Help me out ...

[Eric]

Ok, guys, help me out on this one ... you know, input from someone closer to what's going on.

Marines charged with murder over Afghanistan death | UK news | The Guardian

I know I don't have all the facts, but the story brought to mind an observation made by Captain Willard in "Apocalypse Now" ... Remember when he commented that arresting someone for murder in Viet Nam was kinda like handing out speeding tickets at Indianapolis.

 

[MargaretR]

I am not 'close to the event' but feel the need to comment.

They train men to kill and then complain when they do.

Their victim has been described as 'an insurgent' which is a fancy name for 'enemy'.

The true murderers are the politicians who sent them there.

'Conventions of War' are rules devised by the people who never have to experience front line horror. Those rules are intended to sanitize what war actually is - brutality.

The people who control drones murder civilians but ease their consciences by distance from the kill.

When you train a soldier to kill you brainwash away a bit of his human feelings. The fact that one of them returned with a snuff movie of the event shows how de-humanising military service can be.

 

[Gordon Booth]

Well put, MargaretR.
No one is saying he was an innocent civilian- he was an insurgent.
So he must have been shooting at them or threatening them with a gun or explosives to identify him as an 'insurgent'.
These men are told you can't shoot a man because he has a gun,you can't shoot him if he points it at you, you can only shoot at him if he shoots at you. If that's too late for you tough-those are your 'Rules of Engagement'. How can you fight the Taliban on that basis?
Our troops are trained to kill to survive-but our Defence Secretary says ' they carry cards in their uniforms with the rules on them in case they should need to remind themselves'. What a fool!
'Hold on Mr Taliban,I know you've just tried to kill me/blow me up/killed my friends but just wait a minute while I get my little card out to see what I can do about that'.
In situations like that things may go wrong sometimes but-
What a way to destroy the moral of an army!
Mind you I wonder how someone can be foolish enough to record and keep film of something that at least in the aftermath of the event they know was wrong and broke the 'Rules of Engagement'.

 

[cashman]

We have been discussing this n it sure beats the hell outa us. If one agrees wi this war or whatever name they wish to put on it, Insurgent = Enemy,Marine= Trained Soldier, End result= Dead Insurgent, So whats the problem.

 

[DaveinGermany]

The Lads on ops are bound by rules of engagement, Geneva convention & local procedures as dictated by the commanders in the field for ops relevant to prevailing threat levels.

When engaged & live fire is going down any kills are accepted as a necessity of the operational conditions, but from what I can gather, the firefight was over & the insurgent was wounded & a prisoner. Despite how much hatred or hurt there is the prisoner has to be "respected" & not mishandled & more importantly killed after the event. In doing so any soldier steps beyond the bounds of following orders & is open to prosecution for murder.

It's not easy if you've seen your oppoes being killed or maimed , but the Lads can't step beyond what's lawful & will lead to an escalation of barbarity & the our own would be mishandled or murdered if they were taken prisoner, so the rules of engagement are there for that reason.

But this situation would never have arisen had our lads not been there in the first place, being sacrificed for a stinking backward country, rife with corruption, bigotry & medieval attitudes, still we all know who's responsible for that decision don't we.

 

[Guinness]

Well put, MargaretR.

These men are told you can't shoot a man because he has a gun,you can't shoot him if he points it at you, you can only shoot at him if he shoots at you. If that's too late for you tough-those are your 'Rules of Engagement'.

Rules of engagement state that you can shoot if there is an attack or threat of attack..if he has a gun you can shoot him.

I'm guessing there is more to follow on this, can't see the MOD taking this kind of action unless someone out there had something damning and the proverbial was about to hit the fan.

 

[cashman]

Meself i think Rules of Engagement should go out the window when yer fighting terrorists or barnpots that will strap a vest on n blow themselves n many innocents to glory. n not really give a toss who gets blown to hell, The marines had already lost 7 of their mates on that 6 month tour of duty, shouldn't imagine insurgents gave a toss if rules of engagement were followed?

 

[egg&chips]

What if every week a raffle was held in the House of Commons,with the lucky winner getting an all expenses paid trip to conduct a fact finding mission on the conditions endured by the average squad die in every theatre of war we are involved in. This would include ride alongside and, for those who are physically fit enough, accompanying troops on any but the most dangerous missions. How long do you think we would still be involved in such conflicts?

 

[Retlaw]

But this situation would never have arisen had our lads not been there in the first place, being sacrificed for a stinking backward country, rife with corruption, bigotry & medieval attitudes, still we all know who's responsible for that decision don't we.

The ones who should be on trial are the head of the Special Prosecution service & the whistle blower, what the ell went wrong, that some clown could shop his mates like this.

 

[Michael1954]

The ones who should be on trial are the head of the Special Prosecution service & the whistle blower, what the ell went wrong, that some clown could shop his mates like this.

From what I can gather, there was no whistle blower. A video on a lap top belonging to one of the marines was found by the police investigating a separate matter.

 

[Mog]

The Lads on ops are bound by rules of engagement, Geneva convention & local procedures as dictated by the commanders in the field for ops relevant to prevailing threat levels.

When engaged & live fire is going down any kills are accepted as a necessity of the operational conditions, but from what I can gather, the firefight was over & the insurgent was wounded & a prisoner. Despite how much hatred or hurt there is the prisoner has to be "respected" & not mishandled & more importantly killed after the event. In doing so any soldier steps beyond the bounds of following orders & is open to prosecution for murder.

