UK Royal Marine charged with murder for killing Taliban insurgent

The idea behind this isn't really a Muslim versus non-Muslim thing. It's a value/logic problem.

First as a Muslim we're not allowed to start a war.
Second we're only allowed to defend ourselves when attacked or being oppressed

Islam believes that all good comes from Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala and that all of creation worships God in its own way. Even a man that claims he believes in no God but continues to be righteous is still worshipping God despite his claims to the contrary.

So if someone was righteous or a God fearing person then they wouldn't be attacking or oppressing someone in the first place. Because war and oppression are not the actions of believers, such things are the actions of the insane/monsters/devils/Jinns/etc. Ergo, non-believers

Once again it comes down to the Greedy, Stupidly Lazy and the very small minority of intelligent people that know better.

 

That Is The Biggest Load Of "BULLSHIT" I Have Ever Read In My Life....



Cheers Glen.

 

Right on, can't fault that argument at all.

 

Glen you are probably not reading enough then.

 

No need to apologize.

Rambo? No, not at all. All I am is someone who has been there, at the pointy end of things, like those Royal Marines.

 

cass, Are You A Muslim Perchance....???



Cheers Glen.

 

They put a piece of filth out of his misery, in a far more humane manner than he would have done for them had the roles been reversed. This happens far more than I think civilians want to realize. The vision of war they imagine, and demand be fought, is pure fantasy.

Morrow, the Marine who pulled the trigger is light years better than the piece of filth he put down. I promise you he has never planned to carry out a bombing against, for example, a girls school simply because, well, it is a girl's school. I promise you carrying out attacks on civilians simply because they don't share his religious views, or ideas of freedom, has never crossed his mind. The piece of filth he put down is his polar opposite.

The Royal Marine's name and honor are totally intact. The Marine in question did nothing wrong.

 

Morrow,


Before you allow anyone to change your mind about the honorable nature of our military--what they would, and would never do--check this out:


http://www.globalresearch.ca/iraq-w...people-and-the-officers-would-take-care-of-us


While others can promise you that attacks on civilians simply based on their religious views has never crossed the mind of US soldiers, I don't think they can promise you that such attacks based on nationality has never crossed their mind.

And never mind that that war was illegal--based on lies--to begin with.

 

I'm just wondering, if a UK (in this particular case) or US soldier goes to combat is he at a certain time asked to not break the Geneva convention or has to officially agree with it? Or is it just expected? Even if it would not be asked this is still an atrocity of war of course and the guy should not have been killed, but I'm just wondering if there's such a commitment to what was decided in that convention?

 

He has obviously fixed his mind already. Not sure what's in there exactly since he never explained himself... which is unfortunately. He may not be trailer park trash but he sure talks like one regarding certain people.
It's obvious this Abdul guy likes to make constructive and explaining posts and goes a bit crazy when he or his religion is provoked. My advise to him would be the same that I got: ignore the empty posts. Glen doesn't seem to know how to seperate things as Taliban and Al quaida from a normal muslim.

 

Not entirely sure about your question but, at least in the American military, we are all expected to abide by the rules governing war (ie the Geneva Convention). The dirty little secret though, and many without real world combat experience find this uncomfortable, is that even when it comes to those rules there is a ton of grey area involved. It is easy to sit here, safe behind our computers, and say they shouldn't have done X or Y, or that they even broke the law, but add in actual experience and things are never so clear.

For example, when it comes to the Taliban, they aren't considered legal combatants by the Geneva Convention and, as such, aren't protected by it.

 

Ah see, that is intriguing stuff that I didn't thought about when I wrote that. Makes sense (Geneva convention-wise). And yes just because there have been some rules installed does not mean they are followed and respected even by the 'legal combatants'.

About the people that only hear this in the news and sit safe behind their computers: well, it's good they're not the ones that offficially convict the UK soldier then But I still think he was righteously convicted guilty.... although technically I understand now the victim was not a legal combatant, so technically we could perhaps say he wasn't guilty just because of that.

 

this isnt football where the opposing team wears a colored jersey.

theres no saying who is taliban and who isnt ..

 

It goes beyond being followed and respected, IMO. In many cases the rules don't really apply that well anymore. That is where a lot of the grey comes in.

I find a lot of times, especially in cases like this, the courts won't really be allowed to find offender not guilty. To much politics involved, and to much civilian outrage about something they don't fully understand.

 

Also true but I thought it was established in this case that the victim was indeed so.

 

Hmm I may hope (and expect) they don't cater to civilian outrage and politics but just go by the book in these cases. But yeah when going by the book still leaves a lot in the grey politics and the likes come easier into play... I'd say logically there's some need for clarity where it comes to grey area's like for instance the 'illegal combatants' when there appears to be a lot of them.

 

This is the ultimate problem of the situation. And it's not so much as that the people don't get the full truth but the majority do NOT WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH.

The people of the United States and England want to believe that they're the good guys, that they're doing the right thing and that they're never wrong. So when someone attempts to say the truth they're attacked and mocked.

 

If it where only that simple in your case....

 

Gray areas:

From the link I provided:

Brian Casler, a corporal in the Marines, spoke of witnessing the prevalent dehumanizing outlook soldiers took toward Iraqis during the invasion of Iraq.

“… on these convoys, I saw Marines defecate into MRE bags or urinate in bottles and throw them at children on the side of the road,” he stated.

Obviously some areas are more brown and yellow than gray.

Vincent Emanuele, a Marine rifleman who spent a year in the al-Qaim area of Iraq near the Syrian border, told of emptying magazines of bullets into the city without identifying targets, running over corpses with Humvees and stopping to take “trophy” photos of bodies.

Fog of war, right? What choice did they have?

Emmanuel spoke of abusing prisoners he knew were innocent, adding, “We took it upon ourselves to harass them, and took them to the desert to throw them out of our Humvees, while kicking and punching them when we threw them out.”

Yet another case of a frantic situation leaving them with no choice but to drive them out to the desert, and then harass, kick, and punch their way honorably out of danger. Can you imagine what would have happened if they had not done that?

 

Doesn't every side have the desire to be the good guys to the extend they choose to believe in that. I don't think that is limited to a certain side or country.