FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Marine A

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Marine A to be set free within a couple of weeks.

Good or bad decision?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Good

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

He's served his time.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

served his time( sadly) for doing his bloody job, the man should get a medal not a sentence

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Got away with an execution by pleading diminshed responsibility and got a good lawyer.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I thought we were just sticking to a good or bad decision post, do we need to post why we think it's good or bad as well?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

Probably not...

And yes we need to know why people think the idea good or bad.

For me Marine A was not convicted for the act of shooting an enemy combatant.

Marine A was convicted because he gloated over an injured combatants while he executed him and then told those around him he had just committed a war crime. In doing so he showed that he was fully in control and knew what he was doing. It does not matter how hard the tour of duty was, it does not matter if he had been brutalised by constant violence he faced. They may be mitigating factors when sentencing but do not reduce the crime.

I fear that reversing his conviction for murder will lead to the deaths of many British troops over the coming years.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Probably not...

And yes we need to know why people think the idea good or bad.

For me Marine A was not convicted for the act of shooting an enemy combatant.

Marine A was convicted because he gloated over an injured combatants while he executed him and then told those around him he had just committed a war crime. In doing so he showed that he was fully in control and knew what he was doing. It does not matter how hard the tour of duty was, it does not matter if he had been brutalised by constant violence he faced. They may be mitigating factors when sentencing but do not reduce the crime.

I fear that reversing his conviction for murder will lead to the deaths of many British troops over the coming years."

Totally agree he has got away with cold bloodied murder

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ahh right, well i think it was a good compromise because he did a bad thing in exceptional? circumstances.

I think murder was harsh and letting him off would have been bad so this is a good compromise for both sides, he's served a long sentence and now he can try and get his life back on track which hopefully he will.

I also wish him well and thank him for his service where he didnt act like a dick

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

To be honest i thought about this and rolls reversed, Id have probably shot him myself, i dont like taking unnecessary chances, better safe than sorry is my motto so yes id probably had done the same but maybe without the gloating and all because i wouldnt wanted to do it but rather him than me.

I dont know if that makes me a bad person or not and never having been in that situation its hard to say for defo either way but yes i think if theres a 1% chance id rather he bite the bullet than me

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oorland2Couple
over a year ago

Stoke


"Marine A to be set free within a couple of weeks.

Good or bad decision?"
a brilliant decision, he should have never been locked up the country is PC and lets be honest that twat Tony Blair who caused more death and destruction walks round with a care in world whilst lining his pockets and lecturing to us mere mortals. the wrong guy got locked ups should have been and still should be tony blair in the glass house not that fine marine who put his life on the line

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oorland2Couple
over a year ago

Stoke


"Ahh right, well i think it was a good compromise because he did a bad thing in exceptional? circumstances.

I think murder was harsh and letting him off would have been bad so this is a good compromise for both sides, he's served a long sentence and now he can try and get his life back on track which hopefully he will.

I also wish him well and thank him for his service where he didnt act like a dick "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oorland2Couple
over a year ago

Stoke


"Got away with an execution by pleading diminshed responsibility and got a good lawyer."

i have no worries about what he did, bloody hell them rag hats would have cut his head off given half a chance after dragging him by a bike along a road. biggest mistake was allowing it to be filmed and then quoting send him off after he had given the coupe di gra, or what ever the saying is

I'm sure my spelling will be corrected and can try better written in the margins

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oorland2Couple
over a year ago

Stoke


"served his time( sadly) for doing his bloody job, the man should get a medal not a sentence "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"biggest mistake was allowing it to be filmed and then quoting send him off after he had given the coupe di gra, or what ever the saying is

"

But that is the whole point!

He will now be seen not only to have 'gotten away with it', but to have been able to record himself 'getting away with it'!

That in it's self gives justification to any 'rag hat' (as you call them) or anyone else for that matter to do anything to anyone they capture. Our only justification for being in their country was to restore law and order. He (and a few other undisciplined yahoos) have managed to undermine that by recording themselves committing serious criminal acts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *avidnsa69Man
over a year ago

Essex


"Marine A to be set free within a couple of weeks.

