snafutrumper yes soldiers have a point of view which is possibly coloured by what they have seen or had to do that they would not wish on anyone. Most people would understand the stress,fear and the feeling that this might be their last day on this earth if they had. War is brutal and can also brutalise people which during times of extreme stress may manifest itself in many ways.
The Royal Marines in question as I mentioned before had lost 62 of their own. Why would they want to patch up someone if possible who would then go back to trying to kill them? The only mistake they made was having it filmed so the self righteous lefties sitting safely at home(because of them) can indulge themselves in a flurry of indignation. We in this country live in comparative security and we should thank them for it not try and bloody crucify them or would you prefer the United Kingdom to be like Afghanistan?
Again with the politics. You must be paranoid.
If being a ‘leftie’ is to care about people, all people, being a ‘leftie’ means asking difficult or probing questions, then yes, I must be a leftie.
But the opposite is a rightie, someone who doesn’t give a damn about caring for people, who doesn’t want to ask questions that might set them apart from their rigid gameplan, open their minds or open them to attack from their own side. And, as I’ve put before, there is a better term than ‘rightie’ for those people and that is fascist. Does that hat fit you?
The marines were in a war zone; people die in war zones, or had no one told them? If they wanted to stay safe maybe they should have taken up being accountants or lollipop men, because soldiers have a chance of getting killed when in war zones.
They made a mistake because they deliberately went out and MURDERED a man who may or may not have died on site without their assistance: and there it is, if they had not done anything the end result could have been the same, BUT they pushed it by moving him away from where they might be witnessed doing the deed and then argued about where to shoot him – predetermined, therefore murder.
If they had done nothing they wouldn’t even have been questioned about it, I’ll bet.
But they went out of their way to do it, overboard even. And even made a quip about not to say anything because it was at the forefront of at least one mind that authority would frown upon their action. And authority did frown, because it was the military that brought the case out in the open – no one else knew about it until they took action, not lefties, not the media, not politicians. You want to blame somebody blame the senior officers, blame the redcaps, blame the stupid idiots who did the stupid thing that dragged the military into this spotlight. Do you not understand that the ones getting crucified here are the ones that apparently went rogue, the ones who screwed up, not everybody else.
Show us your service photo albums Paul – are they like those from Abu Ghraib? Or don’t you remember how the Americans lost so much face and respect when that all came out? My best friend from school was a sergeant killed out there a couple of years ago. I’ve seen his album, the one that was sent back afterwards, including the gory pictures taken out so as not to shock his family, and its not pretty but it didn’t show anything that would make them ashamed of his actions. Brought home to me that war is bloody and never as pretty as it is in films, and why his unit were always weary when there were American units in the area. But I don’t want his little boy to think his father died so that he could watch Britain’s national respect from around the world sink lower than the Yorkshire Ripper in the popularity ratings simply because our glorious boys were not so glorious; I know my friend thought that way since he instructed me on what they could and could not do within the boundaries of the rules laid down for dealing with contact, prisoners, removal of personal property, and death, the Geneva Convention in everything but name – although he was not against it and tried to make sure that after all the jokes were done his men knew about it too.
Would we prefer the UK to be like Afghanistan? What, where the military- OUR MILITARY – go around shooting the wounded? I’ve run bloody marathons for Help for Heroes in memory of him but I don’t see anything remotely heroic in shooting injured people dead for fun.
snafutrumper yes soldiers have a point of view which is possibly coloured by what they have seen or had to do that they would not wish on anyone. Most people would understand the stress,fear and the feeling that this might be their last day on this earth if they had. War is brutal and can also brutalise people which during times of extreme stress may manifest itself in many ways.
The Royal Marines in question as I mentioned before had lost 62 of their own. Why would they want to patch up someone if possible who would then go back to trying to kill them? The only mistake they made was having it filmed so the self righteous lefties sitting safely at home(because of them) can indulge themselves in a flurry of indignation. We in this country live in comparative security and we should thank them for it not try and bloody crucify them or would you prefer the United Kingdom to be like Afghanistan?
Again with the politics. You must be paranoid.
If being a ‘leftie’ is to care about people, all people, being a ‘leftie’ means asking difficult or probing questions, then yes, I must be a leftie.
But the opposite is a rightie, someone who doesn’t give a damn about caring for people, who doesn’t want to ask questions that might set them apart from their rigid gameplan, open their minds or open them to attack from their own side. And, as I’ve put before, there is a better term than ‘rightie’ for those people and that is fascist. Does that hat fit you?
The marines were in a war zone; people die in war zones, or had no one told them? If they wanted to stay safe maybe they should have taken up being accountants or lollipop men, because soldiers have a chance of getting killed when in war zones.
They made a mistake because they deliberately went out and MURDERED a man who may or may not have died on site without their assistance: and there it is, if they had not done anything the end result could have been the same, BUT they pushed it by moving him away from where they might be witnessed doing the deed and then argued about where to shoot him – predetermined, therefore murder.
If they had done nothing they wouldn’t even have been questioned about it, I’ll bet.
But they went out of their way to do it, overboard even. And even made a quip about not to say anything because it was at the forefront of at least one mind that authority would frown upon their action. And authority did frown, because it was the military that brought the case out in the open – no one else knew about it until they took action, not lefties, not the media, not politicians. You want to blame somebody blame the senior officers, blame the redcaps, blame the stupid idiots who did the stupid thing that dragged the military into this spotlight. Do you not understand that the ones getting crucified here are the ones that apparently went rogue, the ones who screwed up, not everybody else.
Show us your service photo albums Paul – are they like those from Abu Ghraib? Or don’t you remember how the Americans lost so much face and respect when that all came out? My best friend from school was a sergeant killed out there a couple of years ago. I’ve seen his album, the one that was sent back afterwards, including the gory pictures taken out so as not to shock his family, and its not pretty but it didn’t show anything that would make them ashamed of his actions. Brought home to me that war is bloody and never as pretty as it is in films, and why his unit were always weary when there were American units in the area. But I don’t want his little boy to think his father died so that he could watch Britain’s national respect from around the world sink lower than the Yorkshire Ripper in the popularity ratings simply because our glorious boys were not so glorious; I know my friend thought that way since he instructed me on what they could and could not do within the boundaries of the rules laid down for dealing with contact, prisoners, removal of personal property, and death, the Geneva Convention in everything but name – although he was not against it and tried to make sure that after all the jokes were done his men knew about it too.
Would we prefer the UK to be like Afghanistan? What, where the military- OUR MILITARY – go around shooting the wounded? I’ve run bloody marathons for Help for Heroes in memory of him but I don’t see anything remotely heroic in shooting injured people dead for fun.
snafu“Probably the work of a few men under a lot of pressure, though you can’t judge them for it because they weren’t wearing uniforms… “
I think you’ll find the IJA were wearing uniforms, except for items discarded while engaged in wholesale rape, and if, as you suggest, the atrocities in Nanjing were committed by ‘a few men’ then they were bloody efficient.
