Marc
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 02
Location: York
User status: Offline
|
Several screen shots have been taken and forwarded to the A-Team.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
I'm surprised at Ian arguing this point. Has been hanging about with Ste for too long.
|
neil h
Member
Registered: 28th Sep 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
GC says don't knowingly kill - what are those helicopters for again?
Ian, I have to ask. Why does this seem to be giving you so much grief? I'd previously had you down as quite a thoughtful bloke but some of your posts in this thread are just daft.
The Geneva Convention relates specifically to civilians and those who are no longer taking part in hostilities e.g. POWs and injured personel. So as has already been established, executing an injured insurgent is against the GC and amounts to murder.
Now going back to helicopters. The helicopters will be called upon to provide air support inline with the rules of engagement at the time. These will govern; what is and isn't a target, when they can engage a target etc. Assuming these rules are followed the pilots can engage the enemy without recourse. These rules how ever don't circumvent the GC, so if the enemy surrender/are found incapacitated/are captured (or whatever) then the GC applies.
|
Kyle T
Premium Member
Registered: 11th Sep 04
Location: Selby, North Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by taylorboosh
Mehh if we stoop to their level (taliban) then what are we fighting to achieve?
Deserves what he gets imo
Christ, I'm agreeing with John 
Lotus Elise 111R
Impreza WRX STi
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
John-d has been a nice man since he decided to be his mate instead.
|
Kyle T
Premium Member
Registered: 11th Sep 04
Location: Selby, North Yorkshire
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 his life could have been saved, he could have been locked up and possibly have provided useful intelligence to save lives in the future. Is it alright for our troops to be beheaded, burned,etc because they're part of an "enemy organisation" or should they be detained and released after the conflict?
Do you really think that every member of the Taliban is pure evil and not just following orders? We're supposed to be better than them.
I'm not a Taliban sympathiser btw, but if we're going to invade a country to promote freedom and stuff like that... We should be leading by example.
Re: the Helicopter thing. The only comparison would be of the Helicopter decided to strafe a military hospital, after turning off his camera.
Lotus Elise 111R
Impreza WRX STi
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kyle T
I'm not a Taliban sympathiser btw, but if we're going to invade a country to promote freedom and stuff like that... We should be leading by example.
This is absolutely key for me. The last thing we need is to be giving these guys easy propaganda to use to recruit yet more members.
As Kyle also rightly said and as i pointed out earlier, people are far more use alive than dead. How do we know this guy wasnt someone who when captured wouldnt end up giving us information that could take out a key member, or hey, even stop an attack on our own land? 
We'll never know now though, because someone decided he knew better and took it into his own hands.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by neil h
Why does this seem to be giving you so much grief?
Because I can't seem to separate killing the guy from the comfort of your aircraft from killing the guy when he's on the ground.
I absolutely do understand the entire other side - rules of engagement, GC although not at all an expert, rules, protocol etc.
Just find it all very hypocritical that its somehow OK to kill as a result of planning and command, but not when its just because you find an enemy ad hoc. I can see all sides of it, just still wonder how it differs. Probably loads of people dead that day - but one murder charge and a load of deaths which are fine.
And I'm being contrived and obtuse to make the point. Still baffles me.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by JonnyJ
The last thing we need is to be giving these guys easy propaganda to use to recruit yet more members.
...
people are far more use alive than dead.
If that were the case a. you wouldn't be there at all and b. don't kill any of them.
|
LeeM
Member
Registered: 26th Sep 05
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
at the end of the day he committed murder, got caught. and is being punished.
nice to see plenty of people (not just here but all over Facebook) justifying it by saying the taliban would have and have done it to our soldiers, the taliban are also responsible for acts of terrorism, doesn't mean its ok for everyone else to do it.
|
neil h
Member
Registered: 28th Sep 06
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
Because I can't seem to separate killing the guy from the comfort of your aircraft from killing the guy when he's on the ground.
I absolutely do understand the entire other side - rules of engagement, GC although not at all an expert, rules, protocol etc.
Just find it all very hypocritical that its somehow OK to kill as a result of planning and command, but not when its just because you find an enemy ad hoc. I can see all sides of it, just still wonder how it differs. Probably loads of people dead that day - but one murder charge and a load of deaths which are fine.
And I'm being contrived and obtuse to make the point. Still baffles me.
