I stand by what I said. The Taliban are not a signatory to the Geneva Convention but a terrorist organisation and should be treated as one. If they start behaving in a civilised manner in combat and also stop killing and maiming their fellow Afghans maybe I might have said something different. As for PTSD do you have first hand knowledge of it? I have and it still haunts me over 40 years later(thankfully not often now though) You mention Americans the most shameful act in Vietnam was Lt William Cally and My Lai. For those not familiar with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre.

I can offer no corroboration or even where it happened apart from the Middle East in 1942-3
My Father told me he shot a fellow pilot who crashed at a LG in Libya and was hopelessly trapped and burning to death.
He was not one for tall stories but if this did happen did it make him a murderer or a compassionate man?

Good grief.

We are signatories to the Geneva Convention. It does not allow its signatories to pick and choose when we follow it.
What is happening in Afghanistan is not going to stop or prevent terrorism, and as I said earlier when we run away as the Americans did with Vietnam there will be a vacuum which will be filled by those self same extremists that are occupying our troops spare time. What do you think will happen then?
Why should they act in what might be regarded as a western civilised way when they got our attention by doing what they’ve done in the past? They are not going to give that up to sit down at a table and be brow-beaten into losing something when they want it all. I have no idea what could be done to solve this problem.

I have had PTSD – in fact the reason I’m up late is because there is a bit of a breeze outside at the moment and just cannot drop anymore happy pills until daylight. My sleepers just haven’t worked and I’ll need to get up early anyway…
I am aware of My Lai, but it was not the only one – just the one which got enough publicity to bring about a prosecution of sorts.

I would say your father was helping to take the pain of a dreadful death away from his colleague in an instant; these marines were aware that there was potentially a dead/injured Taliban out there as that was what they were sent to check. There is nothing to say that the man was in danger of dying (although equally nothing to say he wasn’t) but they planned his death just the same – the law would say that is the difference between murder and manslaughter: they moved him away from independent observation, they would have caused him pain in that move, they made it appear that they were giving him aid, and they deliberately shot him. Then they covered up the incident since it is extremely unlikely that they reported shooting him, compassionately or not.

Incidentally, I mentioned Baha Mousa earlier. The troops involved had a culture of regarding all Iraqi’s as scum, whether they were insurgents or just the man in the street. Think of how you would feel if the British police decided that you are scum, whether you are up to no good or just walking innocently down the street…

Missed out a whole batch of replies…

It a very emotive subject and happens on both sides in any war, look at the Beheadings that go on.
The trouble is fact and fiction can often get merged in situations like this that make it very difficult to be judge and jury. Take the Falklands War, our side shot surrendering Argentinians and were told to take no prisoners, simple fact being they were so far forward of any units that leaving Argentinians with the plethora of weapons about in their trench positions to your rear as you advanced was setting yourself up for a trap.
Indeed earlier in the battles surrendering Argentinians opened fire on a para party moving fwd under a white flag to their surrendered position killing them all.
I also remember a case if again memory serves me correctly of the Soldier that had to go through the process of being court marshalled for shooting a prisoner dead, even though if memory serves me correctly he was thanked by the Argies. He had been helping clear munitions when it went up trapping him alive in a burning building and on fire, I seem to remember the were trying to shout directions at him to get to the door, in the end asked of he could do something for him, and he was shot dead to put him out of his misery.

War is not a sterile act, it is a bloody and dirty business and something you cannot try to impose the Human Rights act on, if you did you wouldn’t kill anyone. Myself, I would give those so called ” peers” in both the press, courts, police and parliament a gun and stick them on the front line and tell them to try it.

Same thing happens now Charlie, troops returning the UK have a couple of days in Cyprus to reacclimatise to the real world.

I can confirm two Falklands incidents – although the white flag event could have actually taken place when the troops where moving up to take a surrendered position but came under fire from a position that hadn’t surrendered; the Argentinian moving munitions was shot, I believe, by a medic but it was unstable ammo rather than a burning building, and there was talk of courts martial’s because prisoners were put in danger despite them asking to move the ammo themselves.
I have no recollection of any orders not to take prisoners, as in shoot them dead; I do have a vague memory of reading about an Argentinian who claimed to have been captured and released twice before capitulation. Quite apart from the fact that the shooting of surrendered soldiers should not be done as a point of law, it would be militarily stupid for the troops on the front line to have advanced forward further than the supply train could be maintained. Discipline was excellent during that campaign (Col H Jones did not allow his deputies to use their initiative despite the opportunities that arose, and promptly died because no one would raise an objection to his bullheadedness to charge a site that would easily have been countered by one of the forbidden initiatives) and because of the chance to serve in Northern Ireland the troops knew better than to go feral because of the opportunities for intelligence prisoners gave them.