(Note to self – don’t post when asleep) It should have been “you can’t judge them for it because they were wearing uniforms” in reply to another post from someone who disagrees with me that I shouldn’t judge the military for some reason I can’t remember at the moment.
I am well aware of the recent and horrific history of the Japanese in China, including the terrifying claim by certain parts of the Japanese political system that ‘only’ 40,000 died, that the massacre was a propaganda tool by the Chinese, that it never happened, and that it was purely military so no crime was committed.
Sound familiar?
It is more widely believed that 200,000-300,000 were killed, although a Japanese officer in Germany boasted that 500,000 were killed.
Are you more informed than everyone else?
He must be, he is ex-army so we should assume familiarity. Familiarity with taking people round the corner?
I guess that what his uninformed about is the fact that everyone is entitled to a point of view, which is what he has. Just like everyone else.
….”are you more informed….?” Apart from paul 178 and others I wot not of – yes !
Ah ha! Now he is talking in tongues…A WITCH!!!
The Massacre and Rape of Nanking, was perpetrated by the Japanese Army against unarmed Chinese civilians as an act of revenge and intimidation – as you well know.
Revenge? For what – living?
The troops were bored, they had been fighting for months when they had expected success in days, and their reward for the taking of the city was a free hand in looting and raping.
It remains as a stain on the soul of the Japanese people. For you to compare this massive atrocity with the subject of this thread is an indication, if one were needed, of your threadbare intellect coupled with your warped and perverted view of history.
Maybe he looked at it and thought – as I did – that the death of one is just the start, and once the ball is rolling…?
But this is another instance of you hurling insults at people who do not agree with you. Do people find you a little antisocial in real life, those who are not in agreement with all your views I mean.
I made the comparison in order to highlight your warped and perverted view of history, and your warped and perverted view of morality. As demonstrated in this thread. One minute you’re gung-ho Kilgore advocating “kill ’em all, let God sort them out”, the next you’re Kurtz, and then you want to be Mr Moral Outrage on the Clapham Omnibus whilst questioning my intellect.
No no nonono! Please don’t go boosting his self inflated ego by comparing him to Hollywood characters!
Of course, the real John Green is – as has been revealed in previous threads on this forum – a xenophobe and a racist, so a little bit of schizophrenia isn’t that much of a surprise.
You forgot his paranoia.
For the record, I think it wiser to believe that the individuals responsible for the war crimes ( crimes againsthumanity ) of Nanjing were responsible for their own individual actions, and that it had nothing directly to do with”the Japanese people”. If it were, then you and I would be being held responsible for the incident that is the topic of this thread.
The troops were given the nod to go ahead with it by their officers, who were given the nod by very senior officers. The Japanese people were aware of what was taking place since it was widely reported in the national press (for example, there were two officers competing against each other to be the first to kill 100 Chinese with a sword, but they lost count in the heat of battle and so started again with the target reset at 150. They were both executed for crimes against humanity after the war), so are they complicit because they failed to protest it?
But the way that history is taught in Japan would explain why even today they still believe the massacre did not take place as written elsewhere and that their troops were actually misunderstood heroes.
The outrage committed against the helpless citizens of Nanking, will live in infamy for ever. For you to even suggest a comparison with the subject of this thread passes all understanding and disqualifies you from all further participation – with me – on this and related matters.
I ask again, who died and made you dictator?
How about you try convincing people with reasoned argument rather than telling them that they are disqualified and flouncing off with a pout?
John I suspect you’re (deliberately?) misunderstanding Oppama. The subject of this topic could be the thin end of a very convoluted wedge. Turn a blind eye to one killing today then next week it might be a dozen, a few months time in the hundreds and eventually it might be something in the order of six million. it’s happened before, and not so very long ago.
Yes, what he said ^
No Kev,
There is no misunderstanding my antagonist, deliberately or otherwise. We have history. I also understand the point you make. It is one of scale. The philosophical argument is that one un-neccesary death or a million, it is all the same. Steal a pound and it is the same as stealing one million.
The ‘thin end of the wedge’ means that giving acceptance to mankinds worst instincts on a lesser scale means greater tolerance for those of a larger scale. I can understand the thinking behind this argument and indeed I accept that that danger does exist.
O-kay, so far so good…
However,
Oh good grief…
if for whatever reason, someone had the chance to terminate Herr Hitler at some point during the early 30s when he was on the rise, then would this have been, based on the above thinking, wrong. Would the assassin have been called before the bar of world opinion and condemned ? Knowing what we now know, the assassin would have been lauded as a hero of the first degree. Think Von Stauffenburg. He has a statue to his memory and he failed – narrowly.
So the dead Taliban was actually the next Hitler?
Back in the early 1930s nobody knew what Hitler would be like. It was thought that he had a point, that he was Germanys saviour, that he was just another forthright loudmouthed politician. People here believed in him – not for nothing is the Daily Heil so nicknamed, what with it actually backing him and Moseley’s Blackshirts. But obviously others didn’t and, fortunately, good sense prevailed. The novel Rogue Male (1939), by Geoffrey Household, features a British hunter who gets Hitler in his gunsight and ponders whether he should pull the trigger (he eventually decides he should have), which mirrored a plan to assassinate Hitler (Operation Foxley) at the Berghoff in 1944; the plan was never carried out, of course, for various reasons but the most convincing one was that Hitler was such a poor strategist that it was better to leave him in place rather than have him replaced with somebody who might actually have a clue whilst turning der Fuhrer into a martyr…
If Hitler had been assassinated then the events that unfolded may not have taken place. We won’t know. I mention it as an example of the ‘good’ that can flow from what could be interpreted as ‘a stitch in time’. Few events in human history are that black or that white.
If, if, if, if…
Trousers of time, mate.
What about Stalin and Vlad the impaler if yiu want to bring Hitler into the thread?
Stalin, yes, the biggest cause of mass murder in history.
But the world of horror fiction would be very much emptier without Vlad…
Certainly ! “…Are you more informed…?” That was part of a question directed at me and my qualification to comment. My reply was, that apart from paul 178 whom I believe is an ex serviceman and maybe others that I don’t know of (wot not of; Middle English) I am more informed, being a former serviceman and former member of the unit whose members are under suspicion: No. 40 Commando RM.
Is that sufficient translation ?
Hands up anyone else fluent in Hobbit!
You are more informed because you are an ex-serviceman? Just because..?
Colour me confused.
We have argued about whether or not shooting dead an injured Taliban is murder, and your qualification, only qualification over others it seems, is that as you had been a marine it was not murder. In fact it could be that you have a little too much invested in making your former unit look good rather than convince us without aggression. I really don’t want to ask if you have committed a secret military crime which you might regard as being the right thing to do at the time, but it does sound a little like – to misquote Shakespeare – the gentleman doth protest too much, methinks (old English that makes a bit more sense than yours, I feel).
snafu“Probably the work of a few men under a lot of pressure, though you can’t judge them for it because they weren’t wearing uniforms… “
I think you’ll find the IJA were wearing uniforms, except for items discarded while engaged in wholesale rape, and if, as you suggest, the atrocities in Nanjing were committed by ‘a few men’ then they were bloody efficient.
