Where do you draw the line?

Guinness · 08-11-2013, 23:05

An insurgent is defined by the UN as someone who is recognised as a legitimate rebel against an established government who is not belligerent. Belligerent is defined as aggressive or warlike behaviour. To me that means an insurgent is someone who chains himself to the gates of Buckingham Palace, digs up a cricket pitch on the eve of a test match or stands in front of a tank in Tienamen Square with his arms outstretched, whilst a belligerent is someone who picks up a gun with intent to kill someone who disagrees with his ideals.

By definition a belligerent insurgent is a terrorist.

So in the case of Marine A...why has the court martial classed the wounded man as an insurgent and not as a terrorist? I see no distinction between the Taliban, UDA, IRA, Black September and this man on a battlefield carrying an AK47 and a grenade.

I'm not defending what 'marine A' did, just arguing against the way the media is playing to the Dads Army ideal 'I say Private Pike, that's just not cricket only a Nazi would do that'. The media are censoring words heard in infant playgrounds across the country but playing with glee the sound of a shot that takes a mans life.

Military experts (i.e. mercenaries), are being dragged in for their two pennorth..'it gives them a reason to fight us more fiercely', 'it gives them propaganda', 'it will make them target British soldiers'....yeah right, like these 'insurgents?' who behead people on youtube, fly planes into buildings, use cars laden with C4 driven by brainwashed acolytes into military bases and place IED's near schools and mosques, need reasons and propaganda to commit atrocities.

Blair put our guys there because he was a Bush sychophant. Cameron keeps them there because 'we are there to keep the country safe'..

Well there's a contradiction... if we are there to keep the country safe that must mean that if we were not there it would be unsafe. Logically it follows that people who make it unsafe must be people with guns and grenades..would that be people with AK47's and grenades on battlefields in Helmand..and if we shoot those people carrying AK47's and grenades (even if they are wounded) to reduce the number of flag draped coffins at Wootton Bassett (for our local indigenous insurgents to spit on and protest against)...is that wrong?

So....if this wounded 'terrorist' had survived, thanks to the skills of the British army field hospital, paid for by our taxes, could he have become the next Abu Hamza, Bin Laden, Amin or Hitler? Is the only good terrorist a dead terrorist? Should you kick a man when he is down so that he doesn't get up when your back is turned and stick you with a carving knife?

Add to this the constant stress of losing your life every time you leave the 'iffy' safety of your compound, coupled with the boredom of being forced to stay in your compound when off duty, yet still be aware of the threat of attack from 'insurgents' at any time..and all the time you are told by politicians you are 'peacekeepers'. You are the good guys!

We are the guys in white hats, only guys with black hats can do bad stuff, they can kill, maim, rape and indoctrinate kids to become human bombs...but us guys in the white hats..we have to be totally beyond reproach, St Francis of Assissi, Saul on the road to Tarsus...we have to turn the other cheek, pluck out our eyes and flagellate ourselves for the whole world to see.

When was the last time the Taliban court martialled one of their own for a beheading?

accyman · 08-11-2013, 23:47

the second someone raises a gun towards our guys all bets are off.If he had lived and got better he would hav eonly set about trying to kill as many of our guys as he possibly could

it may not be cricket but marine A probbably saved quite a few lives putting the rat down

gpick24 · 08-11-2013, 23:55

You may be right accyman, but they know the rules.
Rule 1. Once threat is neutralised, they should be taken prisoner not executed.
Rule 2. If rule 1 is not carried out, don`t get caught.

Restless · 09-11-2013, 00:05

TLDR

Edit

Too many depressing stuff here lately

Mog · 09-11-2013, 08:16

I think the thing that they did wrong in the first place was to only wound the bloke. You are not trained to shoot to wound, you are trained to shoot to kill. That is what they did in a round about sort of way. They killed the enemy.

Margaret Pilkington · 09-11-2013, 09:17

This marine is as much a casualty of the conflict as those soldiers who have been killed.
War and conflict can never be 'civilised'.
If the Taliban had captured a British soldier they see him as the enemy, and will shoot him...they do not recognise the Geneva convention. Yet they expect the Geneva convention to be applied when it comes to those insurgents who are captured.
This conflict is not like the previous wars....where the enemy could easliy be recognised by their uniform...you knew which side they belonged to.
In Afghanistan the soldiers are just as likely to be shot by someone wearing an afghan police uniform...it is, in effect, a guerilla war.

So, I don't blame this soldier. I feel sorry for him...and his family.
He was killing the enemy before they killed him(or his comrades)....he just did it the wrong way(according to Geneva conventions).

