Royal Marine murderer?
- Thread starter Silverfox
- Start date
- Status
good post.
like all conflicts in the modern age, the war on Hearts and Minds is a very important side to any situation.
we are in the market of selling our lifestyle to them and showing that we can hold the moral high ground.
if he had expressed his concern for the indivdual and spoken of ending his pain, then i dont think we would be reading about this.
these guys, no matter what they had seen or lived through, were expected to know what is the right thing to do.
i cant understand for the life of me why they left the camera on !
like all conflicts in the modern age, the war on Hearts and Minds is a very important side to any situation.
we are in the market of selling our lifestyle to them and showing that we can hold the moral high ground.
if he had expressed his concern for the indivdual and spoken of ending his pain, then i dont think we would be reading about this.
these guys, no matter what they had seen or lived through, were expected to know what is the right thing to do.
i cant understand for the life of me why they left the camera on !
I recommend the judges, officials and those calling for life sentences for this walk a day in front line boots.
A great point made by Boris; drone strikes are cold blooded murder (often of civilians) as was the execution of Bin Laden (if you believe the story).
A great point made by Boris; drone strikes are cold blooded murder (often of civilians) as was the execution of Bin Laden (if you believe the story).
From what I understand the camera was switched off and then accidentally switched back on. I wholeheartedly agree with the author of that article. Unfortunately the authorities have bowed to a need to be seen to be doing the right thing in the eyes of the ignorant masses, rather than actually doing the right thing. Extenuating circumstances in war are on a whole other level compared to every day life, and those circumstances should have earned the soldier a manslaughter charge at the very most. In my opinion.
well i guess the geneva convention was drawn up for nothing and all is fair in love and war. given the views and beliefs of many already stated here and their justification for the marines actions. i guess it would also be ok in their eyes to rape, murder and pillage innocent civilians during the course of war too because after all it is war and everything is allowed
personally i think that war is wrong especially nowadays when countries are really invading other countries to take their oil under the guise of terrorism. at least in the world wars, there was a threat of invasion
i guess most will never have empathy for war until it actually happens to them and they see soldiers invade their country, kill innocent civilians and mass execute families, children, old people and women
going back to the point made, he knew he was doing wrong and he just wanted to prove he was a big man to his comrades on par with a drunken night out with his mates and showing he was infallible by jumping out of a second floor window. everyone can justify it however they want, but to me the fact remains that he was wrong and he knew it. it was a cold, calculated execution
personally i think that war is wrong especially nowadays when countries are really invading other countries to take their oil under the guise of terrorism. at least in the world wars, there was a threat of invasion
i guess most will never have empathy for war until it actually happens to them and they see soldiers invade their country, kill innocent civilians and mass execute families, children, old people and women
going back to the point made, he knew he was doing wrong and he just wanted to prove he was a big man to his comrades on par with a drunken night out with his mates and showing he was infallible by jumping out of a second floor window. everyone can justify it however they want, but to me the fact remains that he was wrong and he knew it. it was a cold, calculated execution
I think they are looking in the wrong place for the murderer....
I don't agree with the wars, I don't really agree with killing someone if they are 100% no threat to you (not sure about that in this case)
But, at the end of the day, no-one should be second guessing these guys, especially not from behind a desk.
If you don't want to support and get behind our troops, you should be made to stand in front of them - they are only doing their job, to the best of their abilities and in the worst conditions anyone could face (Imo)
People that say its black and white, right or wrong have never had to make the decisions being made every minute of every day on operations. Threats aren't always obvious. They aren't always uniformed. They aren't always carrying a weapon.
A friend of mine was killed by a 13yr old for the promise of $50 to trigger an IED. Now, for arguments sake if you saw the boy looking suspicious with something in his hand watching the patrol pass. Do you warn him to back off, giving him chance to potentially set off whatever IED he is controlling and kill x of your team mates? Do you drop him without warning, as you've identified him as a credible and likely lethal threat? (although could turn out to be innocent and just interested). Do you do nothing and hope he isn't a threat?