(Note to self – don’t post when asleep) It should have been “you can’t judge them for it because they were wearing uniforms” in reply to another post from someone who disagrees with me that I shouldn’t judge the military for some reason I can’t remember at the moment.
I am well aware of the recent and horrific history of the Japanese in China, including the terrifying claim by certain parts of the Japanese political system that ‘only’ 40,000 died, that the massacre was a propaganda tool by the Chinese, that it never happened, and that it was purely military so no crime was committed.
Sound familiar?
It is more widely believed that 200,000-300,000 were killed, although a Japanese officer in Germany boasted that 500,000 were killed.
Are you more informed than everyone else?
He must be, he is ex-army so we should assume familiarity. Familiarity with taking people round the corner?
I guess that what his uninformed about is the fact that everyone is entitled to a point of view, which is what he has. Just like everyone else.
….”are you more informed….?” Apart from paul 178 and others I wot not of – yes !
Ah ha! Now he is talking in tongues…A WITCH!!!
The Massacre and Rape of Nanking, was perpetrated by the Japanese Army against unarmed Chinese civilians as an act of revenge and intimidation – as you well know.
Revenge? For what – living?
The troops were bored, they had been fighting for months when they had expected success in days, and their reward for the taking of the city was a free hand in looting and raping.
It remains as a stain on the soul of the Japanese people. For you to compare this massive atrocity with the subject of this thread is an indication, if one were needed, of your threadbare intellect coupled with your warped and perverted view of history.
Maybe he looked at it and thought – as I did – that the death of one is just the start, and once the ball is rolling…?
But this is another instance of you hurling insults at people who do not agree with you. Do people find you a little antisocial in real life, those who are not in agreement with all your views I mean.
I made the comparison in order to highlight your warped and perverted view of history, and your warped and perverted view of morality. As demonstrated in this thread. One minute you’re gung-ho Kilgore advocating “kill ’em all, let God sort them out”, the next you’re Kurtz, and then you want to be Mr Moral Outrage on the Clapham Omnibus whilst questioning my intellect.
No no nonono! Please don’t go boosting his self inflated ego by comparing him to Hollywood characters!
Of course, the real John Green is – as has been revealed in previous threads on this forum – a xenophobe and a racist, so a little bit of schizophrenia isn’t that much of a surprise.
You forgot his paranoia.
For the record, I think it wiser to believe that the individuals responsible for the war crimes ( crimes againsthumanity ) of Nanjing were responsible for their own individual actions, and that it had nothing directly to do with”the Japanese people”. If it were, then you and I would be being held responsible for the incident that is the topic of this thread.
The troops were given the nod to go ahead with it by their officers, who were given the nod by very senior officers. The Japanese people were aware of what was taking place since it was widely reported in the national press (for example, there were two officers competing against each other to be the first to kill 100 Chinese with a sword, but they lost count in the heat of battle and so started again with the target reset at 150. They were both executed for crimes against humanity after the war), so are they complicit because they failed to protest it?
But the way that history is taught in Japan would explain why even today they still believe the massacre did not take place as written elsewhere and that their troops were actually misunderstood heroes.
The outrage committed against the helpless citizens of Nanking, will live in infamy for ever. For you to even suggest a comparison with the subject of this thread passes all understanding and disqualifies you from all further participation – with me – on this and related matters.
I ask again, who died and made you dictator?
How about you try convincing people with reasoned argument rather than telling them that they are disqualified and flouncing off with a pout?
John I suspect you’re (deliberately?) misunderstanding Oppama. The subject of this topic could be the thin end of a very convoluted wedge. Turn a blind eye to one killing today then next week it might be a dozen, a few months time in the hundreds and eventually it might be something in the order of six million. it’s happened before, and not so very long ago.
Yes, what he said ^
No Kev,
There is no misunderstanding my antagonist, deliberately or otherwise. We have history. I also understand the point you make. It is one of scale. The philosophical argument is that one un-neccesary death or a million, it is all the same. Steal a pound and it is the same as stealing one million.
The ‘thin end of the wedge’ means that giving acceptance to mankinds worst instincts on a lesser scale means greater tolerance for those of a larger scale. I can understand the thinking behind this argument and indeed I accept that that danger does exist.
O-kay, so far so good…
However,
Oh good grief…
if for whatever reason, someone had the chance to terminate Herr Hitler at some point during the early 30s when he was on the rise, then would this have been, based on the above thinking, wrong. Would the assassin have been called before the bar of world opinion and condemned ? Knowing what we now know, the assassin would have been lauded as a hero of the first degree. Think Von Stauffenburg. He has a statue to his memory and he failed – narrowly.
So the dead Taliban was actually the next Hitler?
Back in the early 1930s nobody knew what Hitler would be like. It was thought that he had a point, that he was Germanys saviour, that he was just another forthright loudmouthed politician. People here believed in him – not for nothing is the Daily Heil so nicknamed, what with it actually backing him and Moseley’s Blackshirts. But obviously others didn’t and, fortunately, good sense prevailed. The novel Rogue Male (1939), by Geoffrey Household, features a British hunter who gets Hitler in his gunsight and ponders whether he should pull the trigger (he eventually decides he should have), which mirrored a plan to assassinate Hitler (Operation Foxley) at the Berghoff in 1944; the plan was never carried out, of course, for various reasons but the most convincing one was that Hitler was such a poor strategist that it was better to leave him in place rather than have him replaced with somebody who might actually have a clue whilst turning der Fuhrer into a martyr…
If Hitler had been assassinated then the events that unfolded may not have taken place. We won’t know. I mention it as an example of the ‘good’ that can flow from what could be interpreted as ‘a stitch in time’. Few events in human history are that black or that white.
If, if, if, if…
Trousers of time, mate.
What about Stalin and Vlad the impaler if yiu want to bring Hitler into the thread?
Stalin, yes, the biggest cause of mass murder in history.
But the world of horror fiction would be very much emptier without Vlad…
Certainly ! “…Are you more informed…?” That was part of a question directed at me and my qualification to comment. My reply was, that apart from paul 178 whom I believe is an ex serviceman and maybe others that I don’t know of (wot not of; Middle English) I am more informed, being a former serviceman and former member of the unit whose members are under suspicion: No. 40 Commando RM.
Is that sufficient translation ?
Hands up anyone else fluent in Hobbit!
You are more informed because you are an ex-serviceman? Just because..?
Colour me confused.
