Yes, but it is only going to get other terrorist groups ‘interested’ if these other terrorist groups also want to get British Forces out of Afghanistan, no?

No. Its association with others in armed struggles with similar objectives.
For example, how about the IRA sending bomb and urban warfare specialists to help FARC rebels in Columbia? Both have a history involving drugs but FARC will have no interest in a unified Ireland and the IRA can have little interest in overthrowing the Colombian government to replace it with a Marxist Leninist peasant dictatorship: what they share is the armed struggle, sod the location.

Yes, but why? What for? That isn’t an end in itself.

You can forget all the conspiracy-theory paranoia about the government wanting to control the drugs trade. If a major government wanted to do that they’d simply synthesize some drug in a lab so they could control the whole supply-chain. Anyway there’s no money in drugs; it’s the supply-chain that is expensive.

If there was a nice and western friendly man sitting in the boss seat in Afghan then he could (as had happened with Russia in Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Afghanistan in 1979) request help and military assistance, etc, from his friend CIA man.

Drugs. Maybe its not so much the government as such, more the fact that it would be easier to obtain money to pay for stuff that you want to keep secret rather than going cap in hand to congress where it would be simple for the press to get hold of the wrong end of the stick…;o) Think arms to Iran, Oliver North, and the Contra’s in Nicaragua, for example.
And the supply chain is expensive if you want to do things without attracting the attention of the authorities, whereas if you are the authorities you just get it loaded and off loaded in full view. The CIA used their own airlines to transport their drugs, and when they weren’t available they used USAF Hercules instead.

No. I meant that they tried to find a suitable hook to hang their hat on, something that would get others interested in them. Anything against Israel is always a good rallying cry, America as an imperial power lording it over smaller, weaker countries is another, so linking them with Afghanistan um, links them? Like linking the IRA with Baader Meinhof or Weather Underground, or Red Army Faction, or the Red Brigades, or ETA, or Action Directe… Basically armed groups looking to defeat a government or overthrow a system, even if they don’t completely share ideals, but plant a bomb, take a hostage or shoot a politician and whammo!

Yes, Jewish terrorist groups. Haganah, Irgun Zvai Leumi, the Stern Gang. That sort of thing. But they achieved their aim, so no point in trying to make friends with them – whereas if you tried to be friends with Palestinians and pro Palestinians groups…

Gah – didn’t notice the posts had gone over onto another page, so that there are more of your lovely posts for me to reply to!

Question– Has anyone been able to ascertain whether bombing in this and other countries has definitely been reduced since the war in Afghanistan?

Well, after the 2005 ‘thing’ I’m sure there has not been all that much (Glasgow airport, 2007, and what? I can’t remember anything else but I am frazzled at the mo) in Britain so maybe the question you should be asking is what has been countered or prevented. But then there is stuff happening all over the world which might be connected – but can that be taken into account when their security might be not as stringent as ours, munitions might be more readily available, they have a larger proportion of their population are Muslims (the country could be Islamic already, or be present for centuries rather than decades), or the area has only relatively recently experienced religious unrest.
Is there actually any investigation into where the terrorists in Afghanistan are coming from now? There seems to have been little that I can remember recently about ‘home-grown’ terrorists there or in Pakistan. Maybe they’ve all gone to Syria…

According to the intelligence services, yes.

But then, of course, it is their best interests to make us believe that there are nasty people out there being foiled by them…;o)

So then we have to ask [assuming the intelligence services are correct and actually telling us the truth] are the costs in lives to our servicemen and the financial costs of keeping this up for ,1 year 3 years,indefinitely ? worth it ?.

Depends if you are a bottom-feeding lawyer who tries to drag the government into court on the basis that a client has suffered from some terrorist atrocity if/as/when our forces are pulled out, with the claim that it wouldn’t have happened if we had just invested a little more time in calming the savage beast…

(Put me down as a ‘don’t know’)

I have to ask if the battle in Afghanistan really stops them from Somalia, Pakistan etc from being over here and committing these crimes.

I don’t think they come over here, as such. The last few have been here since they were born, so I guess the answer to your question is…no.

I sense that any pressure against Al Qaeda and the Taliban works in reducing the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the West or its surrogates. How you quantify the values involved I have no idea. You could argue that if the loss of 400 soldiers has prevented a dozen terrorist attacks against civilians here and elsewhere it probably has.