Don't tell me its black and white. You haven't seen it, lived it or have the imagination to get anywhere close to what is faced every day. You can watch as much 'Ross Kemp' from your comfy sofa as you like, that doesn't qualify you to comprehend the situation, danger and daily life.
How many germans were lined up and shot during the world wars, in the heat of battle after sustaining massive losses. War isn't always civilized, and yes we try to live by rules such as rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention, but if you fear making the wrong choice will send you to prison, you hesitate. Hesitation will eventually lead to loss of life. This is not advocating shoot first ask questions later, but it is saying the choices aren't always easy. Those that say they are, I welcome you to join up and go demonstrate.
A friend of mine was killed by a 13yr old for the promise of $50 to trigger an IED. Now, for arguments sake if you saw the boy looking suspicious with something in his hand watching the patrol pass. Do you warn him to back off, giving him chance to potentially set off whatever IED he is controlling and kill x of your team mates? Do you drop him without warning, as you've identified him as a credible and likely lethal threat? (although could turn out to be innocent and just interested). Do you do nothing and hope he isn't a threat?
Don't tell me its black and white. You haven't seen it, lived it or have the imagination to get anywhere close to what is faced every day. You can watch as much 'Ross Kemp' from your comfy sofa as you like, that doesn't qualify you to comprehend the situation, danger and daily life.
How many germans were lined up and shot during the world wars, in the heat of battle after sustaining massive losses. War isn't always civilized, and yes we try to live by rules such as rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention, but if you fear making the wrong choice will send you to prison, you hesitate. Hesitation will eventually lead to loss of life. This is not advocating shoot first ask questions later, but it is saying the choices aren't always easy. Those that say they are, I welcome you to join up and go demonstrate.
TitanTim said:
Its interesting that the enemy combatant was already mortally wounded, but those initial lethal rounds aren't in question.
Say the enemy was in a defilade position, so was not properly visible. They lads have been pounding the area with suppressive fire and he's been hit multiple times and lays dying. The soldiers wouldn't know this, and wouldn't know the threat is less of a threat, so throw some frags over, or put a Milan on the area. He's now dead, but was already dying and had all but given up. Is that murder?
What if the squad sniper can see the top of his head from an elevated position and put one in it to make sure the squad is safe to move up. Is that murder?
What if the enemy combatant was really f*cked up, guts all blown out, massive loss of tissue. He's going to die, but slowly and in a lot of pain. Do you give him a morphine? This will likely kill him anyway due to the massive blood loss. This would be a euthanasia treatment, so is it murder and would you view it the same way?
envy said:
The Taliban do not subscribe to the Geneva Convention as we do, to our on-going all too human cost. We are not talking about a 'war' in the sense of the word as was understood when that convention was written. To suggest that those commenting on here subscribe to the additional vile acts that you go on to describe is naive and offensive.
As for the act being on a par with a drunken night out - seriously, you need to develop some new frames of reference when evaluating situations such as this. You go and watch your mates get ripped to shreds by roadside bombs, shot dead by troops they have helped to train, and have their lives taken on camera for the world to see - if you come back with the same attitude I'll take your assessment of the events seriously.
It's not black and white - no war is black and white - and it cannot be judged as such... Though in the 'real world' back home it has to be seen to be judged that way - politics, again. I agree, war is wrong - but it is a sad inevitability of human nature that it will always exist as long as nation states and ideologies disagree to such an extent that they are willing to stand by their beliefs by force of arms.
envy said:
It is technically not a war on a country, but a war against a terrorist organisation. I think you have to compare it to say the Mexican drug lord war and what happens there. There should never be any interferences with the general public so that I fully agree with that it would be outside of any acceptable behaviour. They are fighting criminals here so the situation and responses are slightly different.
envy said:
Invasion is never a good thing, but the link to oil may be not fair. It could be that because the country has oil that the terrorists can buy weapons that other groups can not afford, and are therefore a bigger threat than those with say just hand weapons. The threat of these people might not be invasion in a classic war sense but an invasion of terrorist attacks. Attacks such as the Twin Towers, Madrid, London and so forth are committed by people from these regions. Again, when comparing to the drugs markets, you need to stop this at source rather than just catch the ones coming over. Whether the approach is the correct one is of course a complete different discussion.
