ewerk 26799 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 What a renegade you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26799 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Same happens to British soldiers all the time out there. And schoolgirls, medical workers, aid workers etc etc. But you think it's okay to happen to British soldiers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3279 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 No just really don't like religious nutters. Many of them not Afghani so the foreign soldiers thing cuts both ways. If you think they should be done for murder fine. I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6082 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 What a renegade you are. which bits wrong? They're shutting hospitals and firing nurses but some how find the cash to wage war on the middle east. What threat does Afghanistan pose to England again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26799 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 which bits wrong? They're shutting hospitals and firing nurses but some how find the cash to wage war on the middle east. What threat does Afghanistan pose to England again? My comment was directed at KCG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26799 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 No just really don't like religious nutters. Many of them not Afghani so the foreign soldiers thing cuts both ways. If you think they should be done for murder fine. I don't. So summary execution of British soldiers is wrong, summary execution of Afghans is okay? You see the problem here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3279 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 So summary execution of British soldiers is wrong, summary execution of Afghans is okay? You see the problem here? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26799 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 And that's why you're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3279 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Excellent down to the personal insults. Does this mean I can retaliate? You are a prick of an Irish republican who hates the British army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26799 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Wrong on both counts but thanks for playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14899 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 which bits wrong? They're shutting hospitals and firing nurses but some how find the cash to wage war on the middle east. What threat does Afghanistan pose to England again? You shouldnt be so colloquial in your thinking old son....look at Afghanistan on the map, then look at Iraq, then look at the country which seperates them. I can be pretty right on myself, but sharing a desk with an ex sergeant in 40 Commando often disarms me of such trendy notions. Its the old " a few good men" argument....the human rights we and others in the errr "free world" enjoy are upheld by drone attacks. War is an abnormal situation, and whatever happened and whoever it happeend to, its hardly going to be a very good recruiting tool if marines are prosecuted for what they did or didnt do, and that could be very bad for us all if the shit was truly to hit the fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26799 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 It's an excellent recruitment tool for Al Qaeda and the rest though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14899 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 It's an excellent recruitment tool for Al Qaeda and the rest though. Yeah thats the other side of the coin. But that statement does accept that we should be in Afghanistan to prevent them setting up training camps there, which old whats his name seems to think isnt required, despite evidence of the Taliban/ Al Qaeda tie up before 9-11. So if we're in there, this stuff will happen. Its a war. Its tricky to say the least. But from what my mate says theres not a jury in the land consisting predominantly of white English people that wont laugh this out of court, which does rather make it look a bit of a fools errand. You could accuse him of bias, but he's got a first in Criminology too. He's ferociously intelligent and he's made me think again about a lot of things. We'll see if he's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26799 Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 I'd be surprised if they were charged with such a politically sensitive crime unless they were banged to rights tbh, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6082 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 You shouldnt be so colloquial in your thinking old son....look at Afghanistan on the map, then look at Iraq, then look at the country which seperates them. I can be pretty right on myself, but sharing a desk with an ex sergeant in 40 Commando often disarms me of such trendy notions. Its the old " a few good men" argument....the human rights we and others in the errr "free world" enjoy are upheld by drone attacks. War is an abnormal situation, and whatever happened and whoever it happeend to, its hardly going to be a very good recruiting tool if marines are prosecuted for what they did or didnt do, and that could be very bad for us all if the shit was truly to hit the fan. I'm well aware of the real reasons we are at war. Which further proves my point that the natives of Iraq/Afghanistan might be a bit miffed that they are getting shot by our soldiers. They probably don't care about the effect a trial will have on our recruitment drive. Strange that a soldier friend of yours is sticking up for fellow soldiers. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Just because reports say it was a dangerous insurgent that don't make it so. Any male of military age is classified as a militant over there. It's a technique Obama has introduced to lower the number of civilian deaths he causes with his flying robot assassins. It's been widely discussed in the papers which bizarrely continue to use the propagandistic term despite knowing full well they're spreading false government/military claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6082 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Yeah thats the other side of the coin. But that statement does accept that we should be in Afghanistan to prevent them setting up training camps there, which old whats his name seems to think isnt required, despite evidence of the Taliban/ Al Qaeda tie up before 9-11. So if we're in there, this stuff will happen. Its a war. You realise they tell soldiers this shit to give them some purpose out there? Which evidence are we talking about exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14899 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 I'm well aware of the real reasons we are at war. Which further proves my point that the natives of Iraq/Afghanistan might be a bit miffed that they are getting shot by our soldiers. They probably don't care about the effect a trial will have on our recruitment drive. Strange that a soldier friend of yours is sticking up for fellow soldiers. . . He says if you call him a soldier again he'll hunt you down a kill you...he's asked me to point out to you that he was a ROYAL MARINE!! How do you think this potential prosecution will affect not only future recruitment but also every single serviceman/woman currently deployed to a warzone? I dont happen to support the "war on terror", these training camps were wildly over emphasised by Bush in 2002, but if our elected politicians deem it acceptable to send people to fight in these places, then I think they should receive our full support. That means not prosecuting things that happen in a war zone. Its a war, bad things happen. Someones looking to make a name for themsleves over this, the marine who owned the laptop is a dead man walking and those being prosecuted are now thought likely to be court martialled rather than tried in civil courts. In other words, a right fuckin mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26799 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 How do you think this potential prosecution will affect not only future recruitment but also every single serviceman/woman currently deployed to a warzone? I dont happen to support the "war on terror", these training camps were wildly over emphasised by Bush in 2002, but if our elected politicians deem it acceptable to send people to fight in these places, then I think they should receive our full support. That means not prosecuting things that happen in a war zone. Its a war, bad things happen. Someones looking to make a name for themsleves over this, the marine who owned the laptop is a dead man walking and those being prosecuted are now thought likely to be court martialled rather than tried in civil courts. In other words, a right fuckin mess. So you want to see the suspension of all rules during war time? Giving soldiers carte blanche to do whatever they want? Abuse of prisoners is okay? How about raping locals? The rules of engagement and Armed Forces Code of Conduct are there for very good reasons and to routinely allow soldiers (and even Royal Marines) to ignore them would lead to chaos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14899 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 So you want to see the suspension of all rules during war time? Giving soldiers carte blanche to do whatever they want? Abuse of prisoners is okay? How about raping locals? The rules of engagement and Armed Forces Code of Conduct are there for very good reasons and to routinely allow soldiers (and even Royal Marines) to ignore them would lead to chaos. Well no, but deciding whether to give someone who may or may not have been an "insurgent " medical treatment is morally, if not legally, a grey area and iyam this will be difficult to prove in a court of law so its going to military court. And the locals in Afghanistan and Iraq are/were overwhelmingly treated with the milk of human kindness by UK troops. It would be for the greater good of all those deployed if this prosecution didnt go ahead. Indisputable evidence of the other stuff you mention is different, and has been dealt with. No thanks to Piers Morgan like, but there you go...lots of different agendas going on.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 6082 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 He says if you call him a soldier again he'll hunt you down a kill you...he's asked me to point out to you that he was a ROYAL MARINE!! How do you think this potential prosecution will affect not only future recruitment but also every single serviceman/woman currently deployed to a warzone? I dont happen to support the "war on terror", these training camps were wildly over emphasised by Bush in 2002, but if our elected politicians deem it acceptable to send people to fight in these places, then I think they should receive our full support. That means not prosecuting things that happen in a war zone. Its a war, bad things happen. Someones looking to make a name for themsleves over this, the marine who owned the laptop is a dead man walking and those being prosecuted are now thought likely to be court martialled rather than tried in civil courts. In other words, a right fuckin mess. Yey, pillaging and rape all around. No thanks. I would rather our troops were deployed to Africa to prevent women having their lips cut off I work with a Registrar who has a house in Baghdad. He reckons Iraq is ten times a worse place to live now than when Saddam was in charge. He has to use mirrors to check under his car each morning when hes back home. The nutters have free reign now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26799 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Well no, but deciding whether to give someone who may or may not have been an "insurgent " medical treatment is morally, if not legally, a grey area and iyam this will be difficult to prove in a court of law so its going to military court. And the locals in Afghanistan and Iraq are/were overwhelmingly treated with the milk of human kindness by UK troops. It would be for the greater good of all those deployed if this prosecution didnt go ahead. Indisputable evidence of the other stuff you mention is different, and has been dealt with. No thanks to Piers Morgan like, but there you go...lots of different agendas going on.. I don't think it's legally ambiguous at all, the Geneva Convention states: 'Accordingly there is nothing now which can justify a belligerent in making any adverse distinction between wounded or sick who require his attention, whether they be friend or foe. Both are on a footing of complete equality in the matter of their claims to protection, respect and care. Only grounds of medical urgency can justify priority in the order of treatment'. That's pretty simple to me. I don't buy the argument that it would be for the greater good. Surely it is important that UK forces are not seen to be above the law and that they will be taken to task when proven to have broken the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14899 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 I don't think it's legally ambiguous at all, the Geneva Convention states: 'Accordingly there is nothing now which can justify a belligerent in making any adverse distinction between wounded or sick who require his attention, whether they be friend or foe. Both are on a footing of complete equality in the matter of their claims to protection, respect and care. Only grounds of medical urgency can justify priority in the order of treatment'. That's pretty simple to me. I don't buy the argument that it would be for the greater good. Surely it is important that UK forces are not seen to be above the law and that they will be taken to task when proven to have broken the law. I was trying to imply the "law" is clear on this, as youve pointed out ...but is it a law if only one side is signed up to it?...tell me if am wrong, because am really not sure, but isnt the Geneva convention only applicable when both sides are on an equal footing? i.e. when it was written things were a lot more black and white, one nation v another...this isnt like that, and it may be a mealy mouthed legal technicality but the Geneva Convention may well have nothing to do with the prosecuiton of these lads.Its the same thing that allowed Gunatanmo to be set up. UN human rights laws may well be invoked, am sure they are pretty similar, but the UN being the UN they can no more stand up to any powerful nation than fly to the fuckin moon. Do you not subscribe to the old "disagree with the war, but when folks are out there they get full public support" then?.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26799 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Do you not subscribe to the old "disagree with the war, but when folks are out there they get full public support" then?.. Generally they do have full public support but you that doesn't mean that you can simply ignore any wrongdoing. If these marines are found to have broken military law by a military court then they should be punished. I don't see how that is even in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14899 Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 Generally they do have full public support but you that doesn't mean that you can simply ignore any wrongdoing. If these marines are found to have broken military law by a military court then they should be punished. I don't see how that is even in question. So its "go and put your life on the line, and if you fuck up for any reason you'll be judged by those who wouldnt dream of doing what you volunteer for, and then jailed".If you ask me thats as morally wrong as leaving someone to die whos just attacked you, whilst you are out defending the rights of those who are doing the judging. Lifes not fair, and it wasnt fair for the insurgent either. But I know who's side am on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now