We have argued about whether or not shooting dead an injured Taliban is murder, and your qualification, only qualification over others it seems, is that as you had been a marine it was not murder. In fact it could be that you have a little too much invested in making your former unit look good rather than convince us without aggression. I really don’t want to ask if you have committed a secret military crime which you might regard as being the right thing to do at the time, but it does sound a little like – to misquote Shakespeare – the gentleman doth protest too much, methinks (old English that makes a bit more sense than yours, I feel).
snafuMy one year old daughter ‘dancing’ along to Dare by Gorillaz this morning. Videoed her on my phone so that I can laugh along with her at anytime.
snafuMy one year old daughter ‘dancing’ along to Dare by Gorillaz this morning. Videoed her on my phone so that I can laugh along with her at anytime.
snafuThink it is a Felixstowe F2A.
Can’t find anything about them being based at Invergordon. Not in a quick look, anyway.
snafuThat’s it see there being tried for murder but if you refer to my points then there is no case to answer, by the rules of war, the fact they are being tried means somebody has applied a set of rules over and above these.
What im trying to say (badly) is that there action broke no rule s of war, so what rules have we applied.
Try asking the MoD. Or the marine sergeant, the one who told his men that it hadn’t happened or he was in trouble.
Either way I’m guessing that claiming immunity through rules of war didn’t work with the defence lawyers, which means that they didn’t want the humiliation of being laughed out of court.
That’s simple Norn Iron was not a war zone the IRA were terrorists not combatants it was a civil order issue,
Many people recall how they demanded POW status in Long Kesh, but many of us also recall how they expected to be arrested if identified and how the cowardly *******s cried about their rights and a shoot to kill policy if the rounds went there way. ( 2 Family friends (Forces) and our very friendly coal man (Part time UDR) were murdered whilst off duty, John whilst delivering coal just before Christmas.
Um, so if the IRA were terrorists how are the Taliban any different? You want to bracket them with shoplifters or car thieves instead?
The captured IRA wanted to be identified as PoWs to gain official recognition; but the government would not do that because that could give the Republicans a foothold, so it was never going to happen. Shoot to kill policies would eventually apply only to the special forces – Operation Flavius (Gibraltar) for example, or the Iranian Embassy Siege (the only surviving terrorist was apparently on the verge of execution when it was pointed out that the assault was being transmitted live and they were being watched by cameras; two more were alleged to have been shot after surrendering by hostages who had convinced them to throw down their weapons), leaving the ridiculous situation of soldiers being able to shoot at a stolen car coming straight at them but being culpable if they shot after it passed (see Private Clegg).
Murdering is what terrorists do, it is not right yet it has to be expected that they will try to instil fear into the populace by committing acts of near random murder to get their point across.
I see you point but by that token there’s no such thing as civilian casualties as everyone in Afghanistan is wearing a uniform.
…Which is what the terrorist wants.
You’ll have soldiers attempting not to upset innocent Afghans (like hell they will!) and their government whilst being wary of not being taken in by ambushes.
As an aside on a similar subject, I spoke with someone today who is friendly with somebody in CID (“Coppers In Disguise”) who was apparently threatened with disciplinary action for not respecting his uniform – despite the fact that he works in civvies…!
Now the above point is bad that is poor training and frightened men, I must say though im not sure in those circumstances if those firing should be charged because the fault lies higher up the chain. If however they deliberately target non combatants for kicks that’s different.
That’s terrorists and their uniform issues for you. If it came to action being taken – and I know of none been taken by the US – then would have to be the rank and file taking the initial brunt, followed up by the officers as a way to prove the point.
….” Guess I was wrong …” Yes, you were and are. It wasn’t the first time and it won’t be the last ! See below:
….”why IRA members were not immediately shot….” Well, three of them were, in a garage on Gibraltar. Plus a further number in an ambush near Armagh on the Border.
You took my ‘guess I was wrong’ out of context – I was wrong to assume that you understood my point, not an admission that I was conceding the point to you. Do you really want me to resort to using language suitable for the hard of thinking?
And although some were shot (your examples are the SAS and probably the one of three incidents by the RUC if it was late 1982) others were quite obviously not: now why was that, I wonder…
Could it be that we (as Britain) did not want to upset the Americans? There was a lot of fund raising over there in the 1970s and 80s, and apparently every US president has had Irish ancestors (O’Bama, anyone?) and you don’t want to cheese him off…
But there are other possibilities: without digging into it too deeply, they look like us. Newspapers in America were encouraged to print pictures of dead Japanese troops after Pearl Harbor whilst forbidden from showing dead German or Italians, the reason being that they were white Europeans and the ‘important’ people in America at the time were Caucasian’s. Wherever Britons have gone in recent history (narrow it down to the last 500 years) they have not carried out atrocities against Caucasian’s (except the Boer War…I don’t know why).
I propose that this Afghan Taliban did not look like us, therefore his death does not matter.
Is that what you all mean?
Drifting this thread slightly. The leader of Pakistan’s Taliban Hakimullah Mehsud was killed by US Drone would you call that an execution,murder or a legitimate act of war and those that ordered it face a Court or given a medal?
Maybe you might ask this question in Pakistan, where this incident is regarded as a way of stalling peace talks by the agenda forcing Americans, who refer all questions about it to Pakistan since it is, apparently, an ‘internal matter’, whilst Pakistan accuses the US of violating their sovereignty.
I wasn’t sure why you were separating this from all the other killings. Because it was by drone? But the US has been using drones with success for a few years.
Or did I misunderstand your question?
I’m guessing it was directed at me.
Yes, drones have been used for years (the word ‘success’ might be a little optimistic, though) but the problem is that much of the time they have been used in the same way that the old U2’s were used in the early days: over territory that had not given permission for such over flights or even knew about them until action took place. Pakistan has ‘suffered’ from drones killing their citizens – both Taliban and civilian – the same as in Afghanistan; the Afghan government is not happy because they are the ones who have to deal with irate, surviving next of kin from a destroyed wedding party or whatever, and the Pakistani government are, similarly, getting it in the neck from citizens who are unhappy that the US is ignoring their sovereignty – witness the bin Laden raid.
A justifiable act of War Chas, no more, no less.
In any case within 2 days, he had been replaced by another, and possibly WORSE Talliban leader. And has made himself a target, for another Drone attack. At least you can’t take a Drone to Court, for misbehaving, can you?.
That’s a little harsh for you, Linc!
Pakistan declaring war on the US for violation of their airspace and the use of weapons within Pakistan without even consulting the authorities is a little unlikely though, even if said drone strike looks like the US trying extremely hard to deter Pakistan from even talking with the Taliban…
According to reports this evening they haven’t replaced him with anybody, better or worser.
I fail to understand the fuss about drones. It seems to me that they are the ideal solution to protect your own servicemen in a conflict area. Civilians are and always have been unfortunate collateral in conflict so the use of drones inflicting civilian casualties accidentally is not a new phenomenon.
Which is fine is it? Its all sweetness and light, unless it happens to be an innocent you who is on the wrong end of the drones wrath!
