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

12467

Comments

  • #92
    wazky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭wazky


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    No, what is sad is the belief that because it's the Brits, it must be wrong.

    The Taliban have killed numerous times the number of civilians ISAF have, including many many people based on fanatical religious beliefs.

    Woah, I wouldn't go into civilian death totals, the BA and their ilk love toting up that score.


  • #93
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    mewe wrote: »
    Whereas you use the savagery of some of the Talibans actions to justify what this British soldier did. Two wrongs don't make a right man and it's you who's using what the Taliban have done to validate your point.

    I honestly couldn't give two ****s how many or in what way that members of the Taliban are killed.


    Shoe on the other foot and the British soldier either dies at the scene or is tortured before dying. You know it full well, whether you admit it here or not.


  • #94
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    I've read it back a few times, still makes perfect sense. I'll try another way. What the Taliban might or might not do in the same situation isn't relevant in your eyes because it wouldn't help your point. If they were the type to spare enemy soldiers, nurse them back to health and send them home, you'd use it as more evidence of the savagery of the British soldier.

    I get your point now. (I wasn't trying to be a smart arse)

    The point I was trying to make was that in the eyes of a court what the other side may be doing is not a legitimate defence.

    I couldn't rob an AIB branch and then when caught and put on trial try to defend myself by saying 'sure they robbed the country'.

    I haven't said anything about British soldiers and savagery, please don't try and put words in my mouth.


  • #95
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    Piliger wrote: »
    Almost none of them are native Afghans. Most are foreign terrorists.

    An international lawyers commentary on the GC.

    On the contrary there is every evidence that they are. If they were ever taken to the international courts there is zero chance they would ever be found guilty based on the wording of the GC. imho.

    Anyway ... with respect I think we have bashed that one to a standstill. I'm happy to move on :)

    I'm pretty sure the majority are native Afghans, Other than that we'll leave it there.


  • #96
    Conmaicne Mara
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,543 ✭✭✭Conmaicne Mara


    PizzamanIRL wrote: »
    Key word - possibly.

    Not that it matters.

    Keyword, guy with ak47 out for an innocent stroll not supporting oppressive regimes, everyones an angel.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    mewe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭mewe


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    I honestly couldn't give two ****s how many or in what way that members of the Taliban are killed.

    I have no problem bringing up what most likely would happen, its you trying to narrow the field of evidence to suit yourself.

    Shoe on the other foot and the British soldier either dies at the scene or is tortured before dying. You know it full well, whether you admit it here or not.

    That's laughable man. Ya didn't come back with anything reasonable to argue against my point. Ya just resorted to spoutin sh!te. What's this "it's you trying to narrow the field of evidence to suit yourself"...seriously like.


  • #98
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Waffly bull.

    Yep, you started it. You can't just choose a point in history and say 'but the bad man'... We have to consider how we arrived at that point.
    Hitler decided to take over Europe and kill a **** load of Jews.

    Again, history did not begin at that point. You're opening the book half way through and saying 'but the bad man..'
    should he have been left too it?

    He pretty much was.


  • #99
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Gee Bag wrote: »
    I get your point now. (I wasn't trying to be a smart arse)

    The point I was trying to make was that in the eyes of a court what the other side may be doing is not a legitimate defence.

    I couldn't rob an AIB branch and then when caught and put on trial try to defend myself by saying 'sure they robbed the country'.

    I haven't said anything about British soldiers and savagery, please don't try and put words in my mouth.

    Face to face in a warzone isn't comparable to normal society. You can teach all the rules you like but when your standing there with a gun and your life is on the line I can only imagine that self preservation is number 1 on the list. Morals very rarely outweigh your love of your own life and the desire for it to continue.


  • #100
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Coming from an IRA fanboy, that is incredibly rich.

    Coming from such a supporter of HRH, what is your opinion on the likes of murderous behavior of some members of the BA in Iraq and Afghanistan, granted not all behaved in such a fashion, some are soldiers that take their occupation and duty with great respect to their fellow man.


  • #101
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,839 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    Sickening to see some former commanders of the Royal Marines calling for clemency to be exercised in this case now that he has been found guilty.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Piliger wrote: »
    Almost none of them are native Afghans. Most are foreign terrorists.

    Boards needs a facepalm smiley for shit like this. Are NATO troops not foreign 'terrorists'? If you're going to invade a country expecting to draw foreign troops into the fight who's responsible for the mayhem?


  • #103
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    mewe wrote: »
    That's laughable man. Ya didn't come back with anything reasonable to argue against my point. Ya just resorted to spoutin sh!te. .

    I didn't justify what he did. I just don't care.



    mewe wrote: »
    What's this "it's you trying to narrow the field of evidence to suit yourself"...seriously like.

    I delete that bit. I actually thought it was Gee Bag that answered me.


  • #104
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    Boards needs a facepalm smiley for shit like this. Are NATO troops not foreign 'terrorists'? If you're going to invade a country expecting to draw foreign troops into the fight who's responsible for the mayhem?

    They invaded because they were attacked. Then they were invited to stay by the government. Blame the Taliban mass murderers and decapitators of women.


  • #105
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Face to face in a warzone isn't comparable to normal society. You can teach all the rules you like but when your standing there with a gun and your life is on the line I can only imagine that self preservation is number 1 on the list. Morals very rarely outweigh your love of your own life and the desire for it to continue.