Good or bad decision? a brilliant decision, he should have never been locked up the country is PC and lets be honest that twat Tony Blair who caused more death and destruction walks round with a care in world whilst lining his pockets and lecturing to us mere mortals. the wrong guy got locked ups should have been and still should be tony blair in the glass house not that fine marine who put his life on the line"

Good decision but for none of the reasons you give

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *onyxptMan
over a year ago

st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal


"served his time( sadly) for doing his bloody job, the man should get a medal not a sentence "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *onnyJohnMan
over a year ago

Doncaster


"biggest mistake was allowing it to be filmed and then quoting send him off after he had given the coupe di gra, or what ever the saying is

But that is the whole point!

He will now be seen not only to have 'gotten away with it', but to have been able to record himself 'getting away with it'!

That in it's self gives justification to any 'rag hat' (as you call them) or anyone else for that matter to do anything to anyone they capture. Our only justification for being in their country was to restore law and order. He (and a few other undisciplined yahoos) have managed to undermine that by recording themselves committing serious criminal acts. "

Gays thrown off buildings.

Rape victims stoned to death.

Young boys and girls used as sex toys.

Foreign journalists having their heads sawn off with serrated blades.

Foreign fighters skinned and dragged through the streets, dismembered and body parts put on public display.

You honestly think these fuckwits NEED justification for what they do..

There is nothing that excuses breaking the rules of engagement nor the Geneva convention and should a member of the armed forces do so then they face the consequences, which he did, and after appeals those consequences were deemed wrong and his sentence has been changed to reflect that.

Personally I thank him for his service and wish him all the best for the future.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *onyxptMan
over a year ago

st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal


"biggest mistake was allowing it to be filmed and then quoting send him off after he had given the coupe di gra, or what ever the saying is

But that is the whole point!

He will now be seen not only to have 'gotten away with it', but to have been able to record himself 'getting away with it'!

That in it's self gives justification to any 'rag hat' (as you call them) or anyone else for that matter to do anything to anyone they capture. Our only justification for being in their country was to restore law and order. He (and a few other undisciplined yahoos) have managed to undermine that by recording themselves committing serious criminal acts.

Gays thrown off buildings.

Rape victims stoned to death.

Young boys and girls used as sex toys.

Foreign journalists having their heads sawn off with serrated blades.

Foreign fighters skinned and dragged through the streets, dismembered and body parts put on public display.

You honestly think these fuckwits NEED justification for what they do..

There is nothing that excuses breaking the rules of engagement nor the Geneva convention and should a member of the armed forces do so then they face the consequences, which he did, and after appeals those consequences were deemed wrong and his sentence has been changed to reflect that.

Personally I thank him for his service and wish him all the best for the future.

"

Geneva Convention is not applicable here! This is a counter insurgence operation !

The only rule he broke was being stupid enough to get filmed and recorded disposing of trash....ooops sorry, a taliban peace protester !

This Marine Kafir actually did the taliban hero the favour of rewarding him with a ticket to paradise for some deserved R&R with his allotted 72 virgins.... one more Shaheed...Allahu Akbar

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *onnyJohnMan
over a year ago

Doncaster


"biggest mistake was allowing it to be filmed and then quoting send him off after he had given the coupe di gra, or what ever the saying is

But that is the whole point!

He will now be seen not only to have 'gotten away with it', but to have been able to record himself 'getting away with it'!

That in it's self gives justification to any 'rag hat' (as you call them) or anyone else for that matter to do anything to anyone they capture. Our only justification for being in their country was to restore law and order. He (and a few other undisciplined yahoos) have managed to undermine that by recording themselves committing serious criminal acts.

Gays thrown off buildings.

Rape victims stoned to death.

Young boys and girls used as sex toys.

Foreign journalists having their heads sawn off with serrated blades.

Foreign fighters skinned and dragged through the streets, dismembered and body parts put on public display.

You honestly think these fuckwits NEED justification for what they do..

There is nothing that excuses breaking the rules of engagement nor the Geneva convention and should a member of the armed forces do so then they face the consequences, which he did, and after appeals those consequences were deemed wrong and his sentence has been changed to reflect that.

Personally I thank him for his service and wish him all the best for the future.

Geneva Convention is not applicable here! This is a counter insurgence operation !

The only rule he broke was being stupid enough to get filmed and recorded disposing of trash....ooops sorry, a taliban peace protester !

This Marine Kafir actually did the taliban hero the favour of rewarding him with a ticket to paradise for some deserved R&R with his allotted 72 virgins.... one more Shaheed...Allahu Akbar "

Until decided by a competent tribunal ALL combatants must be treated as a prisoner of war as described in the third Geneva convention (even insurgents) only after their legal position is decided can they be dealt with outside the Geneva convention and even then it must be in accordance with the host countries law or international law.

