combatants is acceptable.
YES or NO?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff