Marines ‘murdered man live on camera’: Court martial sees graphic footage of ‘execution’ of injured Taliban fighter
The victim was left twitching and gasping for breath as the British servicemen, apprehensive that they might have been spotted, pretended to give him first aid
I know what some will say – he was a Taliban terrorist, they did what was right, let all of them get shot, etc. There, I’ve saved you the bother. Move along, there’s nothing to see.
BUT
Is this the sort of thing the British military is renowned for? Does this not reflect badly on our troops? Will this not cause problems because the Taliban are not complete fools, they do remember?
Had this been done by German troops we would all remember the terrible things the SS did, what happened in the concentration camps, the way the world believed that it was in the national psyche to treat prisoners badly. And it would be the same with Japanese troops as well.
Imagine you were talking to your grandfather
You: what did you do in the war, grandfather?
Grand: I executed an injured man, lad.
You: why?
How would you answer that question?
How would you feel if you were told that by your grandfather or, indeed, any relative?
The British military has had a reputation within Britain for being fair when the fighting is over (elsewhere though, some might remember things differently, like the Kenyan Mau Mau for example, or the Boer part of South Africa who know where concentration camps were first used) so this news reflects badly on our national standing.
Americans, in general, do not believe that the things regarded by others as a breech of military protocol done by their military in the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan were a bad thing (executions of injured on video, urinating on bodies on video, abusing prisoners to break the boredom for a camera, torture, long term detentions under duress), but these things (and more) are against the human rights agreed by the United Nations, and you cannot pick and choose who you allow to apply those rights to. Ok, so you know that the Taliban do not follow the human rights convention and would execute you in a heartbeat if the tables had been turned – but is that any reason to stoop to their level?
Ok, you discuss.
By: trumper - 11th November 2013 at 16:34
“Offensive comments” was aimed at the other know nothing nincompoops popping their vacant heads above the parapet – you should have known that !
So thats basically anyone that disagrees with you,because only you are right .
By: John Green - 11th November 2013 at 16:23
Re 179
If you think that I care a “tinkers toss” for your “lingering respect” you are in cloud cuckoo land. I know you can be ‘quick on the draw’ and occasionally miss the point, but I’ve never had to accuse you of wilful misinterpretation. “Foaming Trotskyite” is a phrase borrowed from Private Eye defining hard left Socialists of – for example – the Socialist Workers Party.
Like you I regard Kev 35 as a source of moderation and restrained comment. “Offensive comments” was aimed at the other know nothing nincompoops popping their vacant heads above the parapet – you should have known that !
By: charliehunt - 11th November 2013 at 16:07
Paul – bet you can’t drop your PC down the toilet!!;)
By: Lincoln 7 - 11th November 2013 at 15:39
What’s an Iphone? I use a compuer with a screen,keyboard, mouse and a tower thing and a laptop when it misbehaves.
In case you think I am joking I am not. What does this white mans magic called an I phone do that I can’t? Just in case you think I am completely in the stone age I also have a mobile and a camera with millions of little pixy thing but I have not come to grips with that yet!
I still use my Brownie 127 Paul….:D
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: Lincoln 7 - 11th November 2013 at 15:37
Ah, so you know about the iPhone battery life, do you…..??!!:D
Yup, I recon they ought to make a battery which clearly states, “Guaranteed snafu proof” right to the end of his threads…..:D
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: paul178 - 11th November 2013 at 15:24
What’s an Iphone? I use a compuer with a screen,keyboard, mouse and a tower thing and a laptop when it misbehaves.
In case you think I am joking I am not. What does this white mans magic called an I phone do that I can’t? Just in case you think I am completely in the stone age I also have a mobile and a camera with millions of little pixy thing but I have not come to grips with that yet!
By: charliehunt - 11th November 2013 at 14:11
Ah, so you know about the iPhone battery life, do you…..??!!:D
By: Lincoln 7 - 11th November 2013 at 14:08
Chas, It’s not snafu’s lengthy replies you don’t read for the reason you stated, it’s more likely your phone battery runs down, before you can read all of his replies………:D
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: charliehunt - 11th November 2013 at 13:57
They might, Kev, but I don’t. It’s just that, for reasons not worth rehearsing here, I see the site on my phone much of the time, so the mobile site is my default, and Snafu’s long responses and quotes which require back referencing are just too much. Many get pleasure from them so I hope he continues – I just shan’t be looking, that’s all!:)
By: kev35 - 11th November 2013 at 13:40
Cynics might think that Snafu’s lengthy replies are a means of obfuscation rather than clarification. I find them interesting though. Do please feel free to continue.
Regards,
kev35
By: paul178 - 11th November 2013 at 12:44
The suicide-bombers were British, they were born in Britain, they had British passports, they were not wanted for any crime in Britain, the bombs were manufactured in Britain, from materials available to anybody in Britain…
…so how can sending British Forces to Afghanistan protect us against that?
British when they want something from the state!
Being British to me is supporting my country right or wrong,if you don’t like it leave. I don’t expect special treatment on political or religious grounds and I don’t expect any half baked nit wits to pussyfoot around me nor do I expect any minorities to get special treatment either. Live here obey the laws contribute to society and turn in the trouble makers to the authorities is all I ask.