Imposing the Human Rights Act might not be the right way around it – but obeying the Geneva Convention (which we are signed up to) means that normally we know where we are and what can and cannot be done.

2) As an aside – paratroop forces do not take prisoners. How could they? What are they supposed to do with them?

A myth: what are they supposed to do with their own injured – shoot them too?

I think in this case it’s an unjust killing and those involved should be brought to justice.
If we allow this to go unchecked then what happens the next time a British serviceman is captured? Beheading, public execution?

A captured British serviceman is a deceased British serviceman. No two ways about it.
If it goes on unchecked we allow sympathy to go to the Taliban and risk giving them the upper hand.

What I would like to know is where was the chain of command?

This appears to be more a case of an NCO taking the initiative, although obviously he did not fear the wrath of his superiors which might imply that it was not the first time this had happened. Maybe the officers were inclined to ignore the odd incident as long as it did not become public knowledge…

Grandad: To put him out of his misery! Despite him supporting (of which he could have easily been behind of) Terrorists that believe it’s perfectly acceptable to Hi-Jack civilian airlines and fly them into World Trade Centres, Bomb Buses and the Tube killing and maiming innocent civilians, beheading innocent people on the internet, murdering and torturing their own kind for not believing their Extremist ways etc. etc. etc… I thought it was the most humane thing to do… because I didn’t want my Grandson to think I was some sort of monster leaving him to suffer!”

Did you read the story? The Taliban fighter was incapacitated; that means he was injured, out of action, beyond taking any further part in the war that day. They could have ‘put him out of his misery’ where he lay, but instead they moved him from the gaze of an Apache gunship under the guise of giving him medical attention before shooting him – they knew what they were doing: it was murder. Instead of putting him out of his misery they actually added to his pain before putting him to death – not very compassionate, you think? Maybe he did agree with the use of airliners as messengers of terrorism, killing and maiming innocents, beheading non believers, etc, and maybe, just maybe he actually took part in terror abroad – who gave them the right to judge that he should not be interrogated to find out what he knew and what he had done? All that he knew was lost, all that intelligence was blown away by the ignorance of a few marines.

In 1940 the Germans invaded the Low Countries.
i) It might appear strange to us now but the nationals of those countries were not all that enthusiastic (well, most of them anyway) and some formed armed resistance against the invaders.
Jump forward to present day Afghanistan. The armed resistance to an invasion are now called terrorists. ii) People who think differently to the invaders are rounded up and likely to be detained without any idea of how long they will be held for.
What is the difference between i) and ii)?
I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW THAT TERRORISTS ARE RESISTANCE FIGHTERS – but others around the world do, believing that the terrorists in Afghanistan are freedom fighters, resisting the infidel invaders.

Try telling that snafu, to the wives and families who have had their husbands, boyfriends etc, killed by I.E.Ds, given the chance, those families would have done the same as the Yanks.I bet.

It might be said that if they weren’t there they wouldn’t have died – but I doubt you have any truck with that.
We have long known what it was like to fight irregulars in that part of the world. Kipling wrote:

When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.

Aircrew in the North West Frontier were issued with the famous ‘goolie chit’ since the Pathan women were renowned for beheading and castrating all captured, non Muslim, troops. Life has changed relatively little in Afghanistan; why should it be imagined that little details like that have been left behind?
I was raised to believe that the British military was the cream of the cream: decent, compassionate, caring, professional. They knew what was right and what was wrong, they would not undertake an illegal order because they knew and understood that it would diminish them in the eyes of the world. I was told (although how much of it was true) that the Geneva Convention was essentially based on British military doctrine. Having had this as a core belief you might understand that something like the execution of a Taliban fighter goes against all that I believed about the British military.
Yes, there have been other instances of less than decent behaviour by military personnel – the murder of hotel receptionist Baha Mousa in 2003 is fairly well documented (apparently detained on suspicion of being an insurgent – or just being present when troops were told to bring in someone to interrogate – he was hooded and held in stress positions with loud noise deliberately preventing him from sleeping for the last 36 hours of his life, before being beaten to death by his guards. One soldier pleaded guilty to inhumane treatment of a prisoner but, along with six others, found not guilty of manslaughter as the troopers closed ranks in an effort not to implicate themselves. Mousa’s family, and nine other men, were awarded £2.83m in compensation.)