And as I said above, many times they are operating in areas without the local national governments permission, threaten that areas political stability, and many times kill innocent people without apology. The use of drones in Pakistan is an illustration of America throwing its weight around, strong arm flexing without concern that their actions are likely to destabilise the government which could be replaced by a Taliban dictatorship (or whatever) which they would then have to overthrow. Good or bad, what they have there now is currently better than the other option.
Mumble mumble politicising an opposition mumble handing positive propaganda to Taliban mumble cutting off highways to US fuel tankers into Afghanistan mumble mumble.
Exactly right. Your last three sentences should be tattooed on the foreheads of some of the argumentative dunderheads on this Forum.
Gosh, who died and made you fuhrer?
I do not agree with you, I stand my ground under your assault, personal remarks even, so you resort to hurling personal insults instead?
What can I call you in return, John?
I think here you have the crux of the problem as far as the enemy are concerned it is a war, as far as the (our) politicians are concerned they are treating it as a more violent Northern Ireland, hence the poor ******s on the ground are finding themselves hamstrung by political constraints.
Worse still Political constraints limiting troop numbers and aggressive prosecution of contacts* and avoidance of casualties has resulted in a failure on the ground, Failure on the ground is regarded as a failure by the armed forces which requires more political oversight que comparisons to Vietnam and a situation where we could flap around in smaller circles till we disappear up our own collective arses.
*ie withdraw when taken under fire so as not to endanger any bystanders Heroic restraint we call it cowardice and reluctance to fight in the eyes of our allies and enemies.
Our military have always complained that they never have enough money, there have been troop cuts since the ‘end’ of the Cold War.
Politicians and Generals are not the same people – one wants diplomacy more than the others show of force. The problem is that it is one huge failure (like Vietnam was for the US) since we will wash our hands of it upon withdrawal and the Taliban roll in again, the politicos will want talks again and the military will want their hands untied before they return.
BUT the public are sick of Afghanistan, like they were sick of Iraqi before it. With Iraq we were fooled by a scheming, tricksy government who lied to carry out its plan; with Afghanistan we were dragged on Americas coattails in to a country which has a proven record for being a pig to overthrow and retain control (ask the Russians), and for all the good words and good intentions we are still having to maintain fortified positions for our troops and send them out fully armed and fully alert on patrols where they could be killed in a heartbeat. Does that sound like a success, all these years down the line?
I am sorry for all the good things that will die as and when the Taliban take over – I have no reason to forbid the female population an education, or give them all the freedom not to follow Islam doctrine by law – but our rulers don’t have the heart (or the financial freedom, unless oil is found there) to carry on there, and our military won’t want to do it with their hands tied behind their backs.
Even so, those marines knew what they did was wrong and have ended up in court for it.
Call it what you will people die and get injured in mind and body anyway. If they are civilians who die it is called “collateral damage” it does not sound so bad that way does it?
No, unless it affects you and/or people you know, then it sounds too damned impersonal…
In my mind I am trying to work these things out in terms of what would happen if we lived in Afghan and this was happening to us instead.
Would you be mildly annoyed if a drone happened to wipe out your neighbours family?
Or if your cousin was dragged away and shot for shaving his beard?
Or your brother was shot just for looking suspicious as a convoy drove through his village?
Or your daughter was beheaded because she had not been suitably and respectfully dressed when she went to buy bread?
….”drag them round the corner….” Now you’re talking !
There’s uninformed opinion and informed opinion – I’ll leave it to you to work out the difference
And there are those with pig-headed obstinance who are starting to show their true colours, but it would be a little too much to point out that – in the past – others who didn’t want free discussion were happy to dispose of those who did not agree with them by dragging them round a corner…
Can I guess you are not going to own up to being the ‘uninformed’ opinion?
So, kind of like Nanjing in late 1937 / early 1938 then…?
Probably the work of a few men under a lot of pressure, though you can’t judge them for it because they weren’t wearing uniforms…
snafuThat’s it see there being tried for murder but if you refer to my points then there is no case to answer, by the rules of war, the fact they are being tried means somebody has applied a set of rules over and above these.
What im trying to say (badly) is that there action broke no rule s of war, so what rules have we applied.
Try asking the MoD. Or the marine sergeant, the one who told his men that it hadn’t happened or he was in trouble.
Either way I’m guessing that claiming immunity through rules of war didn’t work with the defence lawyers, which means that they didn’t want the humiliation of being laughed out of court.
That’s simple Norn Iron was not a war zone the IRA were terrorists not combatants it was a civil order issue,
Many people recall how they demanded POW status in Long Kesh, but many of us also recall how they expected to be arrested if identified and how the cowardly *******s cried about their rights and a shoot to kill policy if the rounds went there way. ( 2 Family friends (Forces) and our very friendly coal man (Part time UDR) were murdered whilst off duty, John whilst delivering coal just before Christmas.
Um, so if the IRA were terrorists how are the Taliban any different? You want to bracket them with shoplifters or car thieves instead?
The captured IRA wanted to be identified as PoWs to gain official recognition; but the government would not do that because that could give the Republicans a foothold, so it was never going to happen. Shoot to kill policies would eventually apply only to the special forces – Operation Flavius (Gibraltar) for example, or the Iranian Embassy Siege (the only surviving terrorist was apparently on the verge of execution when it was pointed out that the assault was being transmitted live and they were being watched by cameras; two more were alleged to have been shot after surrendering by hostages who had convinced them to throw down their weapons), leaving the ridiculous situation of soldiers being able to shoot at a stolen car coming straight at them but being culpable if they shot after it passed (see Private Clegg).
Murdering is what terrorists do, it is not right yet it has to be expected that they will try to instil fear into the populace by committing acts of near random murder to get their point across.
I see you point but by that token there’s no such thing as civilian casualties as everyone in Afghanistan is wearing a uniform.
…Which is what the terrorist wants.
You’ll have soldiers attempting not to upset innocent Afghans (like hell they will!) and their government whilst being wary of not being taken in by ambushes.
As an aside on a similar subject, I spoke with someone today who is friendly with somebody in CID (“Coppers In Disguise”) who was apparently threatened with disciplinary action for not respecting his uniform – despite the fact that he works in civvies…!
Now the above point is bad that is poor training and frightened men, I must say though im not sure in those circumstances if those firing should be charged because the fault lies higher up the chain. If however they deliberately target non combatants for kicks that’s different.
That’s terrorists and their uniform issues for you. If it came to action being taken – and I know of none been taken by the US – then would have to be the rank and file taking the initial brunt, followed up by the officers as a way to prove the point.
….” Guess I was wrong …” Yes, you were and are. It wasn’t the first time and it won’t be the last ! See below:
….”why IRA members were not immediately shot….” Well, three of them were, in a garage on Gibraltar. Plus a further number in an ambush near Armagh on the Border.