It's not easy if you've seen your oppoes being killed or maimed , but the Lads can't step beyond what's lawful & will lead to an escalation of barbarity & the our own would be mishandled or murdered if they were taken prisoner, so the rules of engagement are there for that reason.

But this situation would never have arisen had our lads not been there in the first place, being sacrificed for a stinking backward country, rife with corruption, bigotry & medieval attitudes, still we all know who's responsible for that decision don't we.

Let me tell you what would have happened if one of our men/women were captured by the Insurgents/Enemy.These are their rules. They would stone, beat and then parade the person and then publicly Behead them. And thats without looking at a little card. This is a war we shoudnt be involved in, If we dont like what happens. Bring them all home now and let them get on with it.

 

[cashman]

These lads are charged wi murdering the same people "Taliban" that shot this 14 yr old girl in the head, A lass who's crime was to work fer education fer women, Wonder if that act comes under Rules Of Engagement. But then the British always abide by the rules,

 

[DaveinGermany]

Let me tell you what would have happened if one of our men/women were captured by the Insurgents/Enemy.These are their rules. They would stone, beat and then parade the person and then publicly Behead them.

In all probability yes, all of the above & more. But we've signed up to a code of conduct along with the Geneva convention & that is what earns our armed forces the respect & admiration the world over & sets them apart from the creatures they're fighting against.

 

[Wynonie Harris]

In all probability yes, all of the above & more. But we've signed up to a code of conduct along with the Geneva convention & that is what earns our armed forces the respect & admiration the world over & sets them apart from the creatures they're fighting against.

I can agree with that, especially as it comes from someone who's been there, done it and got the T-shirt.

 

[cashman]

I must disagree wi the respect the world over, if yeh had said the "Civilised" world oer i could go wi that.

 

[Eric]

I can agree with that, especially as it comes from someone who's been there, done it and got the T-shirt.

I can agree with that almost 100%. All the NATO combat troops in Afghanistan ... that would be British, American, and, until the end of last year, Canadian ... have the same, or similar, rules of engagement. On the other side you have the Taliban, well-organized, resourceful, and determined, whose rules of engagement go something like this: 1. There are no rules. 2. See rule #1. In a circuamstances such as these shiite is bound to happen. However, I do believe that the majority of The Great British Public will support these men. Of course, many won't. And we all know who those "many" are.

By the way, I see that Malala Yousafzai has been transferred to a hospital in the UK. One eggspurt interviewed on CBC suggested that this is more out of a concern for her personal safety than for her health. Wherever, even in the western world, she is transferred to there is probably no shortage of mosque-ateers more than willing to finish off what the Taliban started.

 

[Mog]

In all probability yes, all of the above & more. But we've signed up to a code of conduct along with the Geneva convention & that is what earns our armed forces the respect & admiration the world over & sets them apart from the creatures they're fighting against.

Do you think the Taliban care about the Geneva Convention. You tell that to the families of the 433 members of our armed forces that have died since we have been in THEIR country. You tell that to the the families of all the civilians that died in 9/11 and Bali and the London bombings or any other atrocity that the Taliban are responsible for. You tell an insurgent that its wrong to strap a bomb to his/her chest and kill innocent men, women and children. You tell an insurgent that it is morally wrong and against the Geneva Convention to lay IED,s. You have to Fight Fire with Fire. and when in Rome do as the Romans do. The rules of engagement say that you must not shoot at any insurgent unless he/she shoots at you first. If that was the case we would have lost a lot more than 433. A soldier is trained to shoot to kill, not shoot to wound. A wounded insurgent could and would kill you. Same T shirt.

 

[Gordon Booth]

In all probability yes, all of the above & more. But we've signed up to a code of conduct along with the Geneva convention & that is what earns our armed forces the respect & admiration the world over & sets them apart from the creatures they're fighting against.

DiG, both your posts are what we should expect from a professional from our Armed Forces- calm, responsible, measured and facing up to the rules you lived by as they are.
You are, of course, quite right but it's hard not to have an emotional response when this sort of things happens. Our troops are in an impossible situation fighting in a war they cannot win in a country that doesn't really want them against an enemy that has no rules. They should never have been sent there.

 

[Wynonie Harris]

DiG, both your posts are what we should expect from a professional from our Armed Forces- calm, responsible, measured and facing up to the rules you lived by as they are.
You are, of course, quite right but it's hard not to have an emotional response when this sort of things happens. Our troops are in an impossible situation fighting in a war they cannot win in a country that doesn't really want them against an enemy that has no rules. They should never have been sent there.

It's what I'd expect from Dave, as he was a seasoned professional. Nobody knows the full background to this, but if the guy was a captured insurgent, you can't just start routinely killing POWs, even if they come from an inhuman bunch of savages who abide by no rules. For a start, the commander would end up at a war crimes tribunal, like that Serbian bloke whose name I've forgotten. But, yes, you're right, we should never have gone into that place.

 

[DaveinGermany]

Do you think the Taliban care about the Geneva Convention.

I know as well as you do that they don't follow any convention apart from what their warped twisted minds & mad mullahs preach. And that they have even less regard & respect for life & attitudes that don't adhere to theirs.

Our lads are professionals & that is the difference, they wear a uniform to signify who & what they are, British Soldiers, not some trigger happy bunch of mercenaries & executioners.They walk tall because they do what is right despite their inner conflict, turmoil or the risk.

Things happen in combat zones that shouldn't, it's part of the unusual & exceptional circumstances encountered, that is & always will be the case. these incidents can be understood & explained to a point, but anything that happens after the "Heat of the battle" will always be subjected to extreme scrutiny.