(Personally I don't agree with that,but that's how it is)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *onyxptMan
over a year ago

st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal


"biggest mistake was allowing it to be filmed and then quoting send him off after he had given the coupe di gra, or what ever the saying is

But that is the whole point!

He will now be seen not only to have 'gotten away with it', but to have been able to record himself 'getting away with it'!

That in it's self gives justification to any 'rag hat' (as you call them) or anyone else for that matter to do anything to anyone they capture. Our only justification for being in their country was to restore law and order. He (and a few other undisciplined yahoos) have managed to undermine that by recording themselves committing serious criminal acts.

Gays thrown off buildings.

Rape victims stoned to death.

Young boys and girls used as sex toys.

Foreign journalists having their heads sawn off with serrated blades.

Foreign fighters skinned and dragged through the streets, dismembered and body parts put on public display.

You honestly think these fuckwits NEED justification for what they do..

There is nothing that excuses breaking the rules of engagement nor the Geneva convention and should a member of the armed forces do so then they face the consequences, which he did, and after appeals those consequences were deemed wrong and his sentence has been changed to reflect that.

Personally I thank him for his service and wish him all the best for the future.

Geneva Convention is not applicable here! This is a counter insurgence operation !

The only rule he broke was being stupid enough to get filmed and recorded disposing of trash....ooops sorry, a taliban peace protester !

This Marine Kafir actually did the taliban hero the favour of rewarding him with a ticket to paradise for some deserved R&R with his allotted 72 virgins.... one more Shaheed...Allahu Akbar

Until decided by a competent tribunal ALL combatants must be treated as a prisoner of war as described in the third Geneva convention (even insurgents) only after their legal position is decided can they be dealt with outside the Geneva convention and even then it must be in accordance with the host countries law or international law.

(Personally I don't agree with that,but that's how it is)

"

I don't either! But all that humane legality is perceived by these "people" as kafir western weakness.... and therefore taken advantage of !

We will lose that battle , until we understand how they think ,and we adjust our actions accordingly !

Rules and conventions only work if both sides recognize and play by them !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *onnyJohnMan
over a year ago

Doncaster


"biggest mistake was allowing it to be filmed and then quoting send him off after he had given the coupe di gra, or what ever the saying is

But that is the whole point!

He will now be seen not only to have 'gotten away with it', but to have been able to record himself 'getting away with it'!

That in it's self gives justification to any 'rag hat' (as you call them) or anyone else for that matter to do anything to anyone they capture. Our only justification for being in their country was to restore law and order. He (and a few other undisciplined yahoos) have managed to undermine that by recording themselves committing serious criminal acts.

Gays thrown off buildings.

Rape victims stoned to death.

Young boys and girls used as sex toys.

Foreign journalists having their heads sawn off with serrated blades.

Foreign fighters skinned and dragged through the streets, dismembered and body parts put on public display.

You honestly think these fuckwits NEED justification for what they do..

There is nothing that excuses breaking the rules of engagement nor the Geneva convention and should a member of the armed forces do so then they face the consequences, which he did, and after appeals those consequences were deemed wrong and his sentence has been changed to reflect that.

Personally I thank him for his service and wish him all the best for the future.

Geneva Convention is not applicable here! This is a counter insurgence operation !

The only rule he broke was being stupid enough to get filmed and recorded disposing of trash....ooops sorry, a taliban peace protester !

This Marine Kafir actually did the taliban hero the favour of rewarding him with a ticket to paradise for some deserved R&R with his allotted 72 virgins.... one more Shaheed...Allahu Akbar

Until decided by a competent tribunal ALL combatants must be treated as a prisoner of war as described in the third Geneva convention (even insurgents) only after their legal position is decided can they be dealt with outside the Geneva convention and even then it must be in accordance with the host countries law or international law.

(Personally I don't agree with that,but that's how it is)

I don't either! But all that humane legality is perceived by these "people" as kafir western weakness.... and therefore taken advantage of !

We will lose that battle , until we understand how they think ,and we adjust our actions accordingly !

Rules and conventions only work if both sides recognize and play by them !

"

True enough..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

Tony, how do you think we have got to a place where unspeakable acts are carried out by insurgents on any they take alive?

