Cavey
Member
Registered: 11th Nov 02
Location: Derby
User status: Offline
|
|
Russ
Member
Registered: 14th Mar 04
Location: Armchair
User status: Offline
|
nobody quotes hamlet in a firefight.
|
sc0ott
Member
Registered: 16th Feb 09
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gary
quote:
Originally posted by Dave
How do we know he was going to die anyway?
Had he not just been mullered by a chopper?
Either way, if he'd have had a gun in his hand I bet one of our lads would have been dead. Armed or unarmed.
Especially if he assigned the 'last stand' perk before he begun the mission.
|
Russ
Member
Registered: 14th Mar 04
Location: Armchair
User status: Offline
|
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
S'alright though because our guy could've just re-spawned behind him and got his revenge.
|
Graham88
Member
Registered: 16th Apr 07
Location: South East Kent Drives: E46 M3
User status: Offline
|
Makes no sense. The Taliban would have shot him if he had a gun (which he may have had) so I'd have probably done the same tbh. Kill or be killed.
Don't send people to war then lock em up for killing people.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Do you not see how quickly that escalates? What if they shot the next guy with a turban they happened across? Might have been an insurgent. Shoot first, ask questions later.
I'm well aware i'd feel different if it was me being shot at but surely it's not difficult to see why the apparent good guys can't do this.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by JonnyJ
Easy. If they are pointing a rocket launcher at it, then i think its fair to say fire away. A guy, unarmed, injured, not so much.
So in all cases, all deaths resulting from army actions are as a result of responding to threats? Don't think so.
You can go on Live Leak right now and see many, many videos of US troops going out there looking for death and making some, with no threat whatsoever to themselves. Why is no one in the UK armed forces taking issue with that? If all they're doing is responding to threats.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Russ
killing people spotted by a forward air controller and signed off by a high ranking officer.
So its OK because some people in an office said so? You went out that day, the guy is dead. Go out looking to kill "threats", end of the day some threats are dead.
Really can't see how you want to think its OK to do it just because you were told to and its not on your own back.
If the same high ranking officer orders you to go and do it, when does that become OK? And you're going to say he wouldn't say that because he's disciplined and trained? Same as the guy on the ground then.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Because America are bigger boys, UK doesn't realistically have any say in what they do. The 'special relationship' seems to be more special in one direction.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Russ
IF he had a gun in his hand they would have fired at him with their SA80 assault rifles while approaching, not point blank in the chest with a 9mm pistol.
And still killed him = same outcome.
Not sure his family are going to care the model number of the weapon.
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
quote:
Originally posted by JonnyJ
Easy. If they are pointing a rocket launcher at it, then i think its fair to say fire away. A guy, unarmed, injured, not so much.
So in all cases, all deaths resulting from army actions are as a result of responding to threats? Don't think so.
You can go on Live Leak right now and see many, many videos of US troops going out there looking for death and making some, with no threat whatsoever to themselves. Why is no one in the UK armed forces taking issue with that? If all they're doing is responding to threats.
Sorry, i wasnt aware i had to give an example of absolutely every situation where i believe its ok You said you thought i'd struggle to give an example where its ok so i gave one
I'll make it clearer then, its ok for for them to shoot/kill someone when the rules they are supposed to stick to say its ok. Its pretty simple really, stick to the rules or face the consequences of breaking them. The rules are there for a reason, supposedly because some people much more qualified than you or i thought they needed to be in place. If the rules said "kill who you want, anytime you want" then there wouldnt be an issue, but presumably theres a reason why the rules dont say that, probably because without them certain countries could take liberties.
Im not going to feel any sympathy for a bloke that not only broke them, but did so knowingly, knowing the jail time he would face if caught.
|
Russ
Member
Registered: 14th Mar 04
Location: Armchair
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
quote:
Originally posted by Russ
killing people spotted by a forward air controller and signed off by a high ranking officer.
So its OK because some people in an office said so? You went out that day, the guy is dead. Go out looking to kill "threats", end of the day some threats are dead.
Really can't see how you want to think its OK to do it just because you were told to and its not on your own back.
If the same high ranking officer orders you to go and do it, when does that become OK? And you're going to say he wouldn't say that because he's disciplined and trained? Same as the guy on the ground then.
Hello Ian,
Thank you for the questions you have presented. Allow me to answer them for you.