By: Lincoln 7 - 11th November 2013 at 09:38
snafu, I would like to reply, in the same vein as you, but my end is drawing nigh, and I may well be dead before I finish my plethora of a reply, to equal the length of yours.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: Creaking Door - 11th November 2013 at 09:09
British forces in Afghanistan are/were there to reduce the likelihood of attacks by neutralising the Taliban and its Al Qaeda acolytes.
But there were no Al Qaeda terrorist attacks in Britain until after British Forces went into Afghanistan and no part of the suicide bombings in London in July 2005 could have been disrupted by British operations in Afghanistan.
The suicide-bombers were British, they were born in Britain, they had British passports, they were not wanted for any crime in Britain, the bombs were manufactured in Britain, from materials available to anybody in Britain…
…so how can sending British Forces to Afghanistan protect us against that?
By: Creaking Door - 11th November 2013 at 08:55
Um, maybe it was the contract security company they’d invite in?
No, I don’t think you can make it work for any financial reason; the ‘war’ simply costs more than any financial return those (USA / UK / others) who financed the ‘war’ would ever get out.
Well, what would you do with all the excess soldiers once they are not needed in Afghanistan?
What Britain has always done with its ‘excess’ soldiers (submarines, aircraft-carriers, fighter-bombers, armoured divisions and nuclear missiles)…
…I’d train them to be as effective a deterrent force as possible for a war that I hope they never have to fight.
By: charliehunt - 11th November 2013 at 08:53
[QUOTE=Creaking Door;2086673
So if having British Forces in Afghanistan makes Britain a target…
…how can having British Forces in Afghanistan make Britain safer?[/QUOTE]
British forces will be a target per se, like British civilians. British forces in Afghanistan are/were there to reduce the likelihood of attacks by neutralising the Taliban and its Al Qaeda acolytes.
By: Creaking Door - 11th November 2013 at 08:40
No. Its association with others in armed struggles with similar objectives.
Yes, exactly but the ‘others’ must already have these similar objectives!
If a home-grown suicide-bomber says he wants British Forces out of Afghanistan to ‘impress’ other armed terrorist groups then these other armed terrorist groups must already want British Forces out of Afghanistan.
Therefore it is not an isolated demand; therefore it proves, does it not, that having British Forces in Afghanistan makes Britain a target?
So if having British Forces in Afghanistan makes Britain a target…
…how can having British Forces in Afghanistan make Britain safer?
By: charliehunt - 11th November 2013 at 08:19
Baz- thankfully very few of us, I would think. The problem is that arguably they are well aware and trained as to the sorts of horror they might encounter and secondly where is the line of mitigation to be drawn? I think I could find a spontaneous act easier to understand than a calculated one.
By: bazv - 11th November 2013 at 07:01
Originally Posted by longshot
I don’t normally side with those ‘to the right of Genghis Khan’ but I find the prosecution and conviction of Marine A hypocritical . On this Remembrance Day I would suggest he. too. is a victim of war. at extreme risk of PTSD and rehabilitation to civilian life (if that’s ever possible after ‘combat hardening’ as a foot-soldier) should be the priority and not a prison sentence.His Commanding Officer and the Prime Minister could have kept their mouths shut between conviction and sentencing.
I agree with Longshot and indeed was going to post similar…the horrors of war affect people very deeply…does SNAFU actually believe that anybody comes back from that sort of combat with no psychological damage ??
Like OMG ROFL? Seriously? (Just be introduced to that; fun, innit!)
At least his PTSD released itself in Afghan rather than against his family, his future boss, or maybe a supermarket somewhere in Britain?
No, he knew what he was doing, and so did his mates that got off. If there was an element of PTSD then he should have been brave enough to report to the MO rather than brave enough to shoot an unarmed injured man – but brave men don’t do that, do they…?
As I said previously…not many here are qualified to comment on this case…How many people could honestly say how they would react to seeing their comrades body parts hung in trees and the after effects of IED’s etc.
Careful you do not fall off your High Horse !
By: charliehunt - 11th November 2013 at 06:10
Snafu – you win!! I surrender…..I can’t wake up to endless scrolling on my phone anymore……
My only observation trying to connect what you said with posts a day earlier is that you seem to be confusing Iraq and Afghanistan in your replies…….but please don’t try to clarify. The white flag flutters in the morning breeze!:)
By: snafu - 11th November 2013 at 01:58
Sooo…
…the USA / UK invaded Afghanistan so that they could install a ‘nice and western friendly man’ as President so he could ‘invite’ the USA / UK into Afghanistan…
…the Afghanistan where the USA / UK already had huge Forces that were desperately trying to get out?
You’ll have to run that one by me again…..it is late; I’m going to bed!
Me too, so tired!
Um, maybe it was the contract security company they’d invite in?
It worked in my mind earlier. I admit I fell asleep at some point though. Yes, the nice man from Afghanistan would invite the private security company in to assist his own forces in suppressing the bad guys, and they in turn would employ all those suddenly unwanted troops who – now needing the cash – would also be free of the shackles previously used to hold them back and could do what they felt was needed to get the job done, and with the backing of the boss fella.
Well, what would you do with all the excess soldiers once they are not needed in Afghanistan?;o)
Sign In
October 27, 2013 at 1:02 am