What roll do you think 'extraordinary rendition' to 'black' interrogation centres (that's kidn@p, being imprisoned in torture centres) has played? Do you think the videos that came out of Abu Ghraib of Iraqis being mistreated and tortured by US soldiers and the CIA may have added to the problem?

Do you think the treatment of prisons in the H blocks and by elements of the police and security services in NI may have in any way added fuel to that conflagration? Maybe you would like to hazard a guess about how much more hatred would have been caused if there had been a video clip of Sargent standing over an insurgent shooting them while saying 'shuffle off this mortal coil' and then turning to his troops and saying 'I have just committed a war crime'. Remember how much hatred 'Bloody Sunday' generated? And remember that then every soldier that was caught on film was shouting 'we are under attack' and such like.

It is not the killing of the insurgent that is the problem, in war people die, some deserve to, some don't, that is the nature of war. The issue is what was said, and how it was said. Many will share your opinion, but many will pay in blood for his words and I fear more will now pay for a courts actions in reducing the conviction and freeing him.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Marine A to be set free within a couple of weeks.

Good or bad decision? a brilliant decision, he should have never been locked up the country is PC and lets be honest that twat Tony Blair who caused more death and destruction walks round with a care in world whilst lining his pockets and lecturing to us mere mortals. the wrong guy got locked ups should have been and still should be tony blair in the glass house not that fine marine who put his life on the line"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The problem here is that the people who make the rules don't have to carry them out. A bit like some of the comments in these threads. It's easy to be the expert in theory but in practice it's a different matter.

in the heat of action your running on adrenaline - your scared, you want to live. One of your mates is injured or even dead - unless you been in that situation you don't know what it's like. Grateful it wasn't you angry at the enemy, hate even. So I understand his actions, but was he right? The law has delivered a verdict. But why go into action with helmet cams? Why fight under the GC when the enemy doesn't? Mankind's animal instincts do need to be controlled. I would love to see some of the contributors on here to be in that position and see how they would cope. How many have been in the forces, seen action, if so they may have a valid point if they haven't they seen too many war films.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It is good, he should get a medal, not a prison cell.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"biggest mistake was allowing it to be filmed and then quoting send him off after he had given the coupe di gra, or what ever the saying is

But that is the whole point!

He will now be seen not only to have 'gotten away with it', but to have been able to record himself 'getting away with it'!

That in it's self gives justification to any 'rag hat' (as you call them) or anyone else for that matter to do anything to anyone they capture. Our only justification for being in their country was to restore law and order. He (and a few other undisciplined yahoos) have managed to undermine that by recording themselves committing serious criminal acts. "

Absolutely nonsense

what exactly did he, in your words "get away with"

He whilst on duty and whilst suffering exceptional stressors, committed a wrong doing.

His actions were reported, he stood in Court on a number of occasions and under British Law he was convicted,

He is; still at this time of writing, STILL serving his sentence

He will, possibly in 2 weeks time, be realised early due to his exceptionally good conduct whilst spending his time in prison

No ifs, no buts, he was sentenced for the crime he committed and he is still paying for that crime right now whilst all the pc brigade condemn him .

Thankfully he has a faithful wife at home waiting for him, a wife who never gave up hope when all seemed lost

A wife who continued to fight hard for his release.

He will have the greatest reward of all, he will be going home to a loving wife who has stood by him through all these years in jail

I wish them both a very happy loving life together

He deserves it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Having started this thread, I thought I'd better add my thoughts.

Was Marine A wrong in doing what he did?

Absolutely.

There is no justification in killing a wounded person, insurgent, soldier, freedom fighter or rag head. Whatever you want to call him, it was wrong.

Should he have been tried for the crime (because that's what it was), yes and given the evidence he was certainly guilty.

Should he have been sent to prison? Not so sure on that one. Given the circumstances, a limited or suspended sentence would seem to me to be more appropriate.

As someone who has a son in the armed forces, I know this is not what our soldiers want or need. Another reason for those who condemn our way of life to justify further killing.

However, there is a point that I think has been missed. I feel a large part of culpability should be born by by those that failed to notice or act upon the stress and conditions under which Marine A and his comrades had to operate. If indeed his mental state was impaired by his conditions, this should have been spotted and he should have been withdrawn.

This was a failure brought about by bad planning, lack of resources and poor leadership skills on a whole range of levels.

Marine A has to be held responsible for his own actions and take on board that he did commit a crime. However, I believe it is right and proper that he has been freed. I do not see him as a hero nor should he be treated as one. He is another victim of a bad war badly fought and handled.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Having started this thread, I thought I'd better add my thoughts.