Unless the terrorists are focused on harrying the forces in Afghan, wearing us down slowly, soldier by soldier, so that the public become completely anti and the government has to pull out or be voted out.
You might argue about the loss of 400 soldiers, but if you are related to one of those 400 then you might feel differently…

The difficulty is that the terrorists groups will never give up and will continually reinvent themselves so the “war” will never end. As long as there are radicalised muslims determined to commit atrocities against the West then we cannot afford to drop our guard. If it was possible to control, and by mutual agreement with their sponsors, starve their sources of money and arms the situation might change but in the context of the current East/West relationships that seems unlikely.

They may well reinvent themselves, but in the meantime they need to recruit faster than they lose and that could be a point in our favour. In Iraq there were cases of men being forced to drive car bombs at checkpoints or else their families were to be slaughtered (apparently); I have no idea if there have been car bombs in Kabul (or anywhere else) so maybe this lot are not into suicide bombers, or forcing others to do it instead.
The Taliban’s sponsors? Who might that be? Iran? North Korea? Good luck with talking with them.
It is not in the interests of any ‘sponsor’ to come to a mutual agreement with us that does not mean the downfall of western society!

There is one question left unanswered.
Who in the military deemed it necessary to prosecute the Marine in the first place?
This case should have been delt with internally and if it was just `this is what happens in war` should have gone no further.

Who? Someone who understood that it could not, should not, be kept hidden least our forces be shown at some later date to be less than the compassionate supermen they are portrayed as currently.
Seriously? The wave of remorse given off by senior military leaders might well be because someone got caught with his fingers in the till, but can you show one senior officer who has shown himself willing to commit career/reputation suicide by muttering anything against prosecution?
AND it was dealt with internally – unless a court martial at Bulford (rather than the Old Bailey) under military rules counts to you as being in a civil court.

And good to see Cameron making his support for the Marines as a service, public.

Sorry, but he was hardly likely to have come out and disbanded the whole unit, a la Murdoch and his News Of The World…

1st I must eat humble pie and retract my previous opinion, my knowledge of the Geneva convention is a tad out of date, shooting out of hand is no longer allowed, Non uniformed combatants must be given a fair trial before their shot.

Clearly he broke the law.

Regarding a plea for leniency ie reduced sentence I have no problem with this, sentences are frequently reduced where there are mitigating circumstances.
Examination of the facts may warrant such a reduction in this case.

I agree Justice must be seen to be done but it would also not be right to absolutely crucify the man in order to appear unscrupulous. To those people currently placed in difficult positions they must also have faith in the justice system.

regards

I don’t think there is a death penalty in British justice anymore, maybe not even under military conditions.
What other facts are there that might appear in mitigation that were not produced already? He shot the man but claimed he was already dead whereas his mates claimed he was badly injured; not much you can say there.
If there was a claim for stress due to the ‘hellish’ tour already undertaken then why did he not report to the local head doctor? There has already been moans here about social workers, etc, but if this guy would not take the first step to help himself then can he really use that as an excuse without appearing unmacho? Maybe what they need out there is someone like a social worker, questioning them about their working conditions and making sure they are not getting too frazzled…;o)
Your last point makes no sense – if they are in a difficult position then surely it is best if they do the right thing, rather than break the law and place themselves in an even more difficult position?

Snafu – if they hadn’t then they would be more supportive of what we have been trying to do in the last few years. All we have heard from the most of the media and the “public” is “get us out – now!”

Sorry. I’d like to answer this but I am not sure what part of my rant you are referring to…!
(Now if my posts were shorter…;o)

As to the sentence, whatever it is, let us hope there is no outcry and that the whole miserable business can be put behind all of us, especially the Marines.

But it won’t. Every time something happens it will be referred to by the press. Every time a marine gets killed there will be some element asking if this is revenge. When they are in battle and they kill somebody important then there will be questions – maybe unspoken, even – about whether that person was killed ‘properly’. And then there is the banter from other military elements – the paras for example – although they might actually relish being called The Executioners or whatever.

What, cold blooded murder?

Curses – I thought that when I heard one of the early court reports a few weeks ago!
Congrats, just the same.

The trouble is with a war, the PC brigade always do rule when it’s distant and does not effect them, that’s what happened with Vietnam, they effectively sent the troops there then tied their hands preventing them from accomplishing the task. Same now, unless it is raining bombs on the civil populace so they get a taste of it, as during WW2, it will never change… If you are going to put our troops in harms way, support them, don’t hinder them.

Nnngh.