Barrie Yates · 09-11-2013, 09:25

The only thing wrong with this episode is that Soldier 2 or 3 was stupid enough not to ensure his head cam was turned off, and then to download the episode onto his LT. Perhaps he wanted to brag to his friends by showing them how they dealt with the Taliban - I hope his colleagues deal "appropriately" with him.

DaveinGermany · 09-11-2013, 11:28

Hard, what the Lad did was wrong by the laws of armed conflict, having said that though, I can understand why he did what he did & to a point condone it.

The type of people these lads are fighting against would have no qualms about summarily executing an ISAF soldier in similar circumstances should their positions be reversed & would no doubt carry out the execution far more barbarically & with greater zeal as that shown by the Marine in question.

The Marine responsible & by extent his family, have now become just further casualties of another foreign war. As seen by this incident, it's not simply the bombs & bullets that cause death, injury & far reaching recriminations to those involved.

Although the Marine pulled the trigger, the politicians & egos of those who conspired to put this lad in that position are equally as guilty.

Margaret Pilkington · 09-11-2013, 12:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

Although the Marine pulled the trigger, the politicians & egos of those who conspired to put this lad in that position are equally as guilty.

This is aboslutely right....but it is this man who will pay the penalty for their hubris, their sabre rattling.....for putting young service men and women into an intolerable situation.

I am sure that I recently read that the Taliban captured soldiers, executed them and then hung body parts from the trees......no Geneva convention protection for those boys.
And I'm sure the Taliban would celebrate the loss of British lives..it is just that we don't see it...no head cam footage stored to a laptop.

gpick24 · 09-11-2013, 12:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

This is aboslutely right....but it is this man who will pay the penalty for their hubris, their sabre rattling.....for putting young service men and women into an intolerable situation.

I am sure that I recently read that the Taliban captured soldiers, executed them and then hung body parts from the trees......no Geneva convention protection for those boys.
And I'm sure the Taliban would celebrate the loss of British lives..it is just that we don't see it...no head cam footage stored to a laptop.

When my step daughter came back from afghan, we were told a story of a young soldier who went off to find some lost equipment, he was told, wrongly, that he would lose his tour bonus for losing it. He never came back. The Taliban actually radioed to tell where he could be found. He was dead,naked and had been tortured.

Margaret Pilkington · 09-11-2013, 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpick24

When my step daughter came back from afghan, we were told a story of a young soldier who went off to find some lost equipment, he was told, wrongly, that he would lose his tour bonus for losing it. He never came back. The Taliban actually radioed to tell where he could be found. He was dead,naked and had been tortured.

No Geneva convention for him either.
There can be no 'Civilised' conflict.
I can understand why the Geneva convention rules were set up...but war was very different back then......I would hazard a guess that most soldiers knew who the enemy was.

jaysay · 09-11-2013, 13:45

Well its a well known fact the British, with that stiff upper lip always play by the rules, the only problem I can see, is we're the only ones who bloodywell do it

Eric · 09-11-2013, 15:09

Terrible decision ... the Taliban are not soldiers; they are murderers, criminals. These are the guys who kill innocent civilians ... women, children, the elderly. Wasn't it the Taliban who shot a young girl in the head 'cause she wanted to go to school. We had something similar over here. Capt. Robert Semrau was dismissed from the Canadian Army ... which was bad enough in the opinion of most Canadians ... but there was no jail time.

Capt. Robert Semrau dismissed from the Forces - Canada - Macleans.ca

Hopefully, sanity might prevail, and the sentence changed.

walkinman221 · 09-11-2013, 21:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

Terrible decision ... the Taliban are not soldiers; they are murderers, criminals. These are the guys who kill innocent civilians ... women, children, the elderly. Wasn't it the Taliban who shot a young girl in the head 'cause she wanted to go to school. We had something similar over here. Capt. Robert Semrau was dismissed from the Canadian Army ... which was bad enough in the opinion of most Canadians ... but there was no jail time.

Capt. Robert Semrau dismissed from the Forces - Canada - Macleans.ca

Hopefully, sanity might prevail, and the sentence changed.

Dont hold your breath Eric, its just another example of our government pandering to laws and regulations which only seem to apply to us, and of course others when it suits them

Guinness · 09-11-2013, 22:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Restless

TLDR

Edit

Too many depressing stuff here lately

Let me winzip my argument for the x-box generation,... next time you're playing Battlefield 3 against pre pubescent americans/russians under your nom de plume of Smeg killA.

Do you drop them to half health and move on, or do you make sure they are dead?

Dammit, that's two paragraphs..no way does your average first person shooter gamer read that far without posting TLDR!