Was Marine A wrong in doing what he did?

Absolutely.

There is no justification in killing a wounded person, insurgent, soldier, freedom fighter or rag head. Whatever you want to call him, it was wrong.

Should he have been tried for the crime (because that's what it was), yes and given the evidence he was certainly guilty.

Should he have been sent to prison? Not so sure on that one. Given the circumstances, a limited or suspended sentence would seem to me to be more appropriate.

As someone who has a son in the armed forces, I know this is not what our soldiers want or need. Another reason for those who condemn our way of life to justify further killing.

However, there is a point that I think has been missed. I feel a large part of culpability should be born by by those that failed to notice or act upon the stress and conditions under which Marine A and his comrades had to operate. If indeed his mental state was impaired by his conditions, this should have been spotted and he should have been withdrawn.

This was a failure brought about by bad planning, lack of resources and poor leadership skills on a whole range of levels.

Marine A has to be held responsible for his own actions and take on board that he did commit a crime. However, I believe it is right and proper that he has been freed. I do not see him as a hero nor should he be treated as one. He is another victim of a bad war badly fought and handled. "

I think many fail to understand how the military work, this is understandable, if you have not served why would you?

Officers (Commissioned that is) are not there to keep discipline. That is the job of WO's, SNCO's and JNCO's. Marine A was a SNCO, it was his job to keep discipline in his troop. If it were one of his troopers had opened his trap in the way Marine A did there may have been an excuse, but the man was a troop Sargent, he knew better, he was being a total prick in order to 'look good' in front of men it was his job to control and discipline!

As I keep saying it was not the killing that was wrong, it was his spoken words that made it wrong! Regardless of what anyone may say, I know this truth as does he and anyone who has seen active service or served for any length of time. It is not what you do that matters, it is what you are seen to do that counts! Remember the 3B's.

BULLSHIT BAFFLES BRAINS!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"Marine A to be set free within a couple of weeks.

Good or bad decision?"

if the standard conviction for manslaughter is 7 years.... than yes with good behaviour he gets out when he gets outs....

if he is truely a man of his conviction, and he believes he did nothing wrong... he could always stay in jail and appeal this conviction.....

but he is not.....

so let the record show that he did unlawfully kill someone....

so for all those people cheering and saying he is the victim and a martyr.... that still feels really uneasy...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittleAcornMan
over a year ago

visiting the beach


"Marine A to be set free within a couple of weeks.

Good or bad decision?

if the standard conviction for manslaughter is 7 years.... than yes with good behaviour he gets out when he gets outs....

if he is truely a man of his conviction, and he believes he did nothing wrong... he could always stay in jail and appeal this conviction.....

but he is not.....

so let the record show that he did unlawfully kill someone....

so for all those people cheering and saying he is the victim and a martyr.... that still feels really uneasy...

"

In a nutshell...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oorland2Couple
over a year ago

Stoke


"biggest mistake was allowing it to be filmed and then quoting send him off after he had given the coupe di gra, or what ever the saying is

But that is the whole point!

He will now be seen not only to have 'gotten away with it', but to have been able to record himself 'getting away with it'!

That in it's self gives justification to any 'rag hat' (as you call them) or anyone else for that matter to do anything to anyone they capture. Our only justification for being in their country was to restore law and order. He (and a few other undisciplined yahoos) have managed to undermine that by recording themselves committing serious criminal acts. "

Biggest mistake they made was recording it, he should have just dispatched him, or better still say he couldn't find him and returned to the FOB

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oorland2Couple
over a year ago

Stoke


"Having started this thread, I thought I'd better add my thoughts.

Was Marine A wrong in doing what he did?

Absolutely.

There is no justification in killing a wounded person, insurgent, soldier, freedom fighter or rag head. Whatever you want to call him, it was wrong.

Should he have been tried for the crime (because that's what it was), yes and given the evidence he was certainly guilty.

Should he have been sent to prison? Not so sure on that one. Given the circumstances, a limited or suspended sentence would seem to me to be more appropriate.

As someone who has a son in the armed forces, I know this is not what our soldiers want or need. Another reason for those who condemn our way of life to justify further killing.

However, there is a point that I think has been missed. I feel a large part of culpability should be born by by those that failed to notice or act upon the stress and conditions under which Marine A and his comrades had to operate. If indeed his mental state was impaired by his conditions, this should have been spotted and he should have been withdrawn.