Sorry, that was me trying to roll my eyes and grit my teeth without screaming and waking the baby.
As above, support cold blooded murder? Are you serious?
Support the troops, yes. But those that are not taking the law into their own hands and making the whole damn thing look guilty.

Vietnam was a screw up of America’s own making: they thought they were technologically capable of defeating a few backward paddy farmers and whilst they were it was only if fought on a level playing field – trying to fight against the men who by day served them beers and cleaned their uniforms yet by night were sneakily not playing fair was not an equal playing field to the yanks. You can fly at 500mph over a jungle but you still have to get down and dirty at some point and play on their territory by their rules. And you can feel magnanimous and make concessions (tying your hands behind your back) when you think you are winning but it is their land and that’s a home advantage as any sportsman will tell you.

If there’s enough anti-war pressure from the media it soon gets into the psyche and is then self-fulfilling. With a free press and a free society I am not sure what you can do. As I said above the man in the street makes no connection with our role in Afghanistan to terrorist bombings, and the media does little to help.

No no no! You THINK the media does little to help but the media has its own problems and, anyway, has been stung before. We were the good guys going into Iraq (how many of us thought at the time that there was a connection with 11 Sept 2001 due to a certain presidents claims?) and then the brown stuff hit the fan: torture, false claims, calls for Blair and Bush to be tried as war criminals, etc etc etc.
Cameron recently found out just how much we felt we’d been stung after losing that vote for military action in Syria – we cannot be lied to about stuff like that anymore: there must be real, honest proof, backed up with evidence, given to us and our politicians cannot provide that now.

Agreed Tony, I have said from the start, Afghanistan, and all the rest of it over there, we shouldn’t have got involved in the first place. It’s our Vietnam

No, its another American Vietnam which we got dragged into by the most right wing, war mongering Labour PM we’ve ever had.
We were led by a fantastic PR coup that sold the concept to us in the space of an hour at the most: 11/9/2001. Where were you when it happened? I know where I was – like those of another generation we now have our equivalent of ‘where were you when Kennedy was shot’. We were led by the nose so damned willingly and now we can afford to regret it – those nations who didn’t (or couldn’t) get involved are relieved like you wouldn’t believe whilst we are still there, up to our necks in the excrement, headfirst.

We can’t even trace half the terrorists that we have in THIS Country

Inside info, Linc?
The Intel guys never said anything like that the other day…;o)

so get them home, and let them sort out the ones WE have at home.I think the Home Office are a disgrace, hundreds of thousands have been “Lost” in England, and we sit back and do nothing. They will, when they launch another attack here at home.

When I was young we lived next door to a man, surname of Ryan, who would frequently get tipsy and rant that all the Irish should be deported since that would sort the NI problem out. Boston and Chicago are some of the most rabidly Irish places in the world, even though a huge percentage of the American Irish have never been further east than the American east coast.
We need to make the first generation Muslim’s appreciate this country more, and make the younger population feel they have a stake in being British, rather than defining themselves by their religion. When the future looks better with a death of your own making, a bunch of infidels tagging along behind, what hope do we have?
The Intel services have obviously got a foot or two in that camp, people who believe in Britain rather than whatever the extremists are trying to sell them, so it can be done. And it is these people who must be the ones preventing further attacks…

It it’s that bad how do you explain the almost complete lack of attacks since the July bombings in London in 2005 – 8 years ago?

Um, the rise of Simon Cowell? Must be there for some reason…
(Glasgow 2007)

Good intelligence in the UK.

Thank you!

Ah, thought you were talking about me…;o)

They do have “Sleeper” cells here Chas

If they do, how do you know? The Daily Mail? Small ad’s in local newspapers?

Whilst I hope not, the Festive Season, may well be the time they are waiting for, when there are lots of folks doing their Christmas shopping.

Ah yes, just like they did last year? Or was it the year before…
Whilst we shouldn’t be complacent there is also a lot to be said for not scaremongering too.

Tony, If it’s that good, why don’t the Home Office know where 140.000 have disappeared to?.

Maybe they just aren’t telling you, Linc.;o)
If they made it public they might have to provide them with benefits and houses, maybe?

The point is that you try to destroy/disrupt them at the point of origin I.e. Afghanistan.

Destroy/disrupt who?

The ones we’ve had here have been from, erm, here.

When was the last time we had an Afghan terrorist working in Britain?
Even those that took down the Twin Towers were mainly from Saudi – now why were the Americans so eager to attack Afghanistan rather than Saudi Arabia???;o)

One thing is certain, one of the terrorists who carried out the suicide bombings in London in July 2005, Shehzad Tanweer, said in a video-taped statement:

“What have you witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And until you stop your financial and military support to America and Israel.”

