# Marines on trial.



## tamara (Sep 23, 2012)

What's the general thoughts about the 3 marines currently on trial for murder or as the papers are reporting it "field execution of an injured man"

Personally I think its bollox. The guy they killed was an insurgent who had been fired at like 130 plus times by an apache and the 3 marines were sent out to check he was dead so does it really matter that they shot him, he was supposed to be dead anyway.


----------



## Mr_Morocco (May 28, 2011)

tamara said:


> What's the general thoughts about the 3 marines currently on trial for murder or as the papers are reporting it "field execution of an injured man"
> 
> Personally I think its bollox. The guy they killed was an insurgent who had been fired at like 130 plus times by an apache and the 3 marines were sent out to check he was dead so does it really matter that they shot him, he was supposed to be dead anyway.


Link?


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

tamara said:


> What's the general thoughts about the 3 marines currently on trial for murder or as the papers are reporting it "field execution of an injured man"
> 
> Personally I think its bollox. The guy they killed was an insurgent who had been fired at like 130 plus times by an apache and the 3 marines were sent out to check he was dead so does it really matter that they shot him, he was supposed to be dead anyway.


Should have made him suffer a bit more if you ask me.

The rules and regs that the army is bound to are fvcking disgraceful. 'You can't fire unless fired upon' Pathetic, and the insurgents must p1ss their sides at us


----------



## Mr_Morocco (May 28, 2011)

mills91 said:


> Should have made him suffer a bit more if you ask me.
> 
> The rules and regs that the army is bound to are fvcking disgraceful. *'You can't fire unless fired upon'* Pathetic, and the insurgents must p1ss their sides at us


Its not pathetic at all, the army are occupying land that is not theirs


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

Mr_Morocco said:


> Its not pathetic at all, the army are occupying land that is not theirs


Right...

So we are on patrol together, a Taliban fighter has a red sniper dot on your head and I see it and him, I can't fire legally until he's blown your brains out.


----------



## eezy1 (Dec 14, 2010)

heat of the moment i doubt id give a fcuk about any laws back home. enemies would be getting smoked


----------



## The Regiment (Oct 7, 2013)

Mr_Morocco said:


> Its not pathetic at all, the army are occupying land that is not theirs


Exactly - and our job is to protect the innocent civilians in Afghan (and the world) from insurgents/terrorists, if we fire upon innocent civilians just because they look like insurgents - we are the terrorists.


----------



## husky (Jan 31, 2010)

Touchy subject, not going to get into the rights and wrongs of if our troops should be there or not , bottom line is they are and as such they are governed by the rules and regulations that keep us separate from others, as such its been a regular thing for our troops after having engaged the enemy if finding injured personnel from the opposition to administer first aid and if possible save life, but i can understand why they double tapped the guy if that was the case he was engaging them previously.


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

The Regiment said:
 

> Exactly - and our job is to protect the innocent civilians in Afghan (and the world) from insurgents/terrorists, if we fire upon innocent civilians just because they look like insurgents - we are the terrorists.


Did I say that?

I'm talking about being unable to act first when a group of armed insurgents are planning an obvious attack on our troops


----------



## The Regiment (Oct 7, 2013)

mills91 said:


> Right...
> 
> So we are on patrol together, a Taliban fighter has a red sniper dot on your head and I see it and him, I can't fire legally until he's blown your brains out.


Clearly never been on patrol...


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

The Regiment said:


> Clearly never been on patrol...


Hypothetical scenario mate, never said it's happened in the real world did I


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

mills91 said:


> Did I say that?
> 
> I'm talking about being unable to act first when a group of armed insurgents are planning an obvious attack on our troops


You are going off topic. This is about the summary execution in the field of an injured enemy combatant. No civilized army's ROE allow for this as it is a clear breach of the rules of war and the Geneva Convention. It is entirely right and proper that they should have to answer for their actions.


----------



## TwoCanVanDamn (Jun 22, 2012)

A lot of sh1t go's down over seas that civilians hear nothing about. These guy's fvcked up and got caught out, that's the bottom line.

Personally I hope they get off with it, especially if he had been engaging them previously, but they probably will end up doing a stretch, you shouldn't be able to just wave the white flag and say I surrender because your injured, too late now d1ckhead! BANG BANG!


----------



## The Regiment (Oct 7, 2013)

mills91 said:


> Hypothetical scenario mate, never said it's happened in the real world did I


In the real world, you would get your mate out of the line of fire, smoke the insurgent and then bull**** your way through he paperwork :thumbup:

Sorry mate, I didn't intend to sound like I was challenging you


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

Ian_Montrose said:


> You are going off topic. This is about the summary execution in the field of an injured enemy combatant. No civilized army's ROE allow for this as it is a clear breach of the rules of war and the Geneva Convention. It is entirely right and proper that they should have to answer for their actions.


But the Israeli army...

Oh you said civilized.

Those lads have been caught doing what a lot of men would do, I hope they get off. They won't, but I I hope they do


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

I hate the word insurgent, they are the fcuking enemy and seeing as they are trying to kill our boys we should take the handcuffs off our soldiers and let them fight as they see fit without fear of getting in trouble for killing the bloody enemy!

Too much of this bollox these days, can you imagine if they had fought the second world war like this? we'd all be called Franz, Heinz or Adolf now!!


----------



## tamara (Sep 23, 2012)

I can't link on my phone. If someone could post a link for me?

The part where one of the marines said "shuffle off this mortal coil you cùnt, it's nothing you wouldn't do to us"

The guy would have died from his injuries anyway plus he had an ak47 with 2 mags and grenades on him and had previously been firing at soldiers.


----------



## Steviant (Sep 6, 2013)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10397609/Royal-Marines-murdered-a-wounded-Taliban-captive.html

From this report it sounds like the plod decided to get some politically correct brownie points, either that or they were ****ed at the bootnecks and wanted to pin something on them.

I hope the lads get off, this isn't a civvy matter and shouldn't be treated like one. As lukee says, if we'd put the restraints on the army in previous years they operate under now, we'd be German and we'd never have had an empire.


----------



## The Regiment (Oct 7, 2013)

Another link http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/marines-murdered-man-live-on-camera-court-martial-sees-graphic-footage-of-execution-of-injured-taliban-fighter-8899912.html


----------



## Mr_Morocco (May 28, 2011)

lukeee said:


> I hate the word insurgent, they are the fcuking enemy and seeing as they are trying to kill our boys we should take the handcuffs off our soldiers and let them fight as they see fit without fear of getting in trouble for killing the bloody enemy!
> 
> Too much of this bollox these days, can you imagine if they had fought the second world war like this? we'd all be called Franz, Heinz or Adolf now!!


The army are their enemy aswell, i've always disagreed with the war in Afghanistan especially now Bin Laden is dead, we need to gtfo of there and leave them to it.


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

Mr_Morocco said:


> The army are their enemy aswell, i've always disagreed with the war in Afghanistan especially now Bin Laden is dead, we need to gtfo of there and leave them to it.


I agree with you on both counts fella, though I would just say can we send our peace envoy his holiness tony over there for a nice chat with the enemy?

We shant be wanting him back


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

lukeee said:


> I hate the word insurgent, they are the fcuking enemy and seeing as they are trying to kill our boys we should take the handcuffs off our soldiers and let them fight as they see fit without fear of getting in trouble for killing the bloody enemy!
> 
> Too much of this bollox these days, can you imagine if they had fought the second world war like this? we'd all be called Franz, Heinz or Adolf now!!


Part of me agrees with you, but we've got to bear in mind that as a country we are not at war with these people. Going all hell fire on the Taliban would not solve the bigger picture.


----------



## warsteiner (Jul 15, 2013)

One thing they are definitely guilty of is being idiots!



> Police became suspicious after seeing a video clip on his laptop which showed members of a Royal Marine patrol standing around an injured Taliban fighter lying on the ground in a compound.
> 
> The clip shows Marines apparently discussing what to do with him, but the film is said to cut out before anything happens.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

Steviant said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10397609/Royal-Marines-murdered-a-wounded-Taliban-captive.html
> 
> From this report it sounds like the plod decided to get some politically correct brownie points, either that or they were ****ed at the bootnecks and wanted to pin something on them.
> 
> I hope the lads get off, this isn't a civvy matter and shouldn't be treated like one. As lukee says, if we'd put the restraints on the army in previous years they operate under now, we'd be German and we'd never have had an empire.


According to the report, they are facing a Court Martial. Nowt to do with civ plod.


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

2004mark said:


> Part of me agrees with you, but we've got to bear in mind that as a country we are not at war with these people. Going all hell fire on the Taliban would not solve the bigger picture.


I don't even think we should be there full stop! If the ruskies couldn't beat them (and they don't give a fcuk how they go about it) we never will!

The Afghans have to sort their own sh!t out imo!


----------



## Steviant (Sep 6, 2013)

Should have read it properly... 