You took my ‘guess I was wrong’ out of context – I was wrong to assume that you understood my point, not an admission that I was conceding the point to you. Do you really want me to resort to using language suitable for the hard of thinking?
And although some were shot (your examples are the SAS and probably the one of three incidents by the RUC if it was late 1982) others were quite obviously not: now why was that, I wonder…
Could it be that we (as Britain) did not want to upset the Americans? There was a lot of fund raising over there in the 1970s and 80s, and apparently every US president has had Irish ancestors (O’Bama, anyone?) and you don’t want to cheese him off…
But there are other possibilities: without digging into it too deeply, they look like us. Newspapers in America were encouraged to print pictures of dead Japanese troops after Pearl Harbor whilst forbidden from showing dead German or Italians, the reason being that they were white Europeans and the ‘important’ people in America at the time were Caucasian’s. Wherever Britons have gone in recent history (narrow it down to the last 500 years) they have not carried out atrocities against Caucasian’s (except the Boer War…I don’t know why).
I propose that this Afghan Taliban did not look like us, therefore his death does not matter.
Is that what you all mean?
Drifting this thread slightly. The leader of Pakistan’s Taliban Hakimullah Mehsud was killed by US Drone would you call that an execution,murder or a legitimate act of war and those that ordered it face a Court or given a medal?
Maybe you might ask this question in Pakistan, where this incident is regarded as a way of stalling peace talks by the agenda forcing Americans, who refer all questions about it to Pakistan since it is, apparently, an ‘internal matter’, whilst Pakistan accuses the US of violating their sovereignty.
I wasn’t sure why you were separating this from all the other killings. Because it was by drone? But the US has been using drones with success for a few years.
Or did I misunderstand your question?
I’m guessing it was directed at me.
Yes, drones have been used for years (the word ‘success’ might be a little optimistic, though) but the problem is that much of the time they have been used in the same way that the old U2’s were used in the early days: over territory that had not given permission for such over flights or even knew about them until action took place. Pakistan has ‘suffered’ from drones killing their citizens – both Taliban and civilian – the same as in Afghanistan; the Afghan government is not happy because they are the ones who have to deal with irate, surviving next of kin from a destroyed wedding party or whatever, and the Pakistani government are, similarly, getting it in the neck from citizens who are unhappy that the US is ignoring their sovereignty – witness the bin Laden raid.
A justifiable act of War Chas, no more, no less.
In any case within 2 days, he had been replaced by another, and possibly WORSE Talliban leader. And has made himself a target, for another Drone attack. At least you can’t take a Drone to Court, for misbehaving, can you?.
That’s a little harsh for you, Linc!
Pakistan declaring war on the US for violation of their airspace and the use of weapons within Pakistan without even consulting the authorities is a little unlikely though, even if said drone strike looks like the US trying extremely hard to deter Pakistan from even talking with the Taliban…
According to reports this evening they haven’t replaced him with anybody, better or worser.
I fail to understand the fuss about drones. It seems to me that they are the ideal solution to protect your own servicemen in a conflict area. Civilians are and always have been unfortunate collateral in conflict so the use of drones inflicting civilian casualties accidentally is not a new phenomenon.
Which is fine is it? Its all sweetness and light, unless it happens to be an innocent you who is on the wrong end of the drones wrath!
And as I said above, many times they are operating in areas without the local national governments permission, threaten that areas political stability, and many times kill innocent people without apology. The use of drones in Pakistan is an illustration of America throwing its weight around, strong arm flexing without concern that their actions are likely to destabilise the government which could be replaced by a Taliban dictatorship (or whatever) which they would then have to overthrow. Good or bad, what they have there now is currently better than the other option.
Mumble mumble politicising an opposition mumble handing positive propaganda to Taliban mumble cutting off highways to US fuel tankers into Afghanistan mumble mumble.
Exactly right. Your last three sentences should be tattooed on the foreheads of some of the argumentative dunderheads on this Forum.
Gosh, who died and made you fuhrer?
I do not agree with you, I stand my ground under your assault, personal remarks even, so you resort to hurling personal insults instead?
What can I call you in return, John?
I think here you have the crux of the problem as far as the enemy are concerned it is a war, as far as the (our) politicians are concerned they are treating it as a more violent Northern Ireland, hence the poor ******s on the ground are finding themselves hamstrung by political constraints.
Worse still Political constraints limiting troop numbers and aggressive prosecution of contacts* and avoidance of casualties has resulted in a failure on the ground, Failure on the ground is regarded as a failure by the armed forces which requires more political oversight que comparisons to Vietnam and a situation where we could flap around in smaller circles till we disappear up our own collective arses.
*ie withdraw when taken under fire so as not to endanger any bystanders Heroic restraint we call it cowardice and reluctance to fight in the eyes of our allies and enemies.
Our military have always complained that they never have enough money, there have been troop cuts since the ‘end’ of the Cold War.
Politicians and Generals are not the same people – one wants diplomacy more than the others show of force. The problem is that it is one huge failure (like Vietnam was for the US) since we will wash our hands of it upon withdrawal and the Taliban roll in again, the politicos will want talks again and the military will want their hands untied before they return.
BUT the public are sick of Afghanistan, like they were sick of Iraqi before it. With Iraq we were fooled by a scheming, tricksy government who lied to carry out its plan; with Afghanistan we were dragged on Americas coattails in to a country which has a proven record for being a pig to overthrow and retain control (ask the Russians), and for all the good words and good intentions we are still having to maintain fortified positions for our troops and send them out fully armed and fully alert on patrols where they could be killed in a heartbeat. Does that sound like a success, all these years down the line?
I am sorry for all the good things that will die as and when the Taliban take over – I have no reason to forbid the female population an education, or give them all the freedom not to follow Islam doctrine by law – but our rulers don’t have the heart (or the financial freedom, unless oil is found there) to carry on there, and our military won’t want to do it with their hands tied behind their backs.
Even so, those marines knew what they did was wrong and have ended up in court for it.
Call it what you will people die and get injured in mind and body anyway. If they are civilians who die it is called “collateral damage” it does not sound so bad that way does it?
No, unless it affects you and/or people you know, then it sounds too damned impersonal…
In my mind I am trying to work these things out in terms of what would happen if we lived in Afghan and this was happening to us instead.
Would you be mildly annoyed if a drone happened to wipe out your neighbours family?
Or if your cousin was dragged away and shot for shaving his beard?
Or your brother was shot just for looking suspicious as a convoy drove through his village?
Or your daughter was beheaded because she had not been suitably and respectfully dressed when she went to buy bread?
….”drag them round the corner….” Now you’re talking !
There’s uninformed opinion and informed opinion – I’ll leave it to you to work out the difference
And there are those with pig-headed obstinance who are starting to show their true colours, but it would be a little too much to point out that – in the past – others who didn’t want free discussion were happy to dispose of those who did not agree with them by dragging them round a corner…
Can I guess you are not going to own up to being the ‘uninformed’ opinion?