This was a failure brought about by bad planning, lack of resources and poor leadership skills on a whole range of levels.

Marine A has to be held responsible for his own actions and take on board that he did commit a crime. However, I believe it is right and proper that he has been freed. I do not see him as a hero nor should he be treated as one. He is another victim of a bad war badly fought and handled. "

A very honest and balanced approach to those situation result and question posed, respect on that 1

But for me whilst he shot an injured taliban fighter, there couldn't have been much left of him after been shot up by 30mm. So why waste our resources and efforts on him, should have left him there and the taliban would have in due course recovered him, and if he was alive treat, if he was dead bury him

Such a pity it got recorded and bit him in ferocious manner on his ass, after serving us all so well.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oorland2Couple
over a year ago

Stoke


"biggest mistake was allowing it to be filmed and then quoting send him off after he had given the coupe di gra, or what ever the saying is

But that is the whole point!

He will now be seen not only to have 'gotten away with it', but to have been able to record himself 'getting away with it'!

That in it's self gives justification to any 'rag hat' (as you call them) or anyone else for that matter to do anything to anyone they capture. Our only justification for being in their country was to restore law and order. He (and a few other undisciplined yahoos) have managed to undermine that by recording themselves committing serious criminal acts.

Gays thrown off buildings.

Rape victims stoned to death.

Young boys and girls used as sex toys.

Foreign journalists having their heads sawn off with serrated blades.

Foreign fighters skinned and dragged through the streets, dismembered and body parts put on public display.

You honestly think these fuckwits NEED justification for what they do..

There is nothing that excuses breaking the rules of engagement nor the Geneva convention and should a member of the armed forces do so then they face the consequences, which he did, and after appeals those consequences were deemed wrong and his sentence has been changed to reflect that.

Personally I thank him for his service and wish him all the best for the future.

Geneva Convention is not applicable here! This is a counter insurgence operation !

The only rule he broke was being stupid enough to get filmed and recorded disposing of trash....ooops sorry, a taliban peace protester !

This Marine Kafir actually did the taliban hero the favour of rewarding him with a ticket to paradise for some deserved R&R with his allotted 72 virgins.... one more Shaheed...Allahu Akbar

Until decided by a competent tribunal ALL combatants must be treated as a prisoner of war as described in the third Geneva convention (even insurgents) only after their legal position is decided can they be dealt with outside the Geneva convention and even then it must be in accordance with the host countries law or international law.

(Personally I don't agree with that,but that's how it is)

I don't either! But all that humane legality is perceived by these "people" as kafir western weakness.... and therefore taken advantage of !

We will lose that battle , until we understand how they think ,and we adjust our actions accordingly !

Rules and conventions only work if both sides recognize and play by them !

True enough.."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"

Biggest mistake they made was recording it, he should have just dispatched him, or better still say he couldn't find him and returned to the FOB"

okay... i absolutely disagree with this.... but now i am going to ask a question being devil advocates

Do you believe the Police shouldn't wear body camera's either?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *onyxptMan
over a year ago

st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal


"

Biggest mistake they made was recording it, he should have just dispatched him, or better still say he couldn't find him and returned to the FOB

okay... i absolutely disagree with this.... but now i am going to ask a question being devil advocates

Do you believe the Police shouldn't wear body camera's either?"

I believe the police should !

The military ..... it depends on the mission , and with certain pre established conditions!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittleAcornMan
over a year ago

visiting the beach


"

Biggest mistake they made was recording it, he should have just dispatched him, or better still say he couldn't find him and returned to the FOB

okay... i absolutely disagree with this.... but now i am going to ask a question being devil advocates

Do you believe the Police shouldn't wear body camera's either?

I believe the police should !

The military ..... it depends on the mission , and with certain pre established conditions! "

Why? The military should always operate under the rule of law. Same as the Police.

The fact the military has a lower entry level, and they give them weapons, would seem to me to make it more important to record them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"

Biggest mistake they made was recording it, he should have just dispatched him, or better still say he couldn't find him and returned to the FOB

okay... i absolutely disagree with this.... but now i am going to ask a question being devil advocates

Do you believe the Police shouldn't wear body camera's either?

I believe the police should !

The military ..... it depends on the mission , and with certain pre established conditions! "

I think I would go further than Tony on this.

Police if in uniform definitely should wear body cams and the feed should be live for all to view unless in contact with under cover officers.