Well, I for just one, won’t be losing any sleep over that. It’s war. Nasty, brutal ugh. What consoles me – as if anything were needed, is the thought of that ever favourite hobby of the Taliban – and others. If they catch you alive. you lose your testes which they then stuff in your mouth and then slit your throat.

It’s jolly good to remind ourselves that the winners always write the propaganda.

I think you’ll find the winners always write the history books…
Yes, war is hell. But is that any reason to ignore all the rules and regulations put in place? I expect the fact that your sleep is not interrupted will not bother the Taliban, but the news that one of their terrorists was deliberately killed might spur a few of the undecideds to go and help the poor downtrodden Afghans, much as has happened in Syria.

Either they ended the life of one of the enemy intent on killing them or they compassionately ended the painful suffering of a human being. Either way I would have no problem telling my grandson the truth.

No, he was incapacitated – if you read the reports you will see that there was absolutely nothing compassionate about it. They even moved him so that their actions would not be witnessed.

To the OP’s title. Good one less to bother about.

You are not worried that there are laws which have been broken? When our troops start breaking those laws in a war zone what is it that stops them breaking those laws elsewhere?
Read up on what happened with returnees from the Vietnam war (the American returnees, anyway), who suffered mental anguish from the trauma of the rights and wrongs of what they did or witnessed there. Many have not been able to live with that anguish, just as many Falklands vets have found the need to end it all, and a proportion of the Gulf war (both of them) vets too. A simple answer might be to say that if nothing takes place that could bring on nightmares then the chances are good that retirement will last a lot longer (especially if you convince the opposition not to do anything either…) although I suspect it is too simple.

Soldiers are also human beings, and the temptation to give into their primal urges must be overwhelming at times. In the grand scheme of things, this is a minor incident.

So all that training, the stuff that helps them to make and take the right decisions, is allowed to be cast off? But its ok, it is just a minor incident – like all those other minor incidents that took place at the hands of the German and Japanese armies in WWII. We were part of a court which held the power of life or death over individuals who carried out similar ‘minor incidents’, but I guess that since the victors write the history books we should be allowed to miss out the parts where we are the bad guys…if we win in Afghanistan, rather than run away much like the Americans did with Vietnam (see any similarities there?).

We have no reason to apologise to the Taliban, the term ‘moral high ground’ doesn’t even begin to describe the chasm between our morality and theirs.

Ha, and I suppose you would deny that chasm is closing rather quickly?
I am a man, you are a man, yes? Do you discriminate against me on the grounds of race, creed, colour, sexuality, etc? If you say no then why not? . Congratulations – you have reached the same mind set as the Taliban…
Much as it pains me to point it out but there is a bunch of meddling god botherer’s who have a motto – do as you would be done by: treat a stranger as you would wish to be treated yourself. Just because they won’t why not drag them up to your level rather than lower yourself down to theirs?
Just a thought…

Shame there were a few hundred more Paul. I had the honour, when in C.A. in going out with a Vietnam Vet, who openly admitted taking drugs, to keep himself sane, a hell of a lot of others did also. And from what he told me, I can fully understand what happened, perhaps these guys were near ato breaking point, and let rip.

But officially they didn’t, because (despite what we see in the films) the military authorities insisted there was no drug problem in Vietnam.

A soldier in Vietnam served for one year, and most of them were conscripts; our troops are not conscripts (but a proportion might be classed as economic conscripts due to the lack of work at home) and serve a much shorter tour abroad although, due to the size of the army, they get to go back again roughly every three years.
Our troops get the luxury of a holiday in Cyprus between leaving theatre and arriving in Britain, so that they can let their hair down and chat with the trick cyclists before taking it out on their families (but they do; apparently a large percentage of squaddie marriages break down after serving in a war zone, due to things like spousal abuse – wife bashing).
And, officially, our troops don’t have any drug problems either…

Since we are all bugging each other to a greater or lesser extent it is hardly a surprise. But now it has been “whistleblown” the attendant media attention will result in the need for some very adept US diplomacy.