So, kind of like Nanjing in late 1937 / early 1938 then…?
Probably the work of a few men under a lot of pressure, though you can’t judge them for it because they weren’t wearing uniforms…
snafuThe Seamew was supposed to replace Avenger AS4’s then used by the RNVR. The RNVR was disbanded after only four Seamews were delivered.
Gannets were carrier borne anti submarine aircraft (and later AEWs).
snafuI feel they are only being tried because of media sensitivities and politicians wishing to be purer than the driven snow.
So when did you hear about this? Seriously? Me – only when I saw it in the papers the other day. Might have heard something a while ago, when there were arrests, but only vaguely remember it.
And I feel that most of the media might agree with your sentiments; in the main they are not interested in slagging off our troops.
Yet those marines did what they did and were caught by the red caps. If the military wanted to bury this then they had ample opportunity right there… But they didn’t. Maybe someone high up the food chain is ashamed and wants the military to be seen to be doing the right thing rather than let standards slip.
Personally I can’t see our politicians getting involved with this one at this stage; I imagine that if they could they might have kept this very quiet and swept away down the back of a filing cabinet – it brings no glory for anyone.
The reality is they have committed no crime (note tried for murder not war crimes).
No? So what are they doing at the courts martial? Oh yes, bu@@er me it must be the little matter of murder!
1) The Taliban are not signatories to the Geneva convention so the convention does not need to be adhered to, however we do adhere to it as this conforms with our ethics any way.
‘We’? These marines didn’t. Does this mean that they do not conform with our ethics?
2) In a war zone an enemy combatant not in uniform or a civilian aiding the enemy can be shot out of hand. As the man was neither in uniform and had been shooting at the marines he was clearly one of the above and therefore under the rules of war shooting him is allowed.
An interesting point. Ask our former soldiers why IRA members were not immediately shot when apprehended sans uniform.
And, purely as an interesting question, what clothing do Taliban members wear? Surely the clothing is so similar that each man must be in Taliban uniform. [/sarcasm] But…the US military were infamous for driving along in convoy, shooting any suspicious Iraqis (ie most, if not all) out of the way. Do a search and you’ll find many video’s showing the routine, hopefully including the one where the soldiers panic that a car has pulled out behind them – so they blast it to pieces, with no proof whatsoever that the car was either a suicide bomber or just someone who’d made the fatal mistake of pulling out behind an American convoy.
Pedantic point: according to the reports from court, the dead man had been shooting at a base and was apparently brought down by an Apache attack helo. He did not shoot at these marines.
So why the trial clearly somebody somewhere has made a decision to apply “Police” rules to a war.
Well, the trial is because some marines did something which they were not supposed to do: they shot a man (who may or may not have been fatally injured, no one knows) dead after making an explicit move to hide their actions. They lied when they claimed that they attempted first aid, in the report they made about their patrol, and I suppose they wasted a bullet instead of dirtying a bayonet…
snafuI feel they are only being tried because of media sensitivities and politicians wishing to be purer than the driven snow.
So when did you hear about this? Seriously? Me – only when I saw it in the papers the other day. Might have heard something a while ago, when there were arrests, but only vaguely remember it.
And I feel that most of the media might agree with your sentiments; in the main they are not interested in slagging off our troops.
Yet those marines did what they did and were caught by the red caps. If the military wanted to bury this then they had ample opportunity right there… But they didn’t. Maybe someone high up the food chain is ashamed and wants the military to be seen to be doing the right thing rather than let standards slip.
Personally I can’t see our politicians getting involved with this one at this stage; I imagine that if they could they might have kept this very quiet and swept away down the back of a filing cabinet – it brings no glory for anyone.
The reality is they have committed no crime (note tried for murder not war crimes).
No? So what are they doing at the courts martial? Oh yes, bu@@er me it must be the little matter of murder!
1) The Taliban are not signatories to the Geneva convention so the convention does not need to be adhered to, however we do adhere to it as this conforms with our ethics any way.
‘We’? These marines didn’t. Does this mean that they do not conform with our ethics?
2) In a war zone an enemy combatant not in uniform or a civilian aiding the enemy can be shot out of hand. As the man was neither in uniform and had been shooting at the marines he was clearly one of the above and therefore under the rules of war shooting him is allowed.
An interesting point. Ask our former soldiers why IRA members were not immediately shot when apprehended sans uniform.
And, purely as an interesting question, what clothing do Taliban members wear? Surely the clothing is so similar that each man must be in Taliban uniform. [/sarcasm] But…the US military were infamous for driving along in convoy, shooting any suspicious Iraqis (ie most, if not all) out of the way. Do a search and you’ll find many video’s showing the routine, hopefully including the one where the soldiers panic that a car has pulled out behind them – so they blast it to pieces, with no proof whatsoever that the car was either a suicide bomber or just someone who’d made the fatal mistake of pulling out behind an American convoy.
Pedantic point: according to the reports from court, the dead man had been shooting at a base and was apparently brought down by an Apache attack helo. He did not shoot at these marines.
So why the trial clearly somebody somewhere has made a decision to apply “Police” rules to a war.
Well, the trial is because some marines did something which they were not supposed to do: they shot a man (who may or may not have been fatally injured, no one knows) dead after making an explicit move to hide their actions. They lied when they claimed that they attempted first aid, in the report they made about their patrol, and I suppose they wasted a bullet instead of dirtying a bayonet…
snafuPlenty of Wessex around, and they are fairly transportable…
snafu.
1). The video recording of the Marines with their prisoner, was all over SKY T.V. That’s where it was clearly visible that their prisoner had all his limbs seemingly intact.
If true (and I suppose it has to be the case) then I guess the law must have been ignored…
Video allegedly showing a Royal Marine shooting dead an injured insurgent in Afghanistan will not be released to the public, a judge has ruled…The judge rejected a media application, saying the video would expose service personnel to “increased risk of harm”…The Ministry of Defence opposed its release and instructed a barrister, Oliver Glasgow, to address Judge Advocate General Jeff Blackett, while the media had instructed Clare Kissin on their behalf.
The judge also received submissions from Paul Mott, deputy head of the research, information and communications unit in the office of security and counter-terrorism in the Home Office, who warned of the risks of the video footage being used for propaganda purposes against British forces serving in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
On Monday, the judge rejected the media’s application.
In a written judgement, the judge advocate general said: “The principle of open justice can be satisfied and has been satisfied by the DVD being played in open court where it has been observed by journalists and reported upon quite properly. Releasing it for unrestricted public consumption would expose British service personnel to increased risk of harm unnecessarily.
“Mr Mott says that the risk is real and immediate and I accept that assessment. I am not prepared to ignore his very stark warning to put the lives of British service personnel at risk.
“I therefore rule that the DVD is not to be released to the media.”
An MoD spokesman said: “This video would undoubtedly be exploited by terrorists for propaganda purposes and, as the judge advocate general accepted, its release would pose a real and immediate threat to life for members of our Armed Forces, the wider British public and British interests overseas.”