Even so, I'm not really sure what the SIB are up to. Unless some clown has flapped his gums, then I can't see how a video that cuts out before anything happens proves anything. As the victim has been dead and buried for some time, I doubt they're about to get all CSI on them.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Afgantsy-The-Russians-Afghanistan-1979-89-ebook/dp/B004PLNK84

If you want to find out how the Russians got on, read the above. A pity it wasn't available before we went it, but it should be required reading now.


----------



## Mr_Morocco (May 28, 2011)

lukeee said:


> I don't even think we should be there full stop! If the ruskies couldn't beat them (and they don't give a fcuk how they go about it) we never will!
> 
> The Afghans have to sort their own sh!t out imo!


What people dont understand is this, the afghans are always going to fight back because its their country ffs, its like if someone invaded the UK we'd all be fighting against them to protect our land.


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

Ian_Montrose said:


> You are going off topic. This is about the summary execution in the field of an injured enemy combatant. No civilized army's ROE allow for this as it is a clear breach of the rules of war and the Geneva Convention. It is entirely right and proper that they should have to answer for their actions.


Exactly


----------



## joeyh1485 (Mar 2, 2008)

mills90 said:


> Should have made him suffer a bit more if you ask me.
> 
> The rules and regs that the army is bound to are fvcking disgraceful. 'You can't fire unless fired upon' Pathetic, and the insurgents must p1ss their sides at us


This is very true the rules of engagement are a joke, I don't always agree with the Americans but their ROE is much better than ours


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

lukeee said:


> I don't even think we should be there full stop! If the ruskies couldn't beat them (and they don't give a fcuk how they go about it) we never will!
> 
> The Afghans have to sort their own sh!t out imo!


Totally agree. But we're not there to beat them now. We are there to provide security during the transition. I do think we owe them that (assuming their government want it of course).

So in relation to the original post, I think it is right there are rules of engagement.

Ideally all people should live in a safe fair democracy, but I guess they have to find that themselves.


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

i'm going to be careful with what i say because of my job however;

The Geneva Convention was setup so that crimes such as the execution of Russian PoWs under operation Barbarossa woudl not be repeated (or indeed if it was, people would be held accountable)

The Germans murdered Russian PoWs arbitrially in fields. It's disgusting but you dont hear Germans say "oh but they are insurgents"

I've met hundreds of soldiers involved in HELIC and TELIC and the respect i have for them is huge because of what they went through. However they would be disgusted at these lads alleged actions too.

Thanksfully, instances of this sort of behaiviour are now not commonplace as it was in WW2, but i think if they did it they should be made to do a long stretch in the glasshouse. To say otherwise is worrying.

PS sorry for spelling i think i've had too much caffeine


----------



## MyStyle (Apr 22, 2011)

lukeee said:


> I hate the word insurgent, they are the fcuking enemy and seeing as they are trying to kill our boys we should take the handcuffs off our soldiers and let them fight as they see fit without fear of getting in trouble for killing the bloody enemy!


If the UK was invaded tomorrow would you go shake the hands of the soldiers doing so?


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

joeyh1485 said:


> This is very true the rules of engagement are a joke, I don't always agree with the Americans but their ROE is much better than ours


how so?


----------



## Cactus87 (Mar 30, 2009)

I've never had any personal experience in the armed forces but I think keeping a completely cool and un-emotional head on your shoulders when you're under/exchanging fire your men are being killed and you're killing others is going to be almost impossible (but I`m just looking at this through my eyes). Rules of engagement must be very hard to stick too.


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

mills91 said:


> But the Israeli army...
> 
> Oh you said civilized.
> 
> Those lads have been caught doing what a lot of men would do, I hope they get off. They won't, but I I hope they do


how do you know a lot of men would do it? if your an army that is in a foregin land, instants like this make the locals (who your trying to get on your side), think your barbaric and not any better than previous rulers


----------



## Southern Karate Guy (Feb 27, 2014)

is this any different from the ira shooting a soldier in the street and then shooting anyone who tried to help him?

terrorist or freedom fighter

im sure the taliban treat all there prisoners fairly.


----------



## Madoxx (Nov 7, 2010)

MunchieBites said:


> how so?


You arent allowed to shoot back unless recieving "Effective fire", so someone shooting at you but missing wildly isnt effective. Think they have to be churning up the ground around you or hitting your mates to be classed as effective fire, then you are allowed to return fire


----------



## joeyh1485 (Mar 2, 2008)

We are not allowed to point a weapon at anybody until they are pointing at you (not saying that's what happens but that is what you are taught)

If you ever go to an American base out in the gulf you will know what I mean the security is over the top and I highly doubt they would wait for a weapon to be pointed at them before firing


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

Madoxx said:


> You arent allowed to shoot back unless recieving "Effective fire", so someone shooting at you but missing wildly isnt effective. Think they have to be churning up the ground around you or hitting your mates to be classed as effective fire, then you are allowed to return fire


thats very interesting, i didnt know that- i'm guessing that relates to our RoE?


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

amigamike said:


> is this any different from the ira shooting a soldier in the street and then shooting anyone who tried to help him?
> 
> terrorist or freedom fighter
> 
> im sure the taliban treat all there prisoners fairly.


i dont think the argument "you aren't doing it so we won't" really works


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

Cactus87 said:


> I've never had any personal experience in the armed forces but I think keeping a completely cool and un-emotional head on your shoulders when you're under/exchanging fire your men are being killed and you're killing others is going to be almost impossible (but I`m just looking at this through my eyes). Rules of engagement must be very hard to stick too.


The thing is though, when you sign up to the armed forces you have to realise that you are just a pawn for governments to do with you as they wish. This is the one main reason I didn't pursue a career in the Marines as I wanted to do in my early teens.


----------



## KRH (Jun 30, 2012)

TIA


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

KRH said:


> TIA


transient ischaemic attack?


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Mr_Morocco said:


> What people dont understand is this, the afghans are always going to fight back because its their country ffs, its like if someone invaded the UK we'd all be fighting against them to protect our land.


Agreed.However, if the victim had an AK47 he wasnt using it to shoot pigeons was he? So Fu.ck him.He may have been the one that put a bullet in that girls head because she wanted to go to school.We mustnt forget the Taliban are gangsters of the worst variety.They rule with a rod of iron and routinely executed women and children.

Rules of Engagement,The Geneva Convention.Pleasant frippery to satisfy the soft left pacifists who would have us speaking German.

No we shouldnt be there.Or Iraq.or anywhere else, that doesnt threaten us.However, while we are its war ,its awful and all bets are off.


----------



## Fortunatus (Apr 12, 2013)

makes me sick personally how they are even on trial, should be getting a medal they done what a helicoptor couldn't. If it was me I would have shot his fingers of one by one shot hit d1ck of and left him to bleed out. I will be so fvcking wrong if these men go down for killing him.


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

barsnack said:


> how do you know a lot of men would do it? if your an army that is in a foregin land, instants like this make the locals (who your trying to get on your side), think your barbaric and not any better than previous rulers


All of my friends have made similar comments in the last, guys on here agree with shooting the fvcker also.

A man has guns and grenades strapped to him, has been engaging you and your colleagues, he gets wounded. If you leave him to die or finish the job off from close range, it is hardly as barbaric as chopping off an innocent child's hands for reading a banned booked or shooting a school girl through the head mate.


----------



## KRH (Jun 30, 2012)

MunchieBites said:


> transient ischaemic attack?


This is Afghanistan


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

Madoxx said:


> You arent allowed to shoot back unless recieving "Effective fire", so someone shooting at you but missing wildly isnt effective. Think they have to be churning up the ground around you or hitting your mates to be classed as effective fire, then you are allowed to return fire


No point in even trying mate.

That was my point of view and I'm getting grief and I'm no better than the Taliban for saying our ROE are very poor in regards to protecting our own troops.

Great for the horrible [email protected] running round the town's and villages cos they know they are untouchable, bad for our lads as they are the ones that will suffer the casualties or fatalities


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

essexboy said:


> Agreed.However, if the victim had an AK47 he wasnt using it to shoot pigeons was he? So Fu.ck him.He may have been the one that put a bullet in that girls head because she wanted to go to school.We mustnt forget the Taliban are gangsters of the worst variety.They rule with a rod of iron and routinely executed women and children.
> 
> Rules of Engagement,The Geneva Convention.Pleasant frippery to satisfy the soft left pacifists who would have us speaking German.
> 
> No we shouldnt be there.Or Iraq.or anywhere else, that doesnt threaten us.However, while we are its war ,its awful and all bets are off.


He has an AK47 because they are the cheapest guns around, thats why rebel forces in Africa/South America etc etc use them.