Is it OK because an officer said so? - Well, yes. There are rules of engagement that governs the behaviour of troops. If they had asked to assassinate the man, they wouldn't have been allowed to do it. They knew it was wrong, that's why they turned off the camera, it was sport to them, if they just wanted to kill him, they would have shot him and said that they thought he was holding a weapon, but they didn't. The video can't be released because they don't want it used in propaganda for the Taliban, so that should give you some indication that what they did, wasn't pleasant.
If the same high ranking officer said to do it would it be ok? - No, they wouldn't say, turn your helmet cam off and assassinate that unarmed enemy. If they did, then said High Ranking Officer would be the one charged with murder and marine A wouldn't
I really enjoy having these debates with educated people like yourself, you highlight key arguments and that is great for making people think about the situation, it is a skill you have learnt throughout your teaching career no doubt. However, these sort of questions you raise are what makes young people with no life skills and poor education, believe the tripe they read in the Daily Mail
[Edited on 10-11-2013 by Russ]
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
So its OK because some people in an office said so? You went out that day, the guy is dead. Go out looking to kill "threats", end of the day some threats are dead.
Really can't see how you want to think its OK to do it just because you were told to and its not on your own back.
You're over simplifying the procedure that soldiers and pilots (servicemen in general) go through prior to engaging targets and 'threats'. It isn't a case of a few people giving the all clear and making the decision themselves; rather their decision will be based on intelligence and various reports coming in from the field and it'll be cleared by various people in command (usually causing delays out in the field).
It certainly isn't full proof and casualties happen but servicemen can't go round killing people willy nilly (as said, GC states that you shouldn't 'intentionally kill'), it's not a blockbuster action film
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
So in all cases, all deaths resulting from army actions are as a result of responding to threats? Don't think so.
'All deaths' is a bit of a wide net, don't you think? You could include absolutely everything in that, so where do you stop?
You also appear to be turning the debate away from the subject of the Marine to whether or not killing in general can be justified - which should be saved for a different thread.
[Edited on 10-11-2013 by Dom]
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
It wasn't killing willy nilly though was he, he killed someone who just moments earlier was granted the permission to kill.
He did break the rules, but in war the lines are so muddied I can't see how he can be punished for murder.
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
It wasn't killing willy nilly though was he, he killed someone who just moments earlier was granted the permission to kill.
He did break the rules, but in war the lines are so muddied I can't see how he can be punished for murder.
The Marines were given permission to engage the threat(s), they were not given permission (as reported) to drag injured insurgents away from surveillance to be killed at point blank after the threat(s) have been neutralised - as said, this goes against the GC.
I suspect they would have be told to look for survivors, rescue and patch them up where possible and bring them back to camp where any captured insurgents would (rather, should) be treated to a fair trial.
No doubt covered up unlawful killings of insurgents happen fairly regularly and so it could be possible this situation/Marine was used to 'send a clear message' to other servicemen.
But i have a feeling there's a lot more to the story than what has been reported.
[Edited on 10-11-2013 by Dom]
|
neil h
Member
Registered: 28th Sep 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Russ
Hello Ian,
Thank you for the questions you have presented. Allow me to answer them for you.
Is it OK because an officer said so? - Well, yes. There are rules of engagement that governs the behaviour of troops. If they had asked to assassinate the man, they wouldn't have been allowed to do it. They knew it was wrong, that's why they turned off the camera, it was sport to them, if they just wanted to kill him, they would have shot him and said that they thought he was holding a weapon, but they didn't. The video can't be released because they don't want it used in propaganda for the Taliban, so that should give you some indication that what they did, wasn't pleasant.
If the same high ranking officer said to do it would it be ok? - No, they wouldn't say, turn your helmet cam off and assassinate that unarmed enemy. If they did, then said High Ranking Officer would be the one charged with murder and marine A wouldn't
I really enjoy having these debates with educated people like yourself, you highlight key arguments and that is great for making people think about the situation, it is a skill you have learnt throughout your teaching career no doubt. However, these sort of questions you raise are what makes young people with no life skills and poor education, believe the tripe they read in the Daily Mail
[Edited on 10-11-2013 by Russ]
At the risk of being pedantic, could we please stop saying it was an 'assassination'. It wasn't, it was an execution. There is an important difference. 