That statement alone would seem to prove that the bombing were at least aimed a getting British Forces out of Afghanistan…:

You ever see Die Hard (Bruce Willis, Alan Rickman, etc) when Rickman (the baddie) lists a string of terrorist groups he wants members of released before he will release his hostages, merely to distract the authorities? Now I am not saying that Tanweer said what he said to distract, but it would make him look more important and gain respect from other terror groups, wouldn’t you say?

Actually (after checking) no complete arms-embargo exists between Britain and Israel but export licences have been refused in recent times.

Anyway, Israel has a very capable arms industry and I cannot think of a major piece of military hardware that Israel cannot produce for itself (maybe not state-of-the-art aircraft or submarines); Israel certainly would not be defenceless without British military technology.

Not many Jewish terrorist groups around now (not since the late 1940’s…) but if you were after a nod from other anti Israel groups then…way to go?

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.

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…?

And it was clearly a vacant promise since the string of bombings never happened, due to a combination of strangling the seedlings before they could grow and good foreign and domestic intelligence.

Unless there was nothing happening and the Intel boys have just made up the non existent bombings for their own reasons?

Come on, it is a possibility…!

But you have to look beyond Afghanistan to find the reason that British Forces are there; why would anybody want to conquer Afghanistan for Afghanistan?

Maybe we care. Blair would have made some sort of claim like that, but he wouldn’t get away with it now, so maybe another reason – are there more Hawker Hinds to be had…? What about controlling the opium market? They are other possibilities, surely?

Or maybe to put our (American sponsored) Afghani in power.

A pity the majority of our citizens and most of the media take a different view.

They are spoon-fed by the government. What view would you want them to take?

Whatever your feelings as to what this soldier did the real folly is we are still wasting lives in wars we can do little to influence.

We can’t, but he did. Whether he did a good or bad job with his influence is yet to be seen.

A nice day in Reading???

That may be the case but since we and the US are withdrawing our troops we would be relying on contracts agreed with the probable future Taliban lad government to acquire mining rights. And with the current and historic nature of that country’s lack of stability is the West likely to invest time and money there? And it was certainly not why we went there in 2001.

Maybe the Afghan government will employ some foreign backed private security firm (like the former Blackwater, now Academi) who will do the contract for relative peanuts but have control over mining rights?

Its always possible to keep your mouth shut or say ‘I have no comment’, surely

Not that that makes it sound like you are condemning them, oh no…

I didn’t mean to imply that it was the reason for being there. However some of the trade publications that I have contributed PR items to in the past, have carried pieces, about the ‘potential commercial paybacks’ from being in Afghanistan!

Have a look at how rich the backers of Blackwater/XE Services LLC/Academi have become.
If you are well in with the American contract handlers there is gold in them thar war zones.

I think the USA / UK are fighting extremism but it is not extremism in Afghanistan that they are worried about…

…it is the extremism in Muslim, nuclear-weapon capable, Pakistan, immediately to the south.

That is my theory anyway.

Dare you to go over and say that in the Modern Military Aviation forum!

There might be something in what you say, but where is the Pakistani government in all this?

Not just yours, CD. Although not originally, now Pakistan is the real crux of the problem and the extremist cells have been driven there where they flourish with little interference.
My guess is they will return “home” once the UK and US have left and a Taliban government is in control.

Whether they believe Afghanistan is home any longer is another matter – they would have been therein Pakistan since the Russian invasion and be more at home believing they are being persecuted.

I suspect there’re a multitude of reasons for being there – it just seems strange to complete the WB-57 survey work if there’s no interest!

If there was a contract handed out I’d imagine that the survey had to be completed or else the money could have been withheld, or maybe a legal threat of non-completion of the contract, or summit.

Maybe its a convincer for staying on…?

But are there? With the Allied withdrawal surely whoever else might exploit the potential mineral resources it won’t be us, will it?

See above. Hold your breath. Go blue in the face. Fall over.

I would say that the survey work was done to explore the possibility of providing a stable economy that wasn’t based on opium; I wonder what it cost (very cheap in comparison)?

Considering that a lot of the secret American stuff done in South East Asia in the early 1970’s was financed by Pepsi manufacturing plants in Laos and Burma that didn’t produce bottles of fizzy water, there is a fine chance that someone with dark glasses is even now buying the opium and selling it (at a profit, the American way) elsewhere, with no problem transporting the stuff.