I dont doubt what you're saying but again why is the argument, they do it so we should? All bets are off in war? so concentration camps and genocide we shouldn't punich because hey.. its war?

for the record, i am most certainly not a left wing pacifist


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

MunchieBites said:


> He has an AK47 because they are the cheapest guns around, thats why rebel forces in Africa/South America etc etc use them.
> 
> I dont doubt what you're saying but again why is the argument, they do it so we should? All bets are off in war? so concentration camps and genocide we shouldn't punich because hey.. its war?
> 
> for the record, i am most certainly not a left wing pacifist


Well why is he walking the streets with it strapped to him knowing full well that the British Army is up the road if he's an innocent civi for god sake.

You had any mates killed over there?

You sound so do-goody it's unreal


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

mills91 said:


> Well why is he walking the streets with it strapped to him knowing full well that the British Army is up the road if he's an innocent civi for god sake.
> 
> You had any mates killed over there?
> 
> You sound so do-goody it's unreal


i've had two friends killed and one who has lost a limb. I dont see how that is relevant though to be honest but thank you.

I sound so do-goody? why because i dont believe our country should murder people against an international code that was setup after the horrors of WW2? OK then.

Thank you for your insightful post.


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

MunchieBites said:


> i've had two friends killed and one who has lost a limb. I dont see how that is relevant though to be honest but thank you.
> 
> I sound so do-goody? why because i dont believe our country should murder people against an international code that was setup after the horrors of WW2? OK then.
> 
> Thank you for your insightful post.


So your happy to allow British guys to be fired directly at before engaging a blatent enemy?

Do you not understand that the Geneva Convention was set up with conventional warfare in mind? Not a bunch of sick twisted lunatics running round the countryside who follow NO international code and conventions?

International laws work fine when both sides follow them.


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

mills91 said:


> So your happy to allow British guys to be fired directly at before engaging a blatent enemy?
> 
> Do you not understand that the Geneva Convention was set up with conventional warfare in mind? Not a bunch of sick twisted lunatics running round the countryside who follow NO international code and conventions?
> 
> International laws work fine when both sides follow them.


Im happy for there to be rules during war so that people who do not follow them become accountable.

conventional warfare? please discuss.. were the Germans conventional? what is conventional warfare and is there such a thing?

Like i say, just because they follow no code certainly does not mean we should be the same.

Murderers here (civvy ones) don't follow conventional laws.. does that mean we all murder each other because hey fcuk it, they aren't paying attention to the law?


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

MunchieBites said:


> Im happy for there to be rules during war so that people who do not follow them become accountable.
> 
> conventional warfare? please discuss.. were the Germans conventional? what is conventional warfare and is there such a thing?
> 
> ...


And who are the taliban accountable to, other than the British army engaging them? Would you prefer them to all be arrested, trailed, jailed and then another mass breakout? Haha.

Yeah conventional as 2 countries at war. Not a country vs a hat full of maniacs.

If you class shooting an armed man aiming a weapon at you as murder... There's something not right.


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

mills91 said:


> And who are the taliban accountable to, other than the British army engaging them? Would you prefer them to all be arrested, trailed, jailed and then another mass breakout? Haha.
> 
> Yeah conventional as 2 countries at war. Not a country vs a hat full of maniacs.
> 
> If you class shooting an armed man aiming a weapon at you as murder... There's something not right.


Going all Rambo on the 2 or 3 Taliban in your sights isn't going to solve anything though... that's been proved. The soldiers aren't there for their own personal wars. They are there to do as they are told. Simple as that.


----------



## TwoCanVanDamn (Jun 22, 2012)

MunchieBites said:


> i'm going to be careful with what i say because of my job however;
> 
> The Geneva Convention was setup so that crimes such as the execution of Russian PoWs under operation Barbarossa woudl not be repeated (or indeed if it was, people would be held accountable)
> 
> ...


I did HERRICK and TELIC and I certainly am not disgusted by their actions and none of my mates would be. The only thing they did wrong IMO is filming any part of it. They should have discreetly put 2 in his dome and moved on and nobody would be none the wiser


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

mills91 said:


> And who are the taliban accountable to, other than the British army engaging them? Would you prefer them to all be arrested, trailed, jailed and then another mass breakout? Haha.
> 
> Yeah conventional as 2 countries at war. Not a country vs a hat full of maniacs.
> 
> If you class shooting an armed man aiming a weapon at you as murder... There's something not right.


you still haven't said whats convention and what isn't and i'm actually genuinely interested to understand your point about it- could you elaborate? The Nazi's were pretty maniac like if you ask me..

an armed man? An injured man who they found in a field. He posed no immediate threat. Even after the shooting the gunman (marine one that is) said to the other two he broke the Geneva convention. He knew he had done wrong.

Unless i'm reading a different story to you. no one was aiming a live weapon. In fact the guy was injured i dont think he could have aimed anything after having an Apache taking a pop at him


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

TwoCanVanDamn said:


> I did HERRICK and TELIC and I certainly am not disgusted by their actions and none of my mates would be. The only thing they did wrong IMO is filming any part of it. They should have discreetly put 2 in his dome and moved on and nobody would be none the wiser


thank you for correction of operation- caffeine overload on my part.

Look you served, i didnt, so i'm not goign to sit here and denounce you and your opinoins as you've been there and experienced it. I just find it wrong that an injured man was shot dead 'execution style'

I dont believe they willingly filmed it. think there was a helmet cam that engaged


----------



## GolfDelta (Jan 5, 2010)

"Shuffle off this mortal coil.....you cvnt"

42 Commando had lost 7 boys and had 42 serious injuries due to indescriminate use of IEDs by the Taliban against both Western troops and AFGHAN CIVILIANS.They hung body parts of the dead soldiers from trees.I've served in Afghanistan and if 7 of my oppos had been killed and parts of them hung up on trees I'd slot any fvcker I encountered......I'd just make sure the camera was off


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

MunchieBites said:


> you still haven't said whats convention and what isn't and i'm actually genuinely interested to understand your point about it- could you elaborate? The Nazi's were pretty maniac like if you ask me..
> 
> an armed man? An injured man who they found in a field. He posed no immediate threat. Even after the shooting the gunman (marine one that is) said to the other two he broke the Geneva convention. He knew he had done wrong.
> 
> Unless i'm reading a different story to you. no one was aiming a live weapon. In fact the guy was injured i dont think he could have aimed anything after having an Apache taking a pop at him


What is hard to understand about conventional war? Do you have some sort of learning difficulty?

Conventional warfare is one country (Britain) vs another country (Argentina). Both countries are bound by international law and will face action from the UN etc if illegal activities are carried out.

Britain vs the Taliban is TOTALLY DIFFERENT as they do not follow any international code of cunduct, therefore no workable sanctions can be imposed on them, therefore they can do what they please.

Why do you keep bringing Nazi Germany up?

That was 60/70 years ago and not relevent in the slightest


----------



## TwoCanVanDamn (Jun 22, 2012)

Some of you guys are so out of touch with reality with what it is like out there when your in a contact that you should just shut the fvck up. You have no idea what it's like so don't sit in your nice office or on your sofa talking about what's right and wrong.

The guy had been shooting at them, he'd probably killed coalition troops before, he was still armed so still presented a threat, if it was me I'd just say he tried to point his weapon at me when I approached him so I double tapped him. Everyone has the inherent right to self defence. That's the main point of our ROE for all you 'experts' out there keeping track.

Munchiebites I like your usual posts but in this case your so far off point it's untrue. Get off your high horse


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

mills91 said:


> What is hard to understand about conventional war? Do you have some sort of learning difficulty?
> 
> Conventional warfare is one country (Britain) vs another country (Argentina). Both countries are bound by international law and will face action from the UN etc if illegal activities are carried out.
> 
> Britain vs the Taliban is TOTALLY DIFFERENT as they do not follow any international code of cunduct, therefore no workable sanctions can be imposed on them, therefore they can do what they please.


OK, no i don't have learning needs but i also don't need to resort to insults when making a point.

So, therefore- you think we should also go by the same logic as the Taliban?


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

TwoCanVanDamn said:


> Some of you guys are so out of touch with reality with what it is like out there when your in a contact that you should just shut the fvck up. You have no idea what it's like so don't sit in your nice office or on your sofa talking about what's right and wrong.
> 
> The guy had been shooting at them, he'd probably killed coalition troops before, he was still armed so still presented a threat, if it was me I'd just say he tried to point his weapon at me when I approached him so I double tapped him. Everyone has the inherent right to self defence. That's the main point of our ROE for all you 'experts' out there keeping track.
> 
> Munchiebites I like your usual posts but in this case your so far off point it's untrue. Get off your high horse


liek i say, i'm not arguing with you on this onebecause like you say you've been there and i fully respect you for being out there. I guess its agree to disagree


----------



## Madoxx (Nov 7, 2010)

"They said that if I saw somebody carrying a rifle or a rocket launcher, I shouldn't fire at him. Only if he shot at me or a member of my patrol, and I could see a muzzle flash from his rifle, could I use my weapon"

So you see a gang of guys all armed to the teeth, you have to wait until they kill you or your mate before you engage them?