If there is a clean solution that would "fix" this place I am sure it would be considered. But in the long term, how can you safequard the world from these terrorists that grow drugs and whose ideology means that they will not stop until they force their ways onto the rest of the world?envy said:
envy said:
I don't think anyone agrees with the actions, I certainly don't. The discussion was more if it was fair that it was treated as if it was a common murder somewhere in London versus a (wrong) action performed during an attack operation. What a fair sentence would be, I don't really know.
T2FFN said:
I don't know the full facts but from what I've seen of that Video and hearing the commentry the guy knew he was doing wrong, I guess its whether you weigh up if he was in immediate danger or not, I don't think he was, so did he have the right to kill someone for the hell of it? no he didn't.
Sometimes hesitating can save lives than jumping the gun unecessarily but them who am I to judge being an armchair civilian
Tim.
Yes he was wrong to do what he did but how would you react if you had seen your mates limbs hanging from trees or had 'scooped their brains up' ?
Pvr is right, this is a war against terrorists and he shouldn't be treated as if he had walked up to someone in the streets of London and shot them.
These terrorists are scum and they deserve everything they get.
My sons best friend got blown to pieces by a terrorist scum on a motorbike who was on his way to a busy market place full of men, women and children going about their business shopping, with explosives strapped to him. He stood in his way to stop him and the scumbag detonated the explosives.
My own son barely escaped being blown up, he was saved by a stray dog who happened to start sniffing a pile of clothes on the side of the street. There was explosives in it that was hooked to detonate by wireless/phone signal.
If the dog hadn't alerted them my lad would be dead now.
Don't ask me to feel sorry for any of them. They do not fight fair, they are cowards, they hide behind religion and women and children.
Pvr is right, this is a war against terrorists and he shouldn't be treated as if he had walked up to someone in the streets of London and shot them.
These terrorists are scum and they deserve everything they get.
My sons best friend got blown to pieces by a terrorist scum on a motorbike who was on his way to a busy market place full of men, women and children going about their business shopping, with explosives strapped to him. He stood in his way to stop him and the scumbag detonated the explosives.
My own son barely escaped being blown up, he was saved by a stray dog who happened to start sniffing a pile of clothes on the side of the street. There was explosives in it that was hooked to detonate by wireless/phone signal.
If the dog hadn't alerted them my lad would be dead now.
Don't ask me to feel sorry for any of them. They do not fight fair, they are cowards, they hide behind religion and women and children.
Carol M said:
Yes its not nice, as already said no war/fight is pleasant, however there is a difference between us and them and that difference is something we should be proud of and maintain. Once you start adopting an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth approach its makes us as bad as them.
Tim.
Yes, of course the squaddies should have helped him. Carried him to the medics so he could have treatment on his injuries. Made him a nice cup of tea and given him something to eat.
Then when he was better put him in front of a court who would find him guilty of terrorism/whatever and lock him up somewhere where he is fed, watered and comfortable and a nice little martyr to the cause.
Meanwhile his mates are slicing our soldiers heads off on the street, blowing them up, shooting at them, torturing them, hanging their body parts off trees etc., and he would be doing exactly the same given half a chance.
Then when he was better put him in front of a court who would find him guilty of terrorism/whatever and lock him up somewhere where he is fed, watered and comfortable and a nice little martyr to the cause.
Meanwhile his mates are slicing our soldiers heads off on the street, blowing them up, shooting at them, torturing them, hanging their body parts off trees etc., and he would be doing exactly the same given half a chance.
- Status