    Well yeah, but in this case the marines lives weren't on the line. They killed an incapacitated combatant and were tried and convicted for Murder by a British military court. When the Afghan was shot he wasn't a threat, their lives were not in danger.


  • #106
    wazky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭wazky


    Shows how bad this particular act was when a British court convicted one of their OWN soldiers for murder, rarer than hens teeth.


  • #107
    mewe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,557 ✭✭✭mewe


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    I didn't justify what he did. I just don't care.






    I delete that bit. I actually thought it was Gee Bag that answered me.

    Fair enough. We won't fall out anyways. Life goes on for us in cushy Ireland ;-)

    You did actually use the Talibans actions to justify what the British soldier did though when you said, "Imo the geneva convention should only apply if both sides adhere to it. If you won't play by it's rules you shouldn't be able to expect its protection".....just sayin.


  • #108
    Seachmall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Face to face in a warzone isn't comparable to normal society. You can teach all the rules you like but when your standing there with a gun and your life is on the line I can only imagine that self preservation is number 1 on the list. Morals very rarely outweigh your love of your own life and the desire for it to continue.

    The whole point is that his life wasn't in danger. It wasn't a moment of adrenaline fuelled survivalism. And it isn't excused by spouting Vietnamesque "you weren't there, man! You can't judge!" lines.

    It was a thearatrical execution.

    Like you I don't particularly care that the scumbag was killed, nor do I care how he was killed. However, that doesn't excuse the fact that he knowingly broke international law for the sake of having a Hollywood moment and should be punished for it.


  • #109
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,566 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    Boards needs a facepalm smiley for shit like this. Are NATO troops not foreign 'terrorists'? If you're going to invade a country expecting to draw foreign troops into the fight who's responsible for the mayhem?

    Would you consider the Irish soldiers there invading terrorists?


  • #110
    wazky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭wazky


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Would you consider the Irish soldiers there invading terrorists?

    All seven of them?, im sure the Taliban were crapping it when they heard they were on the boat over. :rolleyes:


  • #111
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    wazky wrote: »
    All seven of them?, im sure the Taliban were crapping it when they heard they were on the boat over. :rolleyes:

    That wasn't the question. Whether theres 7 or 7000 , they are still there.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    wazky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭wazky


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    That wasn't the question. Whether theres 7 or 7000 , they are still there.

    So you are saying that 7 Irish soldiers is the same as the massive British/American etc force that is over there too?, are you for real?

    The Irish role is purely ceremonial at best.


  • #113
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    wazky wrote: »
    So you are saying that 7 Irish soldiers is the same as the massive British/American etc force that is over there too?, are you for real?

    The Irish role is purely ceremonial at best.

    The amount is irrelevant. They are either invading terrorists or not.


  • #114
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Piliger wrote: »
    They invaded because they were attacked.

    When did Afghanistan declare war on the US/West? You know the Taliban offered to hand OBL over to the Americans if they could provide some evidence that he was involved?
    Then they were invited to stay by the government.

    Lol. The US puppet government.
    Blame the Taliban mass murderers and decapitators of women.

    The Americans/West knew that moving into Afghanistan was going to draw all sorts of nutters from all over - if you broke into my house to find a criminal knowing full well that it was going to draw death and destruction to my home who do you think should be responsible?


  • #115
    wazky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭wazky


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    The amount is irrelevant. They are either invading terrorists or not.

    Yeah pure monsters the 7 of them are, maybe we could give them a Sunday World-esqe nickname? The Afghan Seven or something.


  • #116
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Carlos Roca wrote: »



    Lol. The US puppet government.

    The answer to everything is just going to revolve around how evil the US/UK/NATO etc are, isn't it?


  • #117
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,687 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Would you consider the Irish soldiers there invading terrorists?

    What I personally think is irrelevant. It's what the Afghanis think and I dare say many would consider Irish soldiers little more than 'foreign terrorists'.


  • #118
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    wazky wrote: »
    Yeah pure monsters the 7 of them are, maybe we could give them a Sunday World-esqe nickname? The Afghan Seven or something.

    Your just evading the question. 7 people on a murder and rape spree is 7 more than I'd like in my area.


  • #119
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Carlos Roca wrote: »
    What I personally think is irrelevant. It's what the Afghanis think and I dare say many would consider Irish soldiers little more than 'foreign terrorists'.

    What you think about the US and UK seems to be pretty relevant though.


  • #120
    wazky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭wazky


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Your just evading the question. 7 people on a murder and rape spree is 7 more than I'd like in my area.

    How many Irish soldiers are implicated in that?, they aren't British soldiers you know.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Gee Bag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,541 ✭✭✭Gee Bag


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Would you consider the Irish soldiers there invading terrorists?

    Considering they haven't been sent via Ireland's triple lock mechanism for deploying troops abroad their deployment in Afghanistan is questionable.

    However, they are operating in a non-combat role training EOD teams.

    There are (or were) six Gardai stationed in Afghanistan at one stage. I'd love to hear them stopping lads in Kabul saying 'would you mind stepping out of the veh-ickle, I have reason to believe you have drink taken'


Advertisement
Advertisement