Its all well and good being an internet keyboard warrior, but in real life when theres a chance you or your mates are going to die I imagine peoples views may change!


----------



## TwoCanVanDamn (Jun 22, 2012)

mills91 said:


> What is hard to understand about conventional war? Do you have some sort of learning difficulty?
> 
> Conventional warfare is one country (Britain) vs another country (Argentina). Both countries are bound by international law and will face action from the UN etc if illegal activities are carried out.
> 
> ...


Exactly. Great post.

I'm done with this thread now because I've delayed my PWO shake due to feeling the need to say something lol


----------



## The Regiment (Oct 7, 2013)

TwoCanVanDamn said:


> Some of you guys are so out of touch with reality with what it is like out there when your in a contact that you should just shut the fvck up. You have no idea what it's like so don't sit in your nice office or on your sofa talking about what's right and wrong.
> 
> The guy had been shooting at them, he'd probably killed coalition troops before, he was still armed so still presented a threat, if it was me I'd just say he tried to point his weapon at me when I approached him so I double tapped him. Everyone has the inherent right to self defence. That's the main point of our ROE for all you 'experts' out there keeping track.
> 
> Munchiebites I like your usual posts but in this case your so far off point it's untrue. Get off your high horse


This just made my day. Thank you - I didn't feel like typing all of that sh1t out.


----------



## skipper1987 (May 1, 2013)

Tuff titty i would have shot him myself hope they get away with it too. He would have only been nursed back to health either escaped or released and joined the taliban again and tried to kill more of our amazing armed forces!!


----------



## The Regiment (Oct 7, 2013)

> amazing armed forces


Fvck yea :2guns:


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

The only thing they did wrong was to not switch off the camera on their helmet.


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

mills91 said:


> All of my friends have made similar comments in the last, guys on here agree with shooting the fvcker also.
> 
> A man has guns and grenades strapped to him, has been engaging you and your colleagues, he gets wounded. If you leave him to die or finish the job off from close range, it is hardly as barbaric as chopping off an innocent child's hands for reading a banned booked or shooting a school girl through the head mate.


you could have one friend for all I know, and a tiny percentage have responded on here compared to are members of UKM...and yes, putting a bullet into an injured person head is barbaric, comparing it to having a kids hand chopped off is just a lazy argument, if that's the case, isn't drone bombing or airstrikes that kill innocents not also barbaric that the allied forces carry out?...not disagreeing where its right or wrong, but in the context of what there trying to achieve, that isn't the way to go about it


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

barsnack said:


> you could have one friend for all I know, and a tiny percentage have responded on here compared to are members of UKM...and yes, putting a bullet into an injured person head is barbaric, comparing it to having a kids hand chopped off is just a lazy argument, if that's the case, isn't drone bombing or airstrikes that kill innocents not also barbaric that the allied forces carry out?...not disagreeing where its right or wrong, but in the context of what there trying to achieve, that isn't the way to go about it


It's not a lazy argument. Killing an armed insurgent is a much lesser evil than maiming a child. Nothing lazy about it, that's one thing we are there trying to put an end to.

It's not Britain carrying out drone strikes is it, no matter the politics behind ourselves and our allies, it's not us carrying out these strikes.

I'm out, had enough of silly posts


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

mills91 said:


> It's not a lazy argument. Killing an armed insurgent is a much* lesser evil *than maiming a child. Nothing lazy about it, that's one thing we are there trying to put an end to.
> 
> It's not Britain carrying out drone strikes is it, no matter the politics behind ourselves and our allies, it's not us carrying out these strikes.
> 
> I'm out, had enough of silly posts


exactly, its still an evil....he may be armed, but he wasn't posing a threat, if he had attempted to return fire etc then by all means, but he didn't...your last sentence, normally something said or typed when not convinced of your own argument


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

I am grateful that we have lads(and lasses?) who have the balls to be out there dealing with what needs to be dealt with.

If anyone knows any of the guys on trial, could you pass on my thanks.


----------



## tamara (Sep 23, 2012)

The guy was severely wounded and would have died anyway. These marines are being tried for murder! They aren't a threat to the public, if I had to hang around with these 3 marines I wouldn't feel like my life was in danger I'd be wànking them all off cos their heroes in my eyes.


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

barsnack said:


> exactly, its still an evil....he may be armed, but he wasn't posing a threat, if he had attempted to return fire etc then by all means, but he didn't...your last sentence, normally something said or typed when not convinced of your own argument


No my friend, ending the life of a man who has sworn to kill you, your friends and your very way of life, who is lying injured on the floor and could detonate a grenade at any moment (how are you to know he won't)... Is not Evil.

I am tired of silly posts from people like you. This man has been shooting at you with the intention of killing you all day, he gets injured and you want to put a plaster on him, kiss his little boo boo and send him back to his friends to have another go at you in a few weeks time? What a joke, don't post quote me again please, I'm not replying


----------



## Dr Manhattan (Jan 8, 2012)

I see a lot of comments in here saying that the soldiers shouldn't be subject to international law.

Way I see it is this...

Those saying the soldiers shouldn't be tried, are also saying that the Taliban are so barbaric, we shouldn't worry about the incident as it's much less severe that what they do.

It seems the western soldiers are in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, instil western democracy and laws, and give the Afghan civilian population 'freedom'.

But in doing so, the marines shouldn't be subject to international law due to the ruthlessness of the Taliban.

That to me makes no sense and is a flawed argument. Those marines would be well aware of what laws and rules apply and they decided to breach them anyway.

Why would anyone accept that the soldiers being there is a good thing if they don't respect what are classes as fundamental human rights and well established international law in achieving their aims? If they're going to do that, you may as well just leave the Taliban in place as they don't respect those rights and laws either.


----------



## Dr Manhattan (Jan 8, 2012)

mills91 said:


> No my friend, *ending the life of a man who has sworn to kill you, your friends and your very way of life*, who is lying injured on the floor and could detonate a grenade at any moment (how are you to know he won't)... Is not Evil.
> 
> I am tired of silly posts from people like you. This man has been shooting at you with the intention of killing you all day, he gets injured and you want to put a plaster on him, kiss his little boo boo and send him back to his friends to have another go at you in a few weeks time? What a joke, don't post quote me again please, I'm not replying


But isn't this exactly what you are saying the British troops are there to do to the Taliban, ipso facto making what the Taliban do ok by your own standards?

There are two sides to the coin, so it has to work both ways.


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

mills91 said:


> No my friend, ending the life of a man who has sworn to kill you, your friends and *your very way of life*, who is lying injured on the floor and could detonate a grenade at any moment (how are you to know he won't)... Is not Evil.
> 
> I am tired of silly posts from people like you. This man has been shooting at you with the intention of killing you all day, he gets injured and you want to put a plaster on him, kiss his little boo boo and send him back to his friends to have another go at you in a few weeks time? What a joke, don't post quote me again please, I'm not replying


your very immature with how you put your comment across, being very defensive...you obviously didn't read my other posts correctly where I stated that I wasn't disagreeing with them doing this, but for the very reason they are trying to win over the locals, this isn't the thing they should be doing...what ive highlighted, is the reason I cant take you seriously, how can you attack the soldiers way of life whenever he's in his own country


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

Dr Manhattan said:


> But isn't this exactly what you are saying the British troops are there to do to the Taliban, ipso facto making what the Taliban do ok by your own standards?
> 
> There are two sides to the coin, so it has to work both ways.


No the British are there to rebuild and pass on to the afghan forces. Whilst doing this they are attacked regularly. I have said that the restrictions on the army, (British restrictions NOT international laws) are wrong as they allow for our lads to be at critical risk before being allowed to respond.

Although we shouldnt be there and I can understand the taliban insurgency to a degree, the rules that bind our lads from stopping themselves from being targeted in the 1st place is wrong.


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

barsnack said:


> your very immature with how you put your comment across, being very defensive...you obviously didn't read my other posts correctly where I stated that I wasn't disagreeing with them doing this, but for the very reason they are trying to win over the locals, this isn't the thing they should be doing...what ive highlighted, is the reason I cant take you seriously, how can you attack the soldiers way of life whenever he's in his own country


Haha alright pal whatever


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

mills91 said:


> Haha alright *pal *whatever


im glad we can still stay pals


----------



## artful_dodger87 (Mar 4, 2011)

Interesting debate and some good views from both sides.

Until Tamara said shed w*nk the soldiers. :confused1:


----------



## skipper1987 (May 1, 2013)

tamara said:


> The guy was severely wounded and would have died anyway. These marines are being tried for murder! They aren't a threat to the public, if I had to hang around with these 3 marines I wouldn't feel like my life was in danger I'd be wànking them all off cos their heroes in my eyes.


i was one of them my address is........