(It was about 7.30pm when I started this!!!)

Keep doing it that way; it is much easier to follow.

Thank you.

The majority of the population boosted by half the media do not support the recent conflicts because they have forgotten why we are involved. And even if they have remembered it’s too distant to affect them personally.
An Al Queda bomb in London might concentrate the mind and remind people why are troops are fighting in a distant land.

Charlie, I don’t think the country has forgotten what happened eight years ago, nor the previous attempts that were foiled as discussed by the secret services this week.
Apparently we have had people who have been prosecuted for attempted or foiled acts of terrorism, and others who have tried to gather liked mind zealots to their cause, constantly in the news – making it difficult to avoid.

The way the secret services have painted themselves up, if there was a terrorist bomb in London then MI5, MI6 and GCHQ would have to be considered as stepping aside to allow it, such has been their apparent success.

Major General Thompson (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24877081) could be said to be trying to play easy on his former unit by pleading for ‘just’ a ten year sentence. Justice must be seen to be done without favour, due to the nature of the murder; giving mercy of a sorts will be akin to the police finding it difficult to admit that one of their number knocked down and killed Ian Tomlinson, without eventual punishment to the officer concerned. Or the gunning down of the innocent Jean Charles de Menezes after screwing up surveillance into the bombings in London the previous day, with the police and secret services defending themselves by claiming evidence when there was none. The world has seen, up until now, that the authorities have defended their own; but this can not carry on.
On this occasion the judge needs to come to a decision that makes the world know that it is understood that there will be heavy consequences waiting for those who carry out such atrocities if they take place again.

snafu. Firstly, I hope your child is feeling much better now.
Secondly, whilst I do read your threads, they are at times, overly lengthy. Keep it short, and your interesting, keep it long, and you lose the impetus, of your point.

First, yes, thank you. She is still giving us the most obnoxious form of toxic waste product on a frequent basis, but at least the vomiting stopped before we ran out of bedsheets.
Secondly, if someone posts a point that I feel requires an answer I will try to post an answer and, as I said before, it is easier to post these answers in one thread.

why quote at such length?

I quote so as to draw attention to the parts to which I am replying to. I am sure that if I was posting too much additional drek that was not required then a mod would remove it. Seen it done, know it can be done, expect it will be done if required. But sometimes it is easier to put the quote in so that all can see what is being referred to, and not confuse the issue.

He [my friend] was horrified by what’s happened and condemned the marines whole heartedly.He was taught the Geneva convention and he is what i would say a good soldier should be,salt of the earth.

SNAFU- You keep posting how you wish,rightly or wrongly ,i enjoy your posts answering points put by others.

Col.Tim Collins in his speech before Gulf War 1 — what a wonderful and moral speech .

i/ I know that not all soldiers are bad, and your friend sounds like a real diamond.
ii/ I don’t think I could change even if I wanted to. And I’m not sure I’m all that bothered about changing anyway.
But many thanks for your backing.
iii/ The speech by Col. Collins says so much more about honour and respect than any by some posters here who have backed the detained marines.

…what is important here is perception!

The behaviour of British Forces, in this conflict, fought as it is under the microscope of the ‘peacetime’ media (at home and in the homes of our enemies), has got to be near perfect.

‘We’ have GOT to be better, much better, than ‘them’; or it will be used as a propaganda tool and that can only lead to one thing…

…it weakens us and it strengthens them!

Precisely.
Their actions let down the whole nation, no matter how much certain people might declare that we don’t know anything because we’ve never served.

And I do not know if the criteria of a normal civil or criminal court case are the same as for a Court Martial.

Matters not, its is still a mandatory life sentence.

The groups that I refer to are the Parachute Regiment, the Commando’s, the SAS and the SBS. If they are well led, they will be capable of all kinds of deceptions to fool the enemy. They will know to maintain the impetus of the attack, fight fire with fire and when needed, fight using the enemies rules while giving battle only on their own terms. All of that is called soldiering expertise, something which the groups mentioned are very good at.

Good or not, you are talking about under battle conditions – which is not really what you might call a patrol sent out to check whether a fallen attacker under constant observation by helicopter was dead or alive.

What soldiers are not very good at is moralising…blah blah blah.

Hang on, are you blaming society for this murder? But society wasn’t there – those marines were.
Sorry for cutting most of this bit; anybody interested in excuses can go back and read it.