Military no, unless 'aiding the civilian authorities' when any troops should be supervised and accompanied by uniformed police officers at all times. Fact is by their very nature war zone are places where the rule of law has broken down and should not be judged by the same standards. But they are, and knowing this the high command should be protecting its forces and shielding them rather than attempting to use them as PR tools as well as weapons. We have over 160 years of experience of

this and we have found that it never works out well for those required to do the fighting. Land and air forces would do well to learn from the worlds navies and conduct their business away from the media and public gaze rather than courting it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *onyxptMan
over a year ago

st neots, living in Albufeira-Algarve-Portugal


"

Biggest mistake they made was recording it, he should have just dispatched him, or better still say he couldn't find him and returned to the FOB

okay... i absolutely disagree with this.... but now i am going to ask a question being devil advocates

Do you believe the Police shouldn't wear body camera's either?

I believe the police should !

The military ..... it depends on the mission , and with certain pre established conditions!

I think I would go further than Tony on this.

Police if in uniform definitely should wear body cams and the feed should be live for all to view unless in contact with under cover officers.

Military no, unless 'aiding the civilian authorities' when any troops should be supervised and accompanied by uniformed police officers at all times. Fact is by their very nature war zone are places where the rule of law has broken down and should not be judged by the same standards. But they are, and knowing this the high command should be protecting its forces and shielding them rather than attempting to use them as PR tools as well as weapons. We have over 160 years of experience of

this and we have found that it never works out well for those required to do the fighting. Land and air forces would do well to learn from the worlds navies and conduct their business away from the media and public gaze rather than courting it."

Totaly Agree !

Hence I referred the mission , and pre established conditions !

No use going into specifics,but you probably know what I mean.

Problem is, that even with those , and with the "leaks" these days, its more likely they will be used wrong !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unandbuckCouple
over a year ago

Sheffield


"

Do you believe the Police shouldn't wear body camera's either?

I believe the police should !

The military ..... it depends on the mission , and with certain pre established conditions!

I think I would go further than Tony on this.

Police if in uniform definitely should wear body cams and the feed should be live for all to view unless in contact with under cover officers.

"

What do you mean by 'for all to view'?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"What do you mean by 'for all to view'?"

I think that there should be open live feeds of all uniformed police whenever they are on patrol unless there are serious overriding operational reasons for stopping broadcasts. In the same way as I think there should be a 100% national DNA data base and that we should all have to carry ID cards. I can think of very few occasions that would justify police body cam feed not being available to all to see.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unandbuckCouple
over a year ago

Sheffield


"What do you mean by 'for all to view'?

I think that there should be open live feeds of all uniformed police whenever they are on patrol unless there are serious overriding operational reasons for stopping broadcasts. In the same way as I think there should be a 100% national DNA data base and that we should all have to carry ID cards. I can think of very few occasions that would justify police body cam feed not being available to all to see. "

Police cams are a subject on their own.

It's riddled with problems. What about privacy of people they are contacting? What if you were arrsted for something nasty and subsequently not charged? Do want footage of them arresting you and saying the reason all over youtube and facebook?

Do you want footage of them attending fatal car crashes?

I see no reason for police cams to be public and live.

Viewable by ipcc and senior officers , yes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Police cams are a subject on their own.

It's riddled with problems. What about privacy of people they are contacting? What if you were arrsted for something nasty and subsequently not charged? Do want footage of them arresting you and saying the reason all over youtube and facebook?

Do you want footage of them attending fatal car crashes?

I see no reason for police cams to be public and live.

Viewable by ipcc and senior officers , yes."

I do agree there are some occasions when it would not be appropriate for body cam footage to be on general release. but I think that it is a lot less than you say. You see no reason why police cams should be public and live, I would counter by saying I see no reason why police cams should not be public and live if the officer is in a public location or the feed relates to something that is legally in the public domain.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unandbuckCouple
over a year ago

Sheffield

Way off topic now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Way off topic now."

Yes and no. It goes to oversight and what is and is not appropriate. And how we should react to recorded wrongdoing. My position is that all recorded wrongdoing requires punishment and that those in authority that abuse their position should be treated more harshly than normal souls. And those entrusted to enforce the law should be under the closest scrutiny. When there is a total breakdown in the rule of law as is the case in combat operations then the scrutiny should be removed, however if the scrutiny is not removed then the law must be fully enforced to the maximum.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top