UK Royal Marine charged with murder for killing Taliban insurgent

all of it just shows how stupid wars are. How can you have laws about war? ie..Geneva Convention..dumb in the first place..it is a war, there are no rules, they are there to kill and defeat the enemy. So, they place these rules on war, where people are being killed, but they have to be killed in a certain way..makes it confusing for everyone..especially the brain washed young men and women that choose to serve in these armed forces..all they know is they are doing what they are told, maybe have a lapse of judgement in a sketchy, scary time and now they have commited a war crime and could be imprisoned for life..what the fuck? where is the justice in that? you choose to serve the commonwealth with your life and now you are in jail as a criminal..very unfortunate that this happens in this world

 

I see what your saying but I disagree. Terrorists generally are not part of the Geneva convention. British soldiers are, and the way they operate should conform to that. 'Their's not to reason why'. So even if they are hated by Afganis, or there illegally, they should still operate as a disciplined force.

 

Whether NATO forces are viewed as terrorists or illegal invaders doesn't matter. The fact is that you can't fault a man for opposing illegal invaders. Anyone would respond to an illegal invasion the same.

 

Obviously, and I wouldn't expect things to be different.

But these invaders are supposed to keep to the rules, and that hasn't happened in this case. By 'invaders' I don't mean politicians who gave the order to invade, but the actual soldiers they sent in. Soldiers are supposed to be disciplined and not shoot wounded prisoners.

 

I don't agree at all. The Geneva convention is necessary. And soldiers in the British forces are not doing what they are told if they breach it. They also know the likely penalty if they are caught.

If what you say was accepted, we may as well just kill them all, civilians included with chemical weapons. Or simply nuke the place.

 

My understanding is that military personnel have an obligation and a duty to obey only lawful orders and to disobey unlawful orders, including orders by the president himself.

I also understand that the way things are, finding out what's true requires some research . . . and then some.

 

hey, officers in the military lie and then cover up..
and incriminate the pawns of war, the young men and women

that is all I got to say about that..

 

The best way to stop war in its track is to require the leaders of the countries who declare it to lead the charge.

 

If a soldier or marine in the British forces were to disobey an order because they felt the war was illegal, they'd soon be under lock and key.

Whatever the rights or wrongs, soldiers are told they must obey orders given by a superior officer or NCO. Thats the only way any state can have an army. If anyone was going to disobey an order from the govt. on the grounds that the war was illegal, it would have to be someone at the top of the chain of command. Not an ordinary soldier.

They are told the war is legal, and really have no means to determine if it is or not. Over here the govt. legal people said and continue to say it was legal to invade Afganistan.

I'm not qualified to say if it was legal. I do think it was ill advised, and a mistake to go in there. But once they were in, service personnel are obliged to obey their orders, which include sticking to the Geneva convention.

Anyway, this Marine had obeyed orders up to the point when he shot the prisoner, so I doubt the legal status of the war was a consideration. Even if the war is illegal, it wouldn't justify his actions.
But I said in a earlier post that I can understand why he did it. I feel sorry for the man who was shot and for the Marine who shot him. And for all who have suffered and died in this wretched war.

 

If only life were so simple.

 

They've got video and sound recording in this case and no officers were involved.

 

maybe in this case, but dont believe that soldiers dont get set up..the ball rolls downhill

 

This thread is about one specific case. No doubt a lot of other stuff has gone on which we know nothing about.

 

It isn't...

A diversion...

Was it? Where?

You are not answering questions.

When was this 'newly' discovered find first found? Answer my questions, please.

 

Odon,

Whether you like it or not, the question of the legality of invading Afghanistan goes right to the heart of the issue being discussed here. That question being: Who's the real bad guy--the real filth? All I'm doing is asking you to disprove the illegality of it. That's all.

And in post #124, page 13, I asked you what are you contending the U.S. didn't know about? So, I believe it is you who are not answering me. I'm waiting for you to respond to that. So, what part of this "new discovery" are you contending they didn't know about?

And in reference to this: "The data from those flights was so promising that in 2007, the geologists returned for an even more sophisticated study, using an old British bomber equipped with instruments that offered a three-dimensional profile of mineral deposits below the earth’s surface. It was the most comprehensive geologic survey of Afghanistan ever conducted," do you have any evidence that a more comprehensive survey took place after that. If not, then that means that the 2010 article was misleading when it referred to the mineral wealth of Afghanistan as somehow newly discovered.

Are you serious about NATO forces not supporting and protecting heroin production in Afghanistan?? Really?

 

Same thing was said/done during the Vietnam war. If the US is bringing it in, Its under their noses and I highly doubt it true this time around. They learned the hard way over frank lucus.

Only the USA follows this bullshit. Just like it fighting, there are NO rules. The upper hand is what you want and if it takes a low down mission to do it, So be it. That's X many terrorists dead.

The people who play by the rules are fools, Fighting under others orders, Is how you lose.

 

Yeah, and what can be said about the people who don't care that the war is unjustified and illegal in the first place?

 

9/11, Osama #1 took responsibility along with his many 'taliban' followers. It was on and in everything, Let me guess, 'He was set-up'/scapegoat.
They also kept clamming it and further attacks. They carried out some, But not the 'off guard scale' like 9/11 did in terms of #'s. Nothing illegal about going after him and all his muslim fucktards.

As long as they keep shooting at a US or UK soldier the war is justified, Plain and simple defending themselves in a country full of terrorists.
Many seem to miss the point that, They do shoot back, And also shoot first in many of the engagements.

 

It is not even as complicated as ideologies. It is simply that life has become even more competative. It is no deeper than you or them. We know most of those circumstances are created because he wealth goes up and is not coming back anymore. We know something is up, we are less than sure what.

 

I thought that Osama was al-Quaeda, not taliban?