I think it comes down to the difference between a combat mission and a patrol. The helicopter would have been sent out with the specific purpose of engaging the enemy, where as a group of squadies on patrol are primarily out to provide a visual presence and as a potential deterrent. Not to go running round starting fights.
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
quote:
Originally posted by JonnyJ
The last thing we need is to be giving these guys easy propaganda to use to recruit yet more members.
...
people are far more use alive than dead.
If that were the case a. you wouldn't be there at all and b. don't kill any of them.
Err no because a. The Taliban existed before we were there, how you act while your there could make the difference between more people deciding to join them or not though and b. Unfortunately when people are armed they don't tend to just surrender because you ask them to, however when injured/defenseless and faced with their own mortality, things can change.
Anymore questions and selective quoting? 
|
taylorboosh
Member
Registered: 3rd Apr 07
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by JonnyJ
John-d has been a nice man since he decided to be his mate instead.
More like since i had a child... More important things than the internet...
But im glad you noticed 
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by JonnyJ
b. Unfortunately when people are armed they don't tend to just surrender because you ask them to
Did anyone check to see if they were willing to surrender before attacking with a heli?
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
quote:
Originally posted by neil h
Why does this seem to be giving you so much grief?
Because I can't seem to separate killing the guy from the comfort of your aircraft from killing the guy when he's on the ground.
I absolutely do understand the entire other side - rules of engagement, GC although not at all an expert, rules, protocol etc.
Just find it all very hypocritical that its somehow OK to kill as a result of planning and command, but not when its just because you find an enemy ad hoc. I can see all sides of it, just still wonder how it differs. Probably loads of people dead that day - but one murder charge and a load of deaths which are fine.
And I'm being contrived and obtuse to make the point. Still baffles me.
Well, for one, they didnt just find him ad hoc. They were targets that had already been engaged. I dont even know why the helicopter or even the fact it was a pre planned mission or not has been brought into the debate as it really has nothing to do with the situation.
Lets simplfy it. 4 guys on the ground doing a normal patrol of an area, not expecting any trouble but prepared for it. They turn a corner and all of a sudden they are ambushed by 3 taliban insurgants with AK47s who start firing at them. The soliders identify them and are cleared to engage to neutralise the threat (that doesnt mean kill, but its an option). The soliders fire, 2 Taliban take shots to the head and chest and are dead, fair game, they were threatening the lives of our guys, they got killed, thats war. The other Taliban guy, however, just happens to get shot in the shoulder and knees. Hes down, incapacitated and unarmed but alive and going to survive despite his injuries. The threat is neutralised, our guys lives are no longer in danger but we have one surving insurgant, now, its not ok to walk over and pop a bullet in his head, because hes no longer a threat to you, he cant walk and hes not armed, you dont need to kill him anymore. Capture him.
So as you can see, 1 minute ago when they had a gun to you, its ok to kill them, but a minute later, when you just have a guy down on the floor, of no threat to you whatsoever, its not ok.
Just to defend against any "well why dont we always go for none fatal shots then" well, its just not realistic, when someone has a gun at you, the main priority has to be survival and the chance will decrease if you have to start thinking about exactly where you hit them.
You could even take a situation that you could find over here. Imagine walking down a street and out of nowhere some guy just punches you in the face, in defence, you swing back, and knock him clean out. Hes down, unconscious on the pavement, its on CCTV so you know you are in no danger of being arrested. Now would you A. Ring the police and tell them some bloke just attacked you but you have him under control now and wait for them to come and sort it out. or would you B. drag the guy into an alley and procede to stamp on his head until his brains were all over the floor, then attempt to destroy any CCTV evidence?
Under A, you walk away scot free and the guy gets arrested for assault, under B, you are charged for murder.
[Edited on 11-11-2013 by JonnyJ]
|
Marc
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 02
Location: York
User status: Offline
|
I like your example. You can come again.
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
quote:
Originally posted by JonnyJ
b. Unfortunately when people are armed they don't tend to just surrender because you ask them to
Did anyone check to see if they were willing to surrender before attacking with a heli?
I dont know m8, you'll have to ask the army. Irrelevant to my point anyway as it was in response to Ian selective quoting where i said people are more use to us alive than dead then we should just not kill any of them in that case, which is totally unrealistic, im sure if all we had to do was fly a heli over and shout over a loudspeaker "surrender or else" we'd do that.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
Situation.