What chance then is there for the soldier in a deeply threatening environment, maybe hot, hungry thirsty, exhausted by lack of sleep, still occupied by images of his mate lying on the ground preferably dead but, in all probability maimed by an IED and doomed to a wheelchair for the rest of his, at present, young life.

How many men have been killed, injured, or sent out to Afghanistan? The chances are that it is a very minuscule percentage of the grand total who have been killed, and a slightly larger minuscule percentage of those sent out there who were injured.
Yes the soldiers focus will be on being killed or injured, but almost all of them go out and come back without sustaining more than, maybe, a scratch or two. But it is understandable that they would focus on the worst that could happen, and maybe that makes them mental casualties too.
But that does not make anything illegal right.

The know nothing social workers on this forum and elsewhere would have us believe that these young men have not only the time but also the inclination and willingness to start moralising when all that they want is revenge in whichever way it can be obtained and to hell with the Geneva Convention. That is something for the enemy to observe and they do, don’t they.

Maybe its not so much social workers (you really are down on them, aren’t you? Guilty conscience?) but people interested in the law and whether upholding it is still possible in this world. I guess that makes them (us) the enemy to you, since we do observe.

When I think that I put my neck unwittingly on the line on behalf of some of the foaming Trotskyites on these pages I could puke.

Hands up any Trotskyites here… (Waits for the tumble weed to drift out of sight whilst turning over the thought in mind that it is always one end of extremism who blames the other end) Ok, hands up anyone who is interested in the human race because they are humans themselves…

If you’ve never been in the situation or, one like it, of my former comrades-in-arms then don’t post your offensive comments on this or any other forum. As others have said again and again, unless you’ve smelt the cordite, then you can have no understanding whatsoever.

That sounds a little like a threat… But what are you going to do about it – call us lefties or Trotskyites or commies or vermin or scum or whatever?
No John, this is a discussion forum and these things are just discussed here. If you cannot take the heat get well out of the ‘kitchen’. You can tell us about your experiences but you cannot make us accept murder just because your unit was involved.
You don’t like it – tough. That’s the joy of someone else’s discussion forum – you want to make the rules up as you go along, get your own forum.

And now…:

Marine A – guilty of murder. And Linc just to add to our last exchanges the headcam filmed the shooting as the marine quoted Shakespeare as the man convulsed and died.

It gives me no pleasure to say anything about this decision; a little concerned that the other two were found not guilty, since people have been hung in ‘recent’ history for less provocation.

And, John, any lingering respect I had for some of what you have said in relation to servicemen in the heat of battle has been nullified by your irrational and stupid accusations of Trotskyism, coupled with telling one of the most respected members of this form not to post his offensive comments.

It will be water off a ducks back to John, but don’t dwell on it. He has had a rug hauled from beneath him and will be a little tetchy toward most of us for a while, I imagine.

How can cold blooded murder have ever won over the local population?

It couldn’t, but it could have fueled the fury against our men (and probably has) and that’s what makes this sort of action so stupid and dangerous.

“Afterwards, Brigadier Bill Dunham told of the Royal Marine Corps’ reaction to the verdict.

He said: “It is matter of profound regret in this isolated incident that one Marine failed to apply his training and discharge his responsibilities.

“What we’ve heard in the last two weeks is not consistent with the ethos, values and standards of the Royal Marines.

“It was a truly shocking and appalling aberration. It should not have happened and it should never happen again.”

What worries me is that no matter what a brigadier might claim, there are elements – both in that unit, that arm of our military forces, and here – who do believe what happened was right and that this was nothing to be concerned with. Reading Johns comments makes it difficult to believe that the training that is claimed to take place is in any way adequate – both historically and contemporarily.
In fact it sounds exactly like something a naughty boy – or the shamed parents of said naughty boy – would write to say they were sorry, that they promise it will never happen again, and they’d never thought about doing it until it happened and they will never never never think about doing it again, honest.
Anyone else?

Now this I do disagree with!

I agree.

But I agree because those marines – whether found guilty or let off – all have innocent families who have been put in danger by the stupid actions of their menfolk. And yes, I am pointing at ALL the marines here, even those who were released earlier this year: not one of those men pointed out that what happened was not a good thing or made a report for action to be taken, and that just shows the cancer endemic in the service.

Guilty 🙂 sets a precedent, will they now go after all those who had previously committed such crimes?

Have they stopped hunting down SS troopers with a nasty history on their records, or concentration camp guards?