----------



## Southern Karate Guy (Feb 27, 2014)

MunchieBites said:


> i dont think the argument "you aren't doing it so we won't" really works


its an impossible situation,

you cant make an islamic country democratic.

women are property , to be used, sold and have less value than animals.

we shouldnt get involved, they need to grow up and evolve on there own.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

MunchieBites said:


> He has an AK47 because they are the cheapest guns around, thats why rebel forces in Africa/South America etc etc use them.
> 
> I dont doubt what you're saying but again why is the argument, they do it so we should? All bets are off in war? so concentration camps and genocide we shouldn't punich because hey.. its war?
> 
> for the record, i am most certainly not a left wing pacifist


With due respect your a woman.You attitude and emotional makeup, do not make for rational thought, in this area.Your already trying to justify his possession of a weapon.Yes if they are willing to kill indiscriminately then we do exactly the same.Its not some video game, where we all go home afterwards.


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

essexboy said:


> With due respect your a woman.*You attitude and emotional makeup, do not make for rational thought*, in this area.Your already trying to justify his possession of a weapon.Yes if they are willing to kill indiscriminately then we do exactly the same.Its not some video game, where we all go home afterwards.


i am now out of this thread but just have to say... Que?


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

MyStyle said:


> If the UK was invaded tomorrow would you go shake the hands of the soldiers doing so?


Clearly you don't understand my post


----------



## ohno (Jun 7, 2013)

MunchieBites said:


> i'm going to be careful with what i say because of my job however;
> 
> The Geneva Convention was setup so that crimes such as the execution of Russian PoWs under operation Barbarossa woudl not be repeated (or indeed if it was, people would be held accountable)


i thought it was set up to determine who governs what part of the moon once we all live up there?

(and oooooooooooohhhhhhh what is your job?)


----------



## ohno (Jun 7, 2013)

artful_dodger87 said:


> Interesting debate and some good views from both sides.
> 
> Until Tamara said shed w*nk the soldiers. :confused1:


lol this is brilliant


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

ohno said:


> i thought it was set up to determine who governs what part of the moon once we all live up there?
> 
> (and oooooooooooohhhhhhh what is your job?)


nought too exciting just project managment for the British Legion- i just try to not get too excited over things like this just in case ya know


----------



## MyStyle (Apr 22, 2011)

lukeee said:


> Clearly you don't understand my post


No I most definitely do understand your post mate. I'm just asking you a question, if you chose to answer it that is.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

MunchieBites said:


> i am now out of this thread but just have to say... Que?


I cant be anymore specific.For the same reason I wouldnt want one (a woman) next to me in the trenches.Let me ask you a question.

A Navy patrol boards a surrendered vessel.One of the boarding patrol goes below to the engine room, to make sure no one is hiding or trying to scuttle the vessel.As he enters the engine room,he is greeted with a shovel, which very nearly decapitates him.Despite being blinded by his own blood, he fights back and drags the beaten enemy above deck.They put a bullet in the back of his head as a warning to the other prisoners.

Did they act correctly, or should those who shot the prisoner be held accountable?


----------



## ohno (Jun 7, 2013)

tamara said:


> The guy was severely wounded and would have died anyway. These marines are being tried for murder! They aren't a threat to the public, if I had to hang around with these 3 marines I wouldn't feel like my life was in danger I'd be wànking them all off cos their heroes in my eyes.


my new favorite ever post on uk-m

incred on so many levels


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

essexboy said:


> I cant be anymore specific.For the same reason I wouldnt want one (a woman) next to me in the trenches.Let me ask you a question.
> 
> A Navy patrol boards a surrendered vessel.One of the boarding patrol goes below to the engine room, to make sure no one is hiding or trying to scuttle the vessel.As he enters the engine room,he is greeted with a shovel, which very nearly decapitates him.Despite being blinded by his own blood, he fights back and drags the beaten enemy above deck.They put a bullet in the back of his head as a warning to the other prisoners.
> 
> Did they act correctly, or should those who shot the prisoner be held accountable?


Dude. i'm not discussing the point anymore because quite frankly i dont want to offend the guys on here for have served in any way. So whilst yes i would LOVE to answer that question (and we can go to PM if you want an answer) i can't on here HOWEVER i do agree women shouldn't be on frontline in infantry etc. However that has nothing to do with rational thought


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

MyStyle said:


> No I most definitely do understand your post mate. I'm just asking you a question, if you chose to answer it that is.


Would you like me to bake them a cake or something? Because I'd probably shoot any invading soldier.. just like I would fully expect them to!

Hope that clears it up for you


----------



## MyStyle (Apr 22, 2011)

lukeee said:


> Would you like me to bake them a cake or something? Because I'd probably shoot any invading soldier.. just like I would fully expect them to!
> 
> Hope that clears it up for you


Maybe you now see the "insurgents/enemies" point of view.

"Your boys" shouldn't be there in the first place.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

GolfDelta said:


> "Shuffle off this mortal coil.....you cvnt"
> 
> 42 Commando had lost 7 boys and had 42 serious injuries due to indescriminate use of IEDs by the Taliban against both Western troops and AFGHAN CIVILIANS.They hung body parts of the dead soldiers from trees.I've served in Afghanistan and if 7 of my oppos had been killed and parts of them hung up on trees I'd slot any fvcker I encountered......I'd just make sure the camera was off


THIS!!.FUC.KING THIS!!! IF YOU AINT BEEN THERE THEN SHUT THE FU.CK UP THE LOT OF YOU!! YOU HAVE NO COMPREHENSION WHAT BEING IN A WARZONE IS LIKE!!!

Im sick of reading British subjects casting judgement upon those that freely defend them.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

essexboy said:


> THIS!!.FUC.KING THIS!!! IF YOU AINT BEEN THERE THEN SHUT THE FU.CK UP THE LOT OF YOU!! yOU HAVE NO COMPREHENSION WHAT BEING IN A WARZONE IS LIKE!!!
> 
> Im sick of reading British subjects casting judgement upon those freely defend them.


BUT....but....I have played war games and watched the films. 

Seriously, I am just grateful for what they do with what resources they have available.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

MunchieBites said:


> Dude. i'm not discussing the point anymore because quite frankly i dont want to offend the guys on here for have served in any way. So whilst yes i would LOVE to answer that question (and we can go to PM if you want an answer) i can't on here HOWEVER i do agree women shouldn't be on frontline in infantry etc. However that has nothing to do with rational thought


I can assure you that no-one on this board will know about or take offence.However, your response suggests that they should have been accountable.


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

essexboy said:


> I can assure you that no-one on this board will know about or take offence.However, your response suggests that they should have been accountable.


Sorry I meant p!ss off rather than offend. I have my own opinion but no experience. So to argue my opinionated point about a situation that others have actually been in seems silly to me, if that makes sense


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

MySrtyle said:


> Maybe you now see the "insurgents/enemies" point of view.
> 
> "Your boys" shouldn't be there in the first place.


Had you read my previous posts you would know I don't think they should be there, I have always been against it..


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

MunchieBites said:


> Sorry I meant p!ss off rather than offend. I have my own opinion but no experience. So to argue my opinionated point about a situation that others have actually been in seems silly to me, if that makes sense


P1ss off, offend, same difference.You choose not to comment on this scenario yet,are happy to comment on the soldiers facing court martial? Its ok, no -one will take legal action, unless God gets involved.Opinion is what we require.You can have no experience yet still have an opnion.


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

essexboy said:


> P1ss off, offend, same difference.You choose not to comment on this scenario yet,are happy to comment on the soldiers facing court martial? Its ok, no -one will take legal action, unless God gets involved.Opinion is what we require.You can have no experience yet still have an opnion.


My opinion is on here though. Yes I do believe there should be accountability for actions and yes I think RoE and Geneva convention is important. But no I can't guarantee if I was put in the same position I would still adhere to these beliefs, because I just don't know


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

BLUE(UK) said:


> BUT....but....I have played war games and watched the films.
> 
> Seriously, I am just grateful for what they do with what resources they have available.


Amen! Especially with this and the previous governments disgraceful lack of support and funding.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

MunchieBites said:


> My opinion is on here though. Yes I do believe there should be accountability for actions and yes I think RoE and Geneva convention is important. But no I can't guarantee if I was put in the same position I would still adhere to these beliefs, because I just don't know


Ooh You really dont want to commit do you? typical action of lawyers and policticans!  A simple yes or no would have sufficed.Anyway, dont fret it was a long time ago.


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

mills91 said:


> Amen! Especially with this and the previous governments disgraceful lack of support and funding.


have you a mate with the surname Boon?


----------



## MunchieBites (Jan 14, 2013)

essexboy said:


> Ooh You really dont want to commit do you? typical action of lawyers and policticans!  A simple yes or no would have sufficed.Anyway, dont fret it was a long time ago.


No I just don't want to repeat on what I've already said


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

I am in no way a fan of the USA and find the majority of their international matters nothing short of criminal but...