You are walking down the street and see a group of people that are threatening you. The leader of your group says you can go and drag them into the kerb and stamp on there brains, so your group grab a few of them and do just that. One other of there group gets injured and cannot attack. A member of your group then decides to drag him into the kerb and also stamp on his brains.
This is suddenly seen as very wrong and your bloke goes down for murder, whilst everyone else who stamped on peoples brains moments before are deemed innocent
[Edited on 11-11-2013 by Steve]
|
Marc
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 02
Location: York
User status: Offline
|
Did you just quote american history X?
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
Situation.
You are walking down the street and see a group of people that are threatening you. The leader of your group says you can go and drag them into the kerb and stamp on there brains, so your group grab a few of them and do just that. One other of there group gets injured and cannot attack. A member of your group then decides to drag him into the kerb and also stamp on his brains.
This is suddenly seen as very wrong and your bloke goes down for murder, whilst everyone else who stamped on peoples brains moments before are deemed innocent
[Edited on 11-11-2013 by Steve]
Now you're getting it Except of course to make your situation sound much more favourable in your argument you just said the other guys were just "threatening" not attempting to stamp on your brains also. So maybe an edit is needed to make it more realistic 
I love how you just say "and all of a sudden" as if by magic hes now treated differently for no reason whatsoever There has been an absolutely key situation change. One guy is now not attacking, no longer trying to kill you, that is not something to just throw away as a un important incident
Put simply Steve would you kill a man who is not/no longer threatening to kill you?
[Edited on 11-11-2013 by JonnyJ]
|
Kyle T
Premium Member
Registered: 11th Sep 04
Location: Selby, North Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
All of the chopper stuff is pure speculation. As far as we know, the chopper could have been gunning down a group of Taliban which were firing upon friendly troops and/or civilians, they also could have been hosing down people for a laugh. The activities of the helicopter I would imagine are better/more closely monitored than that of a soldier on the ground because of black boxes and stuff. I'm sure if the helicopter was deemed to have been firing without due cause, the pilot would have been questioned too.
We don't know the background to that, so we can't/shouldn't comment.
We do know that a man executed another (unarmed and injured) man despite knowing it was wrong and then tried to hide/cover up the evidence.
Lotus Elise 111R
Impreza WRX STi
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kyle T
We do know that a man executed another (unarmed and injured) man despite knowing it was wrong and then tried to hide/cover up the evidence.
Nah m8, the fact he is unarmed, injured and not trying to kill you anymore has absolutely no importance whatsoever Its a moot point in Steve's mind.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by JonnyJ
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
Situation.
You are walking down the street and see a group of people that are threatening you. The leader of your group says you can go and drag them into the kerb and stamp on there brains, so your group grab a few of them and do just that. One other of there group gets injured and cannot attack. A member of your group then decides to drag him into the kerb and also stamp on his brains.
This is suddenly seen as very wrong and your bloke goes down for murder, whilst everyone else who stamped on peoples brains moments before are deemed innocent
[Edited on 11-11-2013 by Steve]
Now you're getting it Except of course to make your situation sound much more favourable in your argument you just said the other guys were just "threatening" not attempting to stamp on your brains also. So maybe an edit is needed to make it more realistic
I love how you just say "and all of a sudden" as if by magic hes now treated differently for no reason whatsoever There has been an absolutely key situation change. One guy is now not attacking, no longer trying to kill you, that is not something to just throw away as a un important incident
Put simply Steve would you kill a man who is not/no longer threatening to kill you?
[Edited on 11-11-2013 by JonnyJ]
Not in the street no, cant really comment about in a war situation as Iv never been in such situations to relate. Probably not, and there should be some punishment, I just think the charge of murder is too much when the lines are so blurred in these situations and that the act you are charging him for was happening perfectly fine moments before.
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
It was perfectly fine moments before because they were trying to kill you, how you keep glossing over that point is beyond me
As for whether murder is a fair charge, i think it has to be really. Just because we're in a war, doesnt mean the rules we play by in every day life go totally out the window. War or no war, you're still killing someone who isnt trying to kill you and thats murder. I dont think the lines are blurred, they seem straightforward enough to me, this isnt something thats happening every time we get in a firefight, which suggests to me the vast majority are very clear in what they can or cant do (or just better at hiding the evidence )
[Edited on 11-11-2013 by JonnyJ]
|
Marc
Member
Registered: 11th Aug 02
Location: York
User status: Offline
|
Boxer punching someone in the ring = Fine
Boxer punching someone in a nightclub = Not fine
M'Kay?
|