Knowing that something is wrong but still carrying out the act he knows to be wrong does not offer me any crumbs, I have to say.

You echo my thoughts from a while ago.
His actions tells us that he knew he would get away with it, which says plenty about the culture within the marines.

Well were do you stop, Czech’s shooting Germans as they bail out, even the article in Flypast or Aeroplane this month about the Stuka that was trying to force land at a UK airfield that was shot Down killing the crew who could no longer fight back and were simply trying to crash land… It’s a hard and often fuzzy line.

I believe it was well known that some Germans shot at bailed out pilots; and some French, Poles, Russians, in fact the chances are that someone from every nation involved in WWII has shot at downed aircrew at some point. Trying to identify who shot at who might be rather more difficult; has anyone seen any camera gun footage showing dangling pilots and tracer?

Should have disarmed him and walked off leaving him to die in hindsight he was not going to live after being hit by a 30mm If you want to dig through the Geneva Convention that’s probably wrong as well.

If he had been hit by 30mm he probably would have been dead, so it was probably shrapnel – which can be just as dangerous. But it makes little difference since they shot him and covered it up, so we’ll never know.

Just waiting for John to appear and talk his unit out of this result.

Want to tell me how you can win hearts and minds of a Country whose ideas are firmly rooted in the 14th century?

I would agree with bringing our troops home though as it is a complete waste of time and life. The Taliban will be back in power with a nicely trained and equipped ANA as soon as the infidels leave.

14th Century? Must be the ones with the muskets, eh TonyT?

Sorry for a couple of non appearences; I doubt most of you have missed me but I have loyalty to people close to me, dear to my heart – my baby daughter was rather ill and I’d rather look after her than bandy words with the kinds of mind that don’t understand that should be a difference between terrorists and our military.
To those who moan about the length of my posts, well, I don’t look here more than once a day and so I answer those posts I feel need answering in order – sometimes the answering has already happened and I do try to edit the earlier bits but its not always possible. I do like to be complete so I do want to get to all the serious items, and in turn.
Anyways…

It’s no great discovery on your part, I’ve never hidden it. My first concern is my loyalty to my former unit. If you had been in the services, you would understand that but, as far as I know you weren’t. so you don’t.

By the way, some advice, don’t quote from Wikipedia, you will destroy your credibility.

Theadbare arguments always generate some attempt at ‘moral equivalence’. Ask some of the contributors on this forum. Please don’t ask me to translate !

Firstly Wiki is not a problem when it comes to things which are generally well known. It is a good resource for general information, most of the time. When it comes to detail, that’s when you need to give independent sources so whinging about some like that, John, just smacks of having nothing better to say – talk about threadbare. Is that the case, John?
And well done on your loyalty to your former unit. I guess there are (or used to be) former members of the SchutzStaffel who felt the same way and, as I’ve mentioned before, the former Imperial Japanese Army – hey, why not have Katana’s issued to maintain the traditional bushido?

NI was a farse, the guys went out there with both hands chopped off.

That must have handicapped them…like some sort of farce, I’ll bet. Do you think they claimed the IRA did it, just the same? ;o)

I did “Advise” young snafu on that very point, some time ago, but it appears it fell on deaf ears Paul.
Never mind, one can only hope…….:o…..but don’t hold your breath.

Don’t want you sods making some claim that I’m boosting my post count by answering each individual post individually. I can take advice, but when it comes to being strong-armed to tow the line I forget about being a team player.

Are you on this planet ? Do you seriously think that I would ever consider in the slightest, impugning the image of my former comrades in arms ? Do you not think that I and others on this forum would fight tooth and nail on their behalf or indeed any other soldier at the sharp end of the British Army ?

Firstly, for the most part it is only the honour of those stupid prats on trial that we are on about – unless you know different. You may fight for them but they are not fighting for you: they have let YOU and their unit down with their pathological actions. I know that the navy does not sign on to obey the Queen so I guess its the same with the marines, do you really believe the admirals want the sort of publicity that comes with this sort of exposure? Maybe you do, or maybe if they broke into a refugee camp and raped all the women before parading with kids stuck on their bayonets you’d think that they’d gone just a little too far, I don’t know, but at some point you cannot let unit loyalty come between you and good honest reality.
And yes, I am on this planet but if it has guys who get their kicks killing injured people it is not the planet I thought it was.