The way the yanks (or the majority of them) treat their service personnel these days puts us to shame


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

barsnack said:


> have you a mate with the surname Boon?


No

Go on, what's the punchline...


----------



## lukeee (Aug 17, 2009)

mills91 said:


> No
> 
> Go on, what's the punchline...


Mills & Boon fella


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

lukeee said:


> Mills & Boon fella


And there was me thinking his first name was Ken.


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

mills91 said:


> I am in no way a fan of the USA and find the majority of their international matters nothing short of criminal but...
> 
> The way the yanks (or the majority of them) *treat their service personnel* these days puts us to shame


What do you men by that?

I'm by no means anti military, in fact I'd probably come out quite pro military in the grand scheme of things. But I certainly don't think anyone is a hero by proxy because of the job they happen to do. I've also never quite understood why concessions are becoming more and more popular for service personal. Call me cynical, but I see these gestures as more of a publicity stunt than an actual outpouring of gratitude.


----------



## mills91 (Sep 18, 2012)

2004mark said:


> What do you men by that?
> 
> I'm by no means anti military, in fact I'd probably come out quite pro military in the grand scheme of things. But I certainly don't think anyone is a hero by proxy because of the job they happen to do. I've also never quite understood why concessions are becoming more and more popular for service personal. Call me cynical, but I see these gestures as more of a publicity stunt than an actual outpouring of gratitude.


Better wage (yes they have a bigger budget)

Better housing (again see above)

Service personnel discount in places

Treated with general respect and appreciation, where as the attitude over here tends to be 'fvckin squadies...'


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

James s said:


> Afghanistan made a bit mistake declaring war on the UK and attacking us.


I knew there would be someone who would do this.Our troops arent specifically employed only to campaign in foreign lands.If this country came under attack, they would defend this countries population, suprisingly.

Anyway, nice of you to introduce some sarcasm into the proceedings.


----------



## gummyp (Aug 16, 2011)

essexboy said:


> With due respect your a woman.You attitude and emotional makeup, do not make for rational thought, in this area.


Fúcking hell. This lad has travelled from the 1920s to the present.


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

RS4 said:


> I think the word hero is far to over used these days, just because someone has served in afghan or iraq doesnt make them a hero, many people never leave camp and there lives are in no 'real' danger. I do think serving personnel should get better pay and discounts in stores like students get


agree with you...soldiers should get 10% of at Subway, that will make them happy


----------



## TwoCanVanDamn (Jun 22, 2012)

barsnack said:


> agree with you...soldiers should get 10% of at Subway, that will make them happy


LOL

I've still got my ID card from my time in the marines, I get 30% off at Domino's. It makes me happy, although I'll admit I'm easily pleased


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

TwoCanVanDamn said:


> LOL
> 
> I've still got my ID card from my time in the marines, I get 30% off at Domino's. It makes me happy, although I'll admit I'm easily pleased


feel free to post it up:beer:


----------



## TwoCanVanDamn (Jun 22, 2012)

barsnack said:


> feel free to post it up:beer:


Post what up?


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

TwoCanVanDamn said:


> Post what up?


your I.D card...address is

1 Southall St, Manchester M60 9AH

thanks


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

RS4 said:


> dont think your face would match the pic and you wont get many pizza's delivered there


my face is yellow too, so you never know....and im guessing you googled the address...slow night bro


----------



## The Regiment (Oct 7, 2013)

mills91 said:


> Better wage (yes they have a bigger budget)
> 
> Better housing (again see above)
> 
> ...


We (British forces) get treated much better than the US forces while we are in Afghan. They do have a bigger budget but they also have almost two million soldiers to pay for.

They do get treated better back home though. When I went to America for some training, I lost count of the number of people thanking me for my service - the first question I get asked in the UK is "why are you fighting America's war?" - no respect. But whatever, I don't care, as long as they buy me a beer :beer:


----------



## Ashcrapper (Jul 3, 2008)

I think someone should send these lads word that Tamara would wank them all off. Keep their spirits up and whatnot


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

The Regiment said:


> They do get treated better back home though. When I went to America for some training, I lost count of the number of people thanking me for my service - the first question I get asked in the UK is "why are you fighting America's war?" - no respect. But whatever, I don't care, as long as they buy me a beer :beer:


Thanks for your contribution in our efforts against terrorism dude. I refuse to give you a 'Tamara special' but I do thank you all the same. :thumb:


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Ashcrapper said:


> I think someone should send these lads word that Tamara would wank them all off. Keep their spirits up and whatnot


There are 3 so one will be feeling left out unless you lend an hand?


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

RS4 said:


> Im heading back out to afghan soon, I may catch some stuff on camera to show @tamara so i can get a 'special' when i return





ohno said:


>


I wish you(and all your colleagues) the best of luck out there.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

RS4 said:


> Once we leave the taliban will have took control within 3 months


Does this not annoy you guys? I am sure you could have a right rant to be fair regarding some of the things, I know I sure would feel like it.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

RS4 said:


> No point mate, its politics. What were we ever going to achieve there? We were told our main effort was to deny the terriots a place to train and launch attacks on the uk and its allies but we are not going to stop these extremists anytime soon, there is many other places eg in north africa they can go train and launch attacks, we have helped the poeple whilst being there but i dont expect things to stay how they are when we leave which is a great shame.
> 
> I didnt agree with the illegal iraq war either nor if we did intervene in syria but i dont fight for politics i fight with the boys i love and to get paid. It most def is a shame for those nearly 500 who have died in afghan that when we leave it will all go to rat sh1t but thats the reality of who it is out there and the stone age midset of the afgans and how they interpret islam.


Nice to see your point of view, I hope you and the boys get to do what you do best out there.


----------



## frenchpress (Nov 22, 2012)

Its good that they are getting tried and investigated. If anything, the publicity of the trial might stop kids swallowing the 'be the best' army advert crap when they think about what joining the army might involve.

The British army isn't conscription based, if people sign up to fight practically the most one-sided war in the world then they'd better at least behave by the rules of law, and if they don't they should be brought to justice.


----------



## tamara (Sep 23, 2012)

RS4 said:


> I do too, or it will be a long 6 months.


If you want me to send you a box of treats let me know. Bottle of dandelion and burdock an irn bru bar and a copy of the racing post.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

tamara said:


> If you want me to send you a box of treats let me know. Bottle of dandelion and burdock an irn bru bar and a copy of home made Razzle.


You're a good un for the squaddies.


----------



## Madoxx (Nov 7, 2010)

tamara said:


> If you want me to send you a box of treats let me know. Bottle of dandelion and burdock an irn bru bar and a copy of the racing post.


He would rather a bottle of gin, a yorky and a copy of razzle!


----------



## tamara (Sep 23, 2012)

BLUE(UK) said:


> You're a good un for the squaddies.


I'm an excellent pen pal. I've written to many a marine, sent many boxes over, it's free to post them you know.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

RS4 said:


> I think the word hero is far to over used these days, just because someone has served in afghan or iraq doesnt make them a hero, many people never leave camp and there lives are in no 'real' danger. I do think serving personnel should get better pay and discounts in stores like students get


Agree with this.

I have a number of forces personnel who train at my gym (discounted rates  )

Have heard a few stories in line with the one being discussed here. Wouldn't want to be in that situation myself and respect anyone that is.

How did they get caught doing it if it was only those 3? Did they film it? If so that's pretty dumb. I doubt anyone would have questioned it if the evidence wasn't there in the public domain.


----------



## zack amin (Mar 13, 2012)

RS4 said:


> Im heading back out to afghan soon, I may catch some stuff on camera to show @tamara so i can get a 'special' when i return


Remember to come back armed, escaping Tamara and Wales will require all your training and skill, lol


----------



## Huntingground (Jan 10, 2010)

Tinytom said:


> Agree with this.
> 
> I have a number of forces personnel who train at my gym (discounted rates  )
> 
> ...


From my memory, they filmed it and the vid was found on a laptop.


----------



## L11 (Jan 21, 2011)

I don't get why anyone in this thread is defending these guys. Regardless of rules of engagement, regardless of the fact that we weren't in the situation etc etc The guy *admitted* that he'd f*cked up, so why would you argue otherwise..?



> "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention."


----------



## GolfDelta (Jan 5, 2010)

L11 said:


> I don't get why anyone in this thread is defending these guys. Regardless of rules of engagement, regardless of the fact that we weren't in the situation etc etc The guy *admitted* that he'd f*cked up, so why would you argue otherwise..?


I wasn't defending them as such,my point is,it's easy for someone who's never served therefore never been in that situation to sit in their living room and say "They did wrong" whereas the reality of it is,when you are in the forces,particularly Afganistan your colleagues become like family,perhaps if people who have never been to a war zone took a second to think what it would be like for a family member to be murdered by a gang,you and a couple of other family come across a member of the gang that had a hand in murdering your loved one,would that natural instinct for revenge overpower logical thinking?I think yes.