[Edited on 10-11-2013 by neil h]
|
johnny86
Premium Member
Registered: 15th Feb 10
Location: in a bus stop.
User status: Offline
|
The Taliban is part of an enemy organisation our army is at war he got shot.
I couldn't care if he got executed he deserved it. Yeah the solider did break the rules he's only downfall was he got caught.
What if the Taliban survived then he organised a terror attack on our troops..
All this is bollocks the army is trained to kill that's what he done if I knew the bloke I'd buy him a pint!!
|
Russ
Member
Registered: 14th Mar 04
Location: Armchair
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by neil h
quote:
Originally posted by Russ
Hello Ian,
Thank you for the questions you have presented. Allow me to answer them for you.
Is it OK because an officer said so? - Well, yes. There are rules of engagement that governs the behaviour of troops. If they had asked to assassinate the man, they wouldn't have been allowed to do it. They knew it was wrong, that's why they turned off the camera, it was sport to them, if they just wanted to kill him, they would have shot him and said that they thought he was holding a weapon, but they didn't. The video can't be released because they don't want it used in propaganda for the Taliban, so that should give you some indication that what they did, wasn't pleasant.
If the same high ranking officer said to do it would it be ok? - No, they wouldn't say, turn your helmet cam off and assassinate that unarmed enemy. If they did, then said High Ranking Officer would be the one charged with murder and marine A wouldn't
I really enjoy having these debates with educated people like yourself, you highlight key arguments and that is great for making people think about the situation, it is a skill you have learnt throughout your teaching career no doubt. However, these sort of questions you raise are what makes young people with no life skills and poor education, believe the tripe they read in the Daily Mail
[Edited on 10-11-2013 by Russ]
At the risk of being pedantic, could we please stop saying it was an 'assassination'. It wasn't, it was an execution. There is an important difference.
[Edited on 10-11-2013 by neil h]
you're right, apologies
|
Russ
Member
Registered: 14th Mar 04
Location: Armchair
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by johnny86
The Taliban is part of an enemy organisation our army is at war he got shot.
I couldn't care if he got executed he deserved it. Yeah the solider did break the rules he's only downfall was he got caught.
What if the Taliban survived then he organised a terror attack on our troops..
All this is bollocks the army is trained to kill that's what he done if I knew the bloke I'd buy him a pint!!
what if he survived a invented free energy for everyone, cured aids and cancer and built a corsa faster than barnes's?
re: pint - post him one
Marine A
Glasshouse
Colchester
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by johnny86
The Taliban is part of an enemy organisation our army is at war he got shot.
I couldn't care if he got executed he deserved it. Yeah the solider did break the rules he's only downfall was he got caught.
What if the Taliban survived then he organised a terror attack on our troops..
All this is bollocks the army is trained to kill that's what he done if I knew the bloke I'd buy him a pint!!
Why do you believe this particular insurgent deserved to die? What if, like many others, he was forced into fighting with out an alternative (usually family is involved) - does he still deserve to die?
What if it was a kid forced to fight, again, does he still deserve to die?
I can also play the "if's and but's" game 
Either way, it isn't as black and white as you're making it out to be and this is why there are protocols in place to insure that the system is as 'fair' as it can be. And as a serviceman governed by these protocols, especially the Geneva Convention, then you have to uphold them at all times - you can't simply pick and choose.
The Marine knowingly went against these protocols and his training and therefore he must face the consequences. No one forced him into the service, so if he didn't agree with the protocols he would have to uphold then he shouldn't have joined or left.
If we allowed our servicemen to take matters into their own hands then, tbf, it wouldn't make them any better than those they're 'fighting'.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
GC says don't knowingly kill - what are those helicopters for again?
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
GC says don't knowingly kill - what are those helicopters for again?
If we were to be that pedantic about it, then 'knowingly kill' (i don't believe the Convention actually states that) could be applied to every military action ever taken
And you seem rather het up on the pilots and, for some odd reason, seem to believe they just turn up, engage and fire upon anything that moves without second thought and then fly off again when clearly that isn't the case.
But i await your reply of links to LiveLeak videos
[Edited on 10-11-2013 by Dom]
|
Russ
Member
Registered: 14th Mar 04
Location: Armchair
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
GC says don't knowingly kill
|
Russ
Member
Registered: 14th Mar 04
Location: Armchair
User status: Offline
|
somebody has been sniffing ollies paint pots
|