You and others on this forum, have never served in the Forces and never experienced the character and fortitude displayed by these admirable men yet, they try to sit in judgment on matters that lie outside their limited comprehension. The man that was shot was the enemy, killed before he could kill while taking part in a pretty merciless war.

The fact that a Court Martial could be even convened is a dismal indictment of what has happened to our country through the steady infiltration of the social welfare/human rights nostrums that now, regrettably, dominates our lives.

Get it into your head that, some of us have ‘been there, seen it and done it’, unlike you who hasn’t. We know what we’re talking about.

Ah, back to the ‘you never served, you don’t know what its like’ whine.
Admirable men? Should we change the subject to murderers who can chat for hours about quantum physics – they are obviously learned, but they still did something evil, and evil happens in every corner of life so those who can resist it are the admirable ones.

The court martial has nothing to do with social welfare and human rights – that’s just the way the fascist mind works when hypnotised by the right-wing press going on and on about social welfare and human rights. Ask Linc how many murderers he didn’t arrest because their victims deserved to die – twelve good men (and women) and true (if that how it is in a courts martial) shall make the decision and I guarantee that whatever that decision we shall argue about it. Of course I shall hope that justice prevails because otherwise what sort of country is it that allows murderers to get off just because the victim deserved it…

And if you have been there, seen it, done it, why not share your ‘drag them round the back and slot ‘im’ story?

Would like to see how Mr Green condones this .

If it involves marines then it doesn’t matter, pitch-forking nuns, barbecuing babies, raping dogs, he would just claim he has been there and done it.

Shooting Members of their own Regiment is a definite no in my eyes.

Oh come on! You are just wimping out!

Maybe the marines would do it as a proof of loyalty…

An aspect of this which occurs to me is that incidents like this have probably taken place on all sides since men first fought each other and no doubt since formal rules of engagement under universal codes were introduced. But in earlier times no one had helmet cams……….or am I just being cynical?

Maybe it has, but is it right to carry on such a pathetic tradition just because you can?
Would not the bigger man be above such petty revenge?
Or is it only when the camera is on him that he show remorse?

There is not always cynicism……..

Another war….

Colonel Tim Collins to the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, Iraq 2003.
“We go to liberate, not to conquer.
We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own.
Show respect for them.
There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly.
Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.
As for the others, I expect you to rock their world.
Wipe them out if that is what they choose.
But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory…

He really let the side down with that speech, didn’t he John, Paul, Linc, etc?
Imagine sending your men out to do war and not implore them to slaughter the wounded.
Why not petition for him to be court martialed?

Indeed it was a remarkable speech the more so for its probable uniqueness.

Leaders usually spur their men on with a few words before sending them into battle – witness Henry V’s before Agincourt. Of course it may not be exactly as Shakespeare wrote…

Personally I hope they walk

If they walk then law and order walks with them.

We should treat the enemy with compassion even if they have no compassion for us.
It’s what separates us from them.

If the Marines had dispatched the enemy openly, cleanly I wouldn’t have an issue with what they did.
But the conversation between them shows a callousness I wouldn’t expect from a Royal Marine.
Trying to cover up what they did shows they acted outside of the accepted behavior of war.

Exactly.
They knew it was wrong, they covered it up, they should be punished for it.

I’ve told you before, don’t quote Wiki – it’ll make you look like an idiot !

You may point a finger but remember that three more point back at you.

Heaven forbid that the defence of this country ever rests in the hands of some of those who commit their muddled philosophies to this forum.

I agree – especially since that description aptly fits your torrent of bile.;o)

If I took any notice of your scribblings, I would, most certainly, be the idiot.

Without putting too fine a point on it – you answered it, you took notice.

Hoisted on your own petard…?;o)

If you really want to get wound up about an execution I suggest you think about Lee Rigby instead. Also If you are so incensed why do you have a museum dedicated to machines that are built for the sole purpose of killing people?

Lee Rigby – you start the thread when that trial starts.

There is a beauty in machinery, and we need to remember the past so as not to perpetuate it – hence museums. Maybe the machines are built to prevent killing?

I often wonder if you took Joe Bloggs, a Politician, a Lawyer, a Judge and put them in a situation where they walk in to a scene where their wife, child, parents are being raped and attacked, say in a kitchen where knives are available and wonder if their pious views on what is right and let the courts deal with it would last longer than the time it took to stab the attacker…

But there was no rape involved here. There was a man laying injured and they conspired and murdered him. They covered it up. They knew what they were doing, what was right and wrong, and now they are facing the music and hopefully they will dance.