Again not saying it's right what they did,but I understand why they did it and would be tempted to do likewise finding myself in the same situation.Bar keeping the camera on of course then uploading it to a laptop obviously.Am I morally wrong?Very likely.Would I struggle to sleep at night?**** no.


----------



## L11 (Jan 21, 2011)

GolfDelta said:


> I wasn't defending them as such,my point is,it's easy for someone who's never served therefore never been in that situation to sit in their living room and say "They did wrong"


That's my point though, I don't need to say "They did wrong", because they said it for me.

Am I saying I wouldn't have done the same thing..? Of course not, it's highly likely a lot of us would have, still wrong though


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

L11 said:


> That's my point though, I don't need to say "They did wrong", because they said it for me.
> 
> Am I saying I wouldn't have done the same thing..? Of course not, it's highly likely a lot of us would have, still wrong though


This is the bottom line I feel.

Can't blame them really, and can totally understand them doing what they did. Doesn't make it right unfortunately...


----------



## GolfDelta (Jan 5, 2010)

chilisi said:


> They haven't been murdered by a gang though, they were killed in a war zone, doing their job/duty. it's totally different
> 
> The British forces takes pride in being one of the most professional forces of this time. This isn't professional at all.
> 
> *Doing it and getting caught is just as FVcking stupid*. Serves them right for filming it to probably show off to there friends and families at home. It's back fired big time.


So we agree unsure why you are so uptight and argumentative.If you read my first post in the thread you will see I clearly stated they shouldn't have had the camera on....

And my comparison about the gang was for the armchair warriors who have never been to a warzone but feel they are able to judge the actions of soldiers who are going through mental/emotional trauma.


----------



## rumbaba (Oct 2, 2012)

Please do not get the impression that I am condoning or condemning what has occurred, but if you train soldiers to protect, defend and kill, well, they are going to do the job they were given. All actions can be defended or condemned in hindsight, but its harder to control a reaction than an action


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

Was interesting reading this and there are some people who seem to be getting confused between the Russian occupation and what we're trying to accomplish. Russia didn't win because they were fighting the whole of Afghanistan. They were raping and executing all those that opposed them. It's completely different to what we (ISAF) are trying to accomplish. We're trying to get rid of the Taliban (one group of Afghanistan) so the people can live better lives. It's two completely different things. We are not at war with Afghanistan (I'm sure someone mentioned that earlier).

Anyway, back on topic as the Marine has now been charged for murder, Personally, while I agree that he has broken the law, I disagree with him being strung up for it and here's why. If they'd have shot that Taliban soldier while they were still approaching his body, it would have been dismissed as clearing the area. If they'd have called an air strike on his body to make sure he was dead, it would have been dismissed as clearing the area. If they'd have left him to do while taking cover near his body, it would have been dismissed as too dangerous to treat him. All of these things have would have resulted in the same outcome with the exception of no legal action being taken against the Marine. Personally, while I agree that he broke the law and technically should be punished as that is what we do, I am more p!ssed at the people who reported it and think it should have been brushed under the carpet. I also think that mitigating circumstances, such as having numerous of his men killed and even more wounded and things like having their body parts strung up in the trees by the Taliban as trophies, should have applied and reduced his conviction. The Rules Of Engagement the guys are operating under now are harsh for that type of conflict. I had to operate under those ROE's in Afghan in '07 half way through my tour but a week later they were dropped again to full on war time ROE's because it was too restrictive.


----------



## comfla (Feb 26, 2013)

mikep81 said:


> Was interesting reading this and there are some people who seem to be getting confused between the Russian occupation and what we're trying to accomplish. Russia didn't win because they were fighting the whole of Afghanistan. They were raping and executing all those that opposed them. It's completely different to what we (ISAF) are trying to accomplish. We're trying to get rid of the Taliban (one group of Afghanistan) so the people can live better lives. It's two completely different things. We are not at war with Afghanistan (I'm sure someone mentioned that earlier).
> 
> Anyway, back on topic as the Marine has now been charged for murder, Personally, while I agree that he has broken the law, I disagree with him being strung up for it and here's why. If they'd have shot that Taliban soldier while they were still approaching his body, it would have been dismissed as clearing the area. If they'd have called an air strike on his body to make sure he was dead, it would have been dismissed as clearing the area. If they'd have left him to do while taking cover near his body, it would have been dismissed as too dangerous to treat him. All of these things have would have resulted in the same outcome with the exception of no legal action being taken against the Marine. Personally, while I agree that he broke the law and technically should be punished as that is what we do, I am more p!ssed at the people who reported it and think it should have been brushed under the carpet. I also think that mitigating circumstances, such as having numerous of his men killed and even more wounded and things like having their body parts strung up in the trees by the Taliban as trophies, should have applied and reduced his conviction. The Rules Of Engagement the guys are operating under now are harsh for that type of conflict. I had to operate under those ROE's in Afghan in '07 half way through my tour but a week later they were dropped again to full on war time ROE's because it was too restrictive.


Here here!

Lets not forget...if that guy's just been shot by a hele chances are he isn't going to make it anyway... so even if they done first aid the outcome would likely have been the same


----------



## Blinkey (May 14, 2012)

This is a very touchy subject and in my opinion there is no real answer. taking the life of any fellow human is wrong. But there are times that you have no choice to do so in order to protect yourself or another.

There is a fine line between protecting and taking revenge for what the other human has done or will do to others.

Until you are in that position yourself with all the emotions and stress that go with it, then you are not qualified to pass judgement on why that line was crossed.

But in our "civilized world" someone has to look at what has occurred and pass judgement. I am slanting towards that shooting the insurgent when he could not have perhaps hurt anyone else was wrong. But the marine probably had a huge amount of experience in the killing and hatred that this sort of person has subjected to many and what he may do in the future. So the fine line was crossed.

Crossing that line is in all of us, what would I have done?

If the insurgent survived, he would have gone on to kill others, but I would have not taken his life.

If he died, he could not have killed anyone else, I would feel satisfied at my revenge.

Whatever I chose there would be someone who would judge me for making the wrong decision.


----------



## Classic one (Sep 26, 2013)

If the roles where reversed I bet the Taliban wouldn't have been put on trial .....they probably gave him a party and a slot on there tv .. this is a load of boll**s..


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

Classicone said:


> If the roles where reversed I bet the Taliban wouldn't have been put on trial .....they probably gave him a party and a slot on there tv .. this is a load of boll**s..


No of course they wouldn't. But they are not employed by the Royal Navy.

Forgetting the guy who was shot completely and putting him aside, there are still two issues what would **** the bosses off... firstly international relations, and secondly soldiers not obeying orders/procedures. The armed forces tend to be sticklers for these sort of things.

I totally agree with Mike that it should have been swept under the carpet, but as soon as it's in the public domain they have to take some action. I just hope it's not harsh.


----------



## tamara (Sep 23, 2012)

2004mark said:


> No of course they wouldn't. But they are not employed by the Royal Navy.
> 
> Forgetting the guy who was shot completely and putting him aside, there are still two issues what would **** the bosses off... firstly international relations, and secondly soldiers not obeying orders/procedures. The armed forces tend to be sticklers for these sort of things.
> 
> I totally agree with Mike that it should have been swept under the carpet, but as soon as it's in the public domain they have to take some action. I just hope it's not harsh.


Haven't two been acquitted and one is being charged with murder. Murder FFS it's ridiculous. If they are going to charge him they could charge him with some administrative charge, disobeying an order or something trivial not murder. He hardly killed an innocent human in cold blood.


----------



## 2004mark (Oct 26, 2013)

tamara said:


> Haven't two been acquitted and one is being charged with murder. Murder FFS it's ridiculous. If they are going to charge him they could charge him with some administrative charge, disobeying an order or something trivial not murder. He hardly killed an innocent human in cold blood.


Completely agree with you.

Can only hope as the charge is such a serious one he will stand more of a chance of getting off.


----------



## lostwars (Nov 7, 2008)

amigamike said:


> is this any different from the ira shooting a soldier in the street and then shooting anyone who tried to help him?
> 
> terrorist or freedom fighter
> 
> im sure the taliban treat all there prisoners fairly.


ye its totally different, the IRA dont occupy countries so i dont see how you would compare them with a trained paid military unit, the IRA were all volunteers with minimal armned training


----------



## Southern Karate Guy (Feb 27, 2014)

lostwars said:


> ye its totally different, the IRA dont occupy countries so i dont see how you would compare them with a trained paid military unit, the IRA were all volunteers with minimal armned training


many were trained abroad by other terrorist groups

and many civilians were murdered by them over the years


----------



## DeskSitter (Jan 28, 2013)

Hope they get through it in one piece and everyone else that fights and dies for the corporations. I wouldn't


----------



## supermancss (Dec 2, 2008)

Seems totally illogical how you can be found guilty of murder when the enemy solider is injured and captured. It's the soliders naivity and stupidity that sadly brought it all about after filming it and even on tape saying "this doesnt go any further its totally against the geneva convention"

2 wrongs dont make a right, its such a crap situation to be in. you SHOULD treat them fairly but how on earth you're supposed to do that in a fight to the death every time is crazy. Only time this should be punishable for murder is if they walked into somewhere without proof a person was enemy and killed them. Would love to know how they managed to get him charged on it..