It has been historically how tabs were kept on potential undesirables in the Cold War – bug them and get info that might be useful either to strong arm them or bring about their downfall. But these days the Bear is, if not exactly a friend, a partner that you don’t turn your back on because you might find a ‘kick me’ poster stuck there. The chances are that if this sort of thing got caught in the past it was all quietly sorted out with as little publicity as possible (ie none). Unfortunately for those on the other side of the Atlantic this news was splashed before they knew about it, before it could be sorted out diplomatically and quietly forgotten.
To me it was a good thing. Would you want other countries to chuckle behind your back that you let them get away with it?

Been going on for years snafu, but it’s nice to be forewarned, just in case,you can’t trust anyone these days, (‘Specialy in the EU).
Bet they have been bugging us for years, I know they have me!!

Oh Linc, you are a wheeze.

That’s it snafu, I bet you have upset Chas now. It used to occupy his day reading all of your threads, now he will have to do the housework instead…….:highly_amused:

That’s good; he can go back to searing at cats and moaning about kids wearing out the Tarmac walking to school.

Of course, Linc! Which is why all the huffing and puffing and indignation is quite amusing.

Whose huffing and puffing? Must be nice to have a hobby…

:D, well, it keeps him occupied, innit.

Me? Must admit I have a little time on my hands since there is little call for a ribbon changer (green ink) for machines manufactured by The Imperial Typewriter Company of Leicester. If only I could gain the position of ribbon changer (red ink), but it is dead mans shoes round here, and he has been filling those shoes for the last 60-odd years without even taking on an apprentice.
At least Rubik’s Cube prevented me from getting into any immoral trouble…;o)

I knew a couple of Special Branch officers and a few of their “friends” very well in the late 60s and many stories were exchanged in the shadier haunts of the West End. Great fun….;)

They caught up with you? Thank goodness you’ve since managed to elude them for the best part of forty years!
Tell us the stories, unky Chas! Even if you just make it all up like normal!!!

I take it they never signed T.O.S.A. then when they joined?.

I signed a ‘please adjust your dress’ sign in a gents once, although not with my own name. Does that count?

As my teacher told us just before the exams: “If you must cheat don’t get caught.”

Sage advice. Did you?;o)

the question is…Should they be doing it and the answer is morally no…but I guess they would then play the “For reasons of National security” card, which covers anything they want to do without having to answer for it or disclosing anything about it.

Exactly!
It’s having the power and using it when there is absolutely no earthly reason to. Is Angela Merkel a terrorism suspect? Did she associate with shady characters (apart from the standard other politicians)? What were they searching for? What did they hope to find? And did they find it?

I guess the answer really depends on the reason why the bugging and what positive came out of it.
If it prevented an act of terrorism then brilliant but if it is to corrupt then no.

But what happens when the news comes out that they bugged so many innocent phones – including the German chancellors: does that negate the potential value of any successful tap?

I believe you miss his point. Because men heroically persevere with inferior equipment does not make that equipment any less obsolete. Credit to the men not the aircraft. While I understand the nostalgia involved, as you say I would think those men would have jumped at the chance for more modern equipment.

Which was why I typed it, although there does need to be an element of gratitude to the aircraft because it made the missions it carried out possible – the crews needed the Swordfish because it was the only one available, at the time, that could do the job.

BUT…it does seem strange to make a claim that it “doesn’t make a Stringbag a Grumman Avenger or a Nakajima Kate” when they are obviously of an entirely different era, one which does not relate directly to the question originally posed. Had the FAA had those aircraft in 1939 it would not have been regarded at the poor relation: it didn’t, and it was.

Of course not – it was merely a statement of fact !!

See above answer, last paragraph.

And even after 1941 it is difficult to think of any WW2 british designed shipboard aircraft that was really ‘fit for purpose’,I know much of this was caused by poor specifications etc,but for various reasons our a/c were pretty appalling (and usually not all that pretty ; ))

The Seafire, whilst essentially being ‘just’ a Spitfire with hacked about wings and a hook, was as neat as any other ‘plane until it came to landing on a carrier. The Sea Hurricane was even more so ‘just’ a Hurricane with a hook, but both were just a wet-footed version of the original design, as was the beauty that was the post war Sea Fury (although the land-based design it was developed from never made it to production).
Maybe I am out of the loop but I thought the Firefly was essentially a successful design, and although there has been a lot said against the ugly Barracuda it might best be described as a ‘Marmite’ aeroplane – pilots either loved it or hated it: although it could be slow when fully loaded in the tropics, it was an admirable dive bomber and apparently very easy to fly and land on a carrier.

No.