Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Royal Marine Found Guilty of Murder

24567

Comments

  • #32
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Its kind of strange, cause I was looking at an Apache/Taliban video the other day and they had no bother at all with going back over their now heavily wounded enemies to finish them off separately and one by one.
    (Taking their time about it too)

    And I watched another where a high value target guy is running for it un-armed, dives into a ditch, gets shot in the back, sits there wounded, gets shot again, crumbles in a heap, and then a final shot to finish him.

    There was no bravado or secretiveness about it, just methodically going about it, while openly communicating with others in control or on the ground.

    How it differs I don't know.



    Then there was one where they hit a bunch of them on a road with a missile, huge explosion, one guy left over making a frantic dash. Obviously unarmed, but they hang around and make sure to get him too.


  • #33
    Augmerson
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,162 ✭✭✭Augmerson


    Isn't killing people what the Army trains you for?


  • #34
    Corvo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭Corvo


    LizT wrote: »
    Do you have a link to the article OP?

    Hi LizT,

    Yes sorry, forgot to post.

    http://news.sky.com/story/1165881/royal-marine-guilty-of-murdering-afghan-fighter


  • #35
    scudzilla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,065 ✭✭✭✭scudzilla


    So what if he killed him, a few seconds earlier this guy was trying to kill them!!

    He shouldn't have been charged, it was on a battlefield, kill or be killed and all that.


  • #36
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    scudzilla wrote: »
    So what if he killed him, a few seconds earlier this guy was trying to kill them!!

    He shouldn't have been charged, it was on a battlefield, kill or be killed and all that.
    That's... not how the rules work.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Ciano35
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,433 ✭✭✭Ciano35


    One less terrorist to worry about tbh.


  • #38
    wazky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭wazky


    Ciano35 wrote: »
    One less terrorist to worry about tbh.

    He will probably get released in a couple years though...


  • #39
    scudzilla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,065 ✭✭✭✭scudzilla


    Billy86 wrote: »
    That's... not how the rules work.

    i know EXACTLY how the ROE (Rules of Engagement) work and the Taliban don't recognize them in any way at all so fcuk 'em, if a marine nailed one of them, fair play to him


  • #40
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    scudzilla wrote: »
    i know EXACTLY how the ROE (Rules of Engagement) work and the Taliban don't recognize them in any way at all so fcuk 'em, if a marine nailed one of them, fair play to him
    Nope. Again, that's not how it works.


  • #41
    Conmaicne Mara
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,543 ✭✭✭Conmaicne Mara


    wazky wrote: »
    Real world?, as in shooting a dying man at point blank range and quoting Shakespeare as you do it?, that sorta realism is it?

    I never said he was bright. Yes, real world, you know, where this happens.
    mewe wrote: »
    Thanks for the advice. Your previous post shows your reasoning is worth heeding.

    You're welcome.
    Corvo wrote: »
    There are Rules of Engagement, you can't just apply an opinion to the situation and say he was right. Though would we have done something similar in the same situation?

    I said it was too much to charge him with murder. However, I have no problem with what he did.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    scudzilla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,065 ✭✭✭✭scudzilla


    Billy86 wrote: »
    Nope. Again, that's not how it works.

    The Rules of Engagement are fcuked.

    Now this is a true story, a 6 man patrol in Hellmand Province came under attack by a very large force of Taliban (20+), no air support available etc, they held them off for maybe 30mins, then an Apache turns up and the taliban scarper

    10 seconds after the Apache is spotted, one of the Taliban who had been attacking them, just walks off around a corner, he didn't have his gun on him, so under the RoE he can't be touched, he fcukin knew that and played the game, lived another day to kill again.

    He was identified by all 6 of that patrol


  • #43
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    wazky wrote: »
    Putting the poor Afghan out of his misery sure?, should be awarded a medal really.

    Why did you quote my post? What I wrote and what you wrote are completely unrelated.


  • #44
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    Piliger wrote: »
    Not very bright soldiers, sadly. Firstly they thought the Geneva Convention applies, which it doesn't. Secondly the presence of a camera.

    I dearly hope this guy gets the minimum punishment possible. He is a soldier in a battle field, sent to war to kill or be killed. He should not have shot the terrorist murderer, but at the same time we cannot send these men into battle and expect their mentality not to be affected and for them to behave like it's a walk on a beach. If it were me, I hope I would have been smarter and I would certainly have considered the same action.

    Why do you think that the Geneva Convention does not apply?


  • #45
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Ciano35 wrote: »
    One less terrorist to worry about tbh.

    He should be put away for life alright.


  • #46
    darced
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭darced


    This post has been deleted.


  • #47
    OldRio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,601 ✭✭✭OldRio


    Let me get this right.
    A soldier kills a wounded POW and gets found guilty of murder.
    Yet on Bloody Sunday soldiers murder unarmed civilians and are free to walk the streets.
    Strange old world.


  • #48
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    Why do you think that the Geneva Convention does not apply?
    Because it's rules only apply in specific circumstances and they don't exist in a terrorist war or that which is going on in Afghanistan.


  • #49
    blaze1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,559 ✭✭✭blaze1


    Geneva convention only works when both sides play by the same set of rules.