----------



## ohno (Jun 7, 2013)

tamara said:


> if I had to hang around with these 3 marines I wouldn't feel like my life was in danger I'd be wànking them all off cos their heroes in my eyes.


I can't wait to become a gold memeber if for no other reason that to have this as my sig


----------



## Steviant (Sep 6, 2013)

It seems like marine A did a stupid thing. I wouldn't condemn him, because being under fire and seeing body parts being used as trophies will make people act in ways that are out of character. The stupidest thing he did was not smashing the helmet cam.

That being said, he is a soldier and he knows what the queens regs are & the ROE. Yes the ROE are too restrictive as has been said here & in the telegraph by Boris Johnson, but what he did was wrong. IMO he should get clemency and the minimum sentence, but the case is now political, so I fear he will get the shaft.

A shame, what happened to him could have happened to anyone who served in Afghan. I just hope he can get through whatever punishment he gets and keep it together.


----------



## josephbloggs (Sep 29, 2013)

mikep81 said:


> Was interesting reading this and there are some people who seem to be getting confused between the Russian occupation and what we're trying to accomplish. Russia didn't win because they were fighting the whole of Afghanistan. They were raping and executing all those that opposed them. It's completely different to what we (ISAF) are trying to accomplish. We're trying to get rid of the Taliban (one group of Afghanistan) so the people can live better lives. It's two completely different things. We are not at war with Afghanistan (I'm sure someone mentioned that earlier).


Sorry but that's just not accurate. The Russians invaded Afghanistan to assist the new government the PDPA and the Afghan army, who were fighting against groups of insurgents collectively none as the Mujahideen. the US and UK helped to fund and arm the Mujahideen.

The Taliban are actually a splinter group of the Mujahideen founded by a former Mujahideen soldier Mullah Mohammed Omar. So effectively we are more or less fighting the same insurgents that we backed against the Russians.

Also I was under the impression that we were told by Bush, Blair and co that the aim of the invasion of Afghanistan was to make the streets in the west safe from terror, as it was seen as a terrorist training camp, rather than it being anything to do with some humanitarian crusade to improve the lives of the people there.


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

josephbloggs said:


> Sorry but that's just not accurate. The Russians invaded Afghanistan to assist the new government the PDPA and the Afghan army, who were fighting against groups of insurgents collectively none as the Mujahideen. the US and UK helped to fund and arm the Mujahideen.
> 
> The Taliban are actually a splinter group of the Mujahideen founded by a former Mujahideen soldier Mullah Mohammed Omar. So effectively we are more or less fighting the same insurgents that we backed against the Russians.
> 
> Also I was under the impression that we were told by Bush, Blair and co that the aim of the invasion of Afghanistan was to make the streets in the west safe from terror, as it was seen as a terrorist training camp, rather than it being anything to do with some humanitarian crusade to improve the lives of the people there.


Yes you are right, but I was trying to make a simple comparison. The soviets were facing a much larger portion of the country than ISAF does. And while we are fighting some of the same fighters as the Russians did, so to speak, they're not equal conflicts to compare. The Russians had little support from the locals where as we have a lot of support from the locals. They don't want the Taliban in power.

We are in Afghanistan to stop the whole country becoming a cesspit of terrorist training camps like it was before. But while we're there we need to help the people of Afghanistan to make sure that the Taliban don't regain power. And for those like me who have been there and spoken to the local people and heard about what the Taliban used to do its the right thing to do. But that's just my opinion as a soldier.


----------



## TwoCanVanDamn (Jun 22, 2012)

mikep81 said:


> Yes you are right, but I was trying to make a simple comparison. The soviets were facing a much larger portion of the country than ISAF does. And while we are fighting some of the same fighters as the Russians did, so to speak, they're not equal conflicts to compare. The Russians had little support from the locals where as we have a lot of support from the locals. They don't want the Taliban in power.
> 
> We are in Afghanistan to stop the whole country becoming a cesspit of terrorist training camps like it was before. *But while we're there we need to help the people of Afghanistan to make sure that the Taliban don't regain power*. And for those like me who have been there and spoken to the local people and heard about what the Taliban used to do its the right thing to do. But that's just my opinion as a soldier.


Pipe dream I'm afraid mate. Once we've left they'll be running sh1t within a few months


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

supermancss said:


> Seems totally illogical how you can be found guilty of murder when the enemy solider is injured and captured. It's the soliders naivity and stupidity that sadly brought it all about after filming it and even on tape saying "this doesnt go any further its totally against the geneva convention"
> 
> 2 wrongs dont make a right, its such a crap situation to be in. you SHOULD treat them fairly but how on earth you're supposed to do that in a fight to the death every time is crazy. Only time this should be punishable for murder is if they walked into somewhere without proof a person was enemy and killed them. Would love to know how they managed to get him charged on it..


The problem is with this particular case is that the fight had finished. They were checking the bodies, so were out of contact. One soldier asks if anyone wants to give him first aid and everyone says no. He basically then shoots him in the chest. Now the thing that's fvcked him is prior to this someone asks him if he's going to shoot him in the head and he responds with "no, that's too obvious", or words to that effect. He then shoots him and says "this goes no further lads, I've just broken the Geneva Convention". The reason that's what is probably fvcked him is because it shows that he clearly knows what he was doing was wrong. He can't argue it and the government have no choice but to charge him under the guidelines for breaching the Geneva Convention.


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

TwoCanVanDamn said:


> Pipe dream I'm afraid mate. Once we've left they'll be running sh1t within a few months


Well yeah, I agree. Well part of me thinks the Afghan government may just be able to pull it off, but I agree, it is unlikely. The only saving grace that may swing the balance is the fact that locals have had a taste of life without the Taliban in power and there have been loads of local uprisings against the Taliban within the last 5 years. Only time will tell I suppose!!


----------



## TwoCanVanDamn (Jun 22, 2012)

mikep81 said:


> Well yeah, I agree. Well part of me thinks the Afghan government may just be able to pull it off, but I agree, it is unlikely. The only saving grace that may swing the balance is the fact that locals have had a taste of life without the Taliban in power and there have been loads of local uprisings against the Taliban within the last 5 years. Only time will tell I suppose!!


The Afghan forces don't have the back bone for it IMO. They rely/relied far to heavily on ISAF support. When it starts getting nasty after we leave they'll fold. Their also lazy as fvck and genuinely 100% useless


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

TwoCanVanDamn said:


> The Afghan forces don't have the back bone for it IMO. They rely/relied far to heavily on ISAF support. When it starts getting nasty after we leave they'll fold. Their also lazy as fvck and genuinely 100% useless


I don't know. The ones I've worked with certainly have the backbone for fighting the Taliban. They're pure warriors at heart, but like you say, they are lazy on a whole new level. Smoking weed in between battles, sleeping while on stag, leaving kit behind because it was too heavy and my personal favourite, disappearing for a few days because they were tired!!!


----------



## Ragnar (Dec 6, 2012)

mikep81 said:


> Smoking weed in between battles, sleeping while on stag, leaving kit behind because it was too heavy and my personal favourite, disappearing for a few days because they were tired!!!


Wow, they sound model employees for Hampshire council :laugh:


----------



## lostwars (Nov 7, 2008)

amigamike said:


> many were trained abroad by other terrorist groups
> 
> and many civilians were murdered by them over the years


can u provide a link off vols being trained abroad? and again they werent paid to be an imperalist murdering army, they did however learn by there mistakes and have apoligised for any civilian casualities after the war with the uk goverment

the uk goverment continues to cover up for civilian murders committed by the uk army while in ireland, its collusion with loyalist death squads who murdered two lawyers or the cover up of the dublin bombings carried out again with elements of the uk army in ireland

the uk army murdered a combatant in cold blood, these soldiers are paid to do a professional job, they brought shame on an army during rememberance wk, simple as


----------



## lostwars (Nov 7, 2008)

TwoCanVanDamn said:


> Pipe dream I'm afraid mate. Once we've left they'll be running sh1t within a few months


the talibs be back in power within a few months of ISAF withjdrawl , the puppet pm will hit the air with the last helicopters that leave too

hes been trying to include the taliban enter into a goverment the last year,he knows he has to achieve this, because his control is diminished as soon as you leave kabul

its controlled by local warlords and tribes which you can control with limited succes with cash and bribes

i hope a peace is achieved but it will be under sharia law and there way of doing things, not a western democracy


----------