2)Yep, will give you that, but we could BOTH be wrong on that, body shot, straight through, or shrapnel, either way, it appears he had no chance of surviving his wound’s.If the M.O.D. refused to release the video, then where did the SKY Reporter get his footage from?.
Indeed, and what has happened (or I have missed, despite having a quick search just now) to allow Sky News to transmit the footage.
You are right about him having no chance of surviving his wounds as far as the marines were concerned, but we shall never know since he did die because of his injuries.
3)You were led to believe I was a Police Officer?, What proof do you want?
Linc, I congratulate you on your constabulary career, but my point was more to do with your avocation of breaking the law governing our military, the Geneva Convention.
You sort of expect those who have spent their working life upholding the law to be upright followers of the law in all its guises…
I also find it hard to beleive that the evidence of the trial is in open Court, very hard. I would suspect the reporters are just given a “Handout” with whats happened that day. Lets face it, if what you say is true, it would be Sub Judicy, and the mob would find him guilty before the end of the trial.
There would be little difference between having reporters in an open court and giving them a handout: either way there would be no opportunity for the reporters to ask questions, the only difference I can think of is that journalists present would be able to pick up the vocal nuances that wouldn’t appear in a transcript.
But reporters have a version of ‘right of access’ to courts – military included – unless the session is requested to be held ‘in camera’, ie in secret.
we will have to await the Courts ruling on that.
The evidence as presented to the court was that the marines were not under fire, they did have time to drag the Taliban man away from witnesses, and the prosecution alleges on the strength of the video that there was a discussion about where to shoot him.
Yes, the court needs to make a decision but from the evidence as presented this case does not feature anything remotely approaching the need to make a split-second life/death decision.
snafu I was not refering to Mountbatten I meant Warrenpoint
Sorry, maybe you should have said Warrenpoint, saved you having to explain yourself.
Yes, lots of unnecessary death and one or two lessons learned. I suppose the Bloody Sunday next of kin at least knew they had a body to bury.
Work it out for yourself – I can’t be bothered. Just have these two words in mind: “Premeditated” and “unpremeditated” and note the confusion.
You can’t be bothered to work it out???
Is this to do with my listing a few military massacres?
If so it was – as I wrote then – that you insisted that no one can understand what a soldier goes through in battle (or words to that effect). I could have asked if righteous people should really judge criminals, but instead I listed a few premeditated war crimes for you to mull over; yes, I understand they were premeditated and I thought you would understand that, what with there being (as I have discussed with Linc, above) no split-second decision (they had to drag him out of sight and discuss how to shoot him, if nothing else), that this event was not an unpremeditated decision.
Guess I was wrong.
snafu.
1). The video recording of the Marines with their prisoner, was all over SKY T.V. That’s where it was clearly visible that their prisoner had all his limbs seemingly intact.
If true (and I suppose it has to be the case) then I guess the law must have been ignored…
Video allegedly showing a Royal Marine shooting dead an injured insurgent in Afghanistan will not be released to the public, a judge has ruled…The judge rejected a media application, saying the video would expose service personnel to “increased risk of harm”…The Ministry of Defence opposed its release and instructed a barrister, Oliver Glasgow, to address Judge Advocate General Jeff Blackett, while the media had instructed Clare Kissin on their behalf.
The judge also received submissions from Paul Mott, deputy head of the research, information and communications unit in the office of security and counter-terrorism in the Home Office, who warned of the risks of the video footage being used for propaganda purposes against British forces serving in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
On Monday, the judge rejected the media’s application.
In a written judgement, the judge advocate general said: “The principle of open justice can be satisfied and has been satisfied by the DVD being played in open court where it has been observed by journalists and reported upon quite properly. Releasing it for unrestricted public consumption would expose British service personnel to increased risk of harm unnecessarily.
“Mr Mott says that the risk is real and immediate and I accept that assessment. I am not prepared to ignore his very stark warning to put the lives of British service personnel at risk.
“I therefore rule that the DVD is not to be released to the media.”
An MoD spokesman said: “This video would undoubtedly be exploited by terrorists for propaganda purposes and, as the judge advocate general accepted, its release would pose a real and immediate threat to life for members of our Armed Forces, the wider British public and British interests overseas.”
2)Yep, will give you that, but we could BOTH be wrong on that, body shot, straight through, or shrapnel, either way, it appears he had no chance of surviving his wound’s.If the M.O.D. refused to release the video, then where did the SKY Reporter get his footage from?.
Indeed, and what has happened (or I have missed, despite having a quick search just now) to allow Sky News to transmit the footage.
You are right about him having no chance of surviving his wounds as far as the marines were concerned, but we shall never know since he did die because of his injuries.
3)You were led to believe I was a Police Officer?, What proof do you want?
Linc, I congratulate you on your constabulary career, but my point was more to do with your avocation of breaking the law governing our military, the Geneva Convention.
You sort of expect those who have spent their working life upholding the law to be upright followers of the law in all its guises…
I also find it hard to beleive that the evidence of the trial is in open Court, very hard. I would suspect the reporters are just given a “Handout” with whats happened that day. Lets face it, if what you say is true, it would be Sub Judicy, and the mob would find him guilty before the end of the trial.
There would be little difference between having reporters in an open court and giving them a handout: either way there would be no opportunity for the reporters to ask questions, the only difference I can think of is that journalists present would be able to pick up the vocal nuances that wouldn’t appear in a transcript.
But reporters have a version of ‘right of access’ to courts – military included – unless the session is requested to be held ‘in camera’, ie in secret.
we will have to await the Courts ruling on that.
The evidence as presented to the court was that the marines were not under fire, they did have time to drag the Taliban man away from witnesses, and the prosecution alleges on the strength of the video that there was a discussion about where to shoot him.
Yes, the court needs to make a decision but from the evidence as presented this case does not feature anything remotely approaching the need to make a split-second life/death decision.
snafu I was not refering to Mountbatten I meant Warrenpoint
Sorry, maybe you should have said Warrenpoint, saved you having to explain yourself.
Yes, lots of unnecessary death and one or two lessons learned. I suppose the Bloody Sunday next of kin at least knew they had a body to bury.
Work it out for yourself – I can’t be bothered. Just have these two words in mind: “Premeditated” and “unpremeditated” and note the confusion.
You can’t be bothered to work it out???
Is this to do with my listing a few military massacres?
If so it was – as I wrote then – that you insisted that no one can understand what a soldier goes through in battle (or words to that effect). I could have asked if righteous people should really judge criminals, but instead I listed a few premeditated war crimes for you to mull over; yes, I understand they were premeditated and I thought you would understand that, what with there being (as I have discussed with Linc, above) no split-second decision (they had to drag him out of sight and discuss how to shoot him, if nothing else), that this event was not an unpremeditated decision.
Guess I was wrong.
Sign In