    So lets turn the tables, marine was wounded, surrounded and left with no option but to surrender. Maybe the taliban didn't kill him on the spot and brought marine A back to their cave. A few videos are filmed, death to the infidel, the usual. Then a week, a month, a year down the line they film themselves chopping his head off and put it on the net.

    Ok, maybe the speech was a bit hollywood, but still how can the soldier who is doing his job be charged.


  • #50
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    Piliger wrote: »
    Because it's rules only apply in specific circumstances and they don't exist in a terrorist war or that which is going on in Afghanistan.

    Despite your brilliantly reasoned 'he's a terrorist' argument your talking complete balderdash....
    After returning to the command post, Marine A told members of the patrol 'I f***** up, lads' and nothing was said to correct the view formed by senior officers that the insurgent had died from his wounds.
    But in September last year, the Royal Military Police recovered a video clip showing the Afghan national being roughly manhandled across the field and launched an investigation.

    Marines A, B and C were arrested on suspicion of alleged war crimes in contravention of Section 1 of the Geneva Convention. All three insisted the insurgent died from wounds sustained in the Apache attack.

    Investigators later recovered a further clip, showing Marine A shooting the man in the chest. Marine A then admitted he fired his gun out of anger but insisted the insurgent was already dead.


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2492816/Royal-Marine-convicted-murder-Taliban-insurgent-shot-chest-close-range--comrades-CLEARED.html


  • #51
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    Despite your brilliantly reasoned 'he's a terrorist' argument your talking complete balderdash....

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2492816/Royal-Marine-convicted-murder-Taliban-insurgent-shot-chest-close-range--comrades-CLEARED.html

    He was a terrorist killer and when you find yourself quoting the Mail .... :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    Piliger wrote: »
    He was a terrorist killer and when you find yourself quoting the Mail .... :rolleyes:

    Well, I was going to use the Guardian but I thought all the big words might confuse you.

    Still think the Geneva Convention doesn't apply?


  • #53
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    I think what you mean is 'let's make the rules up as we go along'.
    Piliger wrote: »
    Because it's rules only apply in specific circumstances and they don't exist in a terrorist war or that which is going on in Afghanistan.

    One guy is a local with an AK47 and the other is from thousands of miles away, arrived after the local fighter was injured by a foreign death-copter, and executed him with a bullet to the chest.

    Who are the terrorists again? Tell me about this alternate universe you live in...


  • #54
    Mark Twain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 121 ✭✭Mark Twain


    **** sake.

    He was carrying out his duty. The dude was armed with an AK and a grenade. Somehow, I doubt the Taliban would be affording medical treatment and board and lodgings to a wounded marine.

    Hope he gets out of prison soon. He can hold his head high.


  • #55
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    Mark Twain wrote: »
    **** sake.

    He was carrying out his duty. The dude was armed with an AK and a grenade. Somehow, I doubt the Taliban would be affording medical treatment and board and lodgings to a wounded marine.

    Hope he gets out of prison soon. He can hold his head high.

    The Taliban fella was Hors de Combat - out of the fight. Therefore he could not use his weapons and was not a threat.

    Customary law of war and the Geneva convention state that he has to be treated as prisoner of war. The marine who shot him new this. What might have happened if the tables were turned is not relevant.

    I'm not exactly the British Army's biggest fan, but fair play to them for doing the right thing in this case.


  • #56
    Mark Twain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 121 ✭✭Mark Twain


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    The Taliban fella was Hors de Combat - out of the fight. Therefore he could not use his weapons and was not a threat.

    Customary law of war and the Geneva convention state that he has to be treated as prisoner of war. The marine who shot him new this. What might have happened if the tables were turned is not relevant.

    I'm not exactly the British Army's biggest fan, but fair play to them for doing the right thing in this case.

    Its easy to quote law from the comfort of your own home. Different story when you're out in the field seeing your buddy's limbs being blown off by these cowards with IEDs.

    Shooting him was a mercy. He should have left him there to die of his wounds instead.


  • #57
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    Mark Twain wrote: »
    Its easy to quote law from the comfort of your own home. Different story when you're out in the field seeing your buddy's limbs being blown off by these cowards with IEDs.

    Shooting him was a mercy. He should have left him there to die of his wounds instead.

    I'm quoting a British Military court martial.


  • #58
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    Customary law of war and the Geneva convention state that he has to be treated as prisoner of war.

    Totally wrong. Where in the Geneva Convention does it say this ?


  • #59
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    I think what you mean is 'let's make the rules up as we go along'.



    One guy is a local with an AK47 and the other is from thousands of miles away, arrived after the local fighter was injured by a foreign death-copter, and executed him with a bullet to the chest.

    Who are the terrorists again? Tell me about this alternate universe you live in...

    Alternative to yours. Reality.


  • #60
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Mark Twain wrote: »
    being blown off by these cowards with IEDs.

    What about the boys with the air support and millions of pounds of weaponry blowing limbs of people?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    wazky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭wazky


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    What about the boys with the air support and millions of pounds of weaponry blowing limbs of people?

    Sure aren't IEDS not the "right" way to wage a war?, much better in a multi-million pound helicopter that can clip a flys wings.


Advertisement
Advertisement