Curious...

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19918398

An insurgent, no civvies involved, how do you suppose this has came about?

And realistically, whats the chance of a conviction?!

Find the After Action Report BBC

I don't see how it's murder seeing as a civilian wasn't involved...am I just being dense?

Im with testify on this one 0_o

 Testify wrote:
I don't see how it's murder seeing as a civilian wasn't involved...am I just being dense?

Its highly likely that the insurgent was killed after surrendering/being captured.

Sounds like the insurgent "accidentally fell down a flight of stairs" with the wrong officer running the show.

Unfortunately because we're trying to win the hearts and minds and whatever other nonsense of the Afghans I'd say these guys might be neck deep on this one.

Palindrome wrote:

 Testify wrote:
I don't see how it's murder seeing as a civilian wasn't involved...am I just being dense?

Its highly likely that the insurgent was killed after surrendering/being captured.

Clearly we should have treated them as they treated us. Now where did I leave my saw?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Unfortunately because we're trying to win the hearts and minds and whatever other nonsense of the Afghans I'd say these guys might be neck deep on this one.

If they did killed a 'PoW' then they deserve to be made an example of. It goes completely against their training and it does immense political damage when it comes to light; thats not even considering the ethical issues.

"These arrests demonstrate the Department and the Armed Forces' determination to ensure UK personnel act in accordance with their rules of engagement and our standards.

Sounds like a RoE violation

Mattman154 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 Testify wrote:
I don't see how it's murder seeing as a civilian wasn't involved...am I just being dense?

Its highly likely that the insurgent was killed after surrendering/being captured.

Clearly we should have treated them as they treated us. Now where did I leave my saw?

No, we're supposed to treat them Better than they treat us, because we're Supposed to be the good and moral ones.

 AduroT wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 Testify wrote:
I don't see how it's murder seeing as a civilian wasn't involved...am I just being dense?

Its highly likely that the insurgent was killed after surrendering/being captured.

Clearly we should have treated them as they treated us. Now where did I leave my saw?

No, we're supposed to treat them Better than they treat us, because we're Supposed to be the good and moral ones.

Our enemies are so terrible we must go out and confront them, and, you know, be just like them.

Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Unfortunately because we're trying to win the hearts and minds and whatever other nonsense of the Afghans I'd say these guys might be neck deep on this one.

If they did killed a 'PoW' then they deserve to be made an example of. It goes completely against their training and it does immense political damage when it comes to light; thats not even considering the ethical issues.

Except that these Taliban guys have no mercy, to anyone, and will impersonate a friendly to get to you. Terrorists don't have rights unless they are given them by bleeding heart liberals who have a wooly idea of what it is like in Ganners.
Its not like an honourable foe you can share a cigarette with after they surrender, let alone a foe you can surrender to.

To make matters worse the fether may well have been a British passport holder, sadly a lot of them are. I would lose no sleep at all if scum like that disappeared on capture.

 Orlanth wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Unfortunately because we're trying to win the hearts and minds and whatever other nonsense of the Afghans I'd say these guys might be neck deep on this one.

If they did killed a 'PoW' then they deserve to be made an example of. It goes completely against their training and it does immense political damage when it comes to light; thats not even considering the ethical issues.

Except that these Taliban guys have no mercy, to anyone, and will impersonate a friendly to get to you. Terrorists don't have rights unless they are given them by bleeding heart liberals who have a wooly idea of what it is like in Ganners.
Its not like an honourable foe you can share a cigarette with after they surrender, let alone a foe you can surrender to.

To make matters worse the fether may well have been a British passport holder, sadly a lot of them are. I would lose no sleep at all if scum like that disappeared on capture.

These people are monsters who will kill you if they capture you! We should kill them all when we capture them!

 AduroT wrote:


These people are monsters who will kill you if they capture you! We should kill them all when we capture them!

There is a difference. You could surrender to Nazis or Viet Cong and have a good chance of being treated fairly. There is no surrender to Taliban.
They are on balance worse than Nazis.

It all depends on what this individual did, we haven't been told that. Some of them get up to some very sick stuff and a quiet death is not too good for them.

The only thing I can think of that would get them arrested if they killed a "insurgent" that was carrying a AK. If they opted him out for just carrying and not getting engaged by the guy then it de facto "murder"

"Charging a man with murder here was like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500"

Soldiers can very easily murder people in a theater of war. It depends on how/when/why the bad guy was killed.

If this guy killed was an insurgent then this case will make me mad. We had an incident like this in Canada, I recall a soldier being charged with murder for shooting a wounded taliban. One story I heard was that it was a mercy kill and the taliban wasn't expected to survive, I heard from one source he had been hit with a 50 caliber round.
The kid gloves around war irks me these days. You cannot tame war, no matter how many international laws or human rights you chain it up with. It will always be war and I wonder if the courts really understand that.
I miss the Dark Ages.

Then stop using the internet for a start.

You know the Dark Ages is a really poor term for the Middle Ages, Chivalry was in fact a thing... even if it didn't get practiced much XD

Mercy kills are illegal. We've already prosecuted I do believe 4 soldiers already for mercy killing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Then stop using the internet for a start.

I meant mostly in terms of they probably didn't have kid gloves back then.

All ISAF forces was still under McChrystal ROE last year. It was very restrictive. Seriously believe its a ROE violation. I highly doubt it was a thrill kill like our Chuckleheads from 5/2 Stryker

 Orlanth wrote:

Except that these Taliban guys have no mercy, to anyone.

irrelevant. Killing captured enemies is completely illegal.

I think that there is more to this than a simple RoE violation, given the nature of the charges and the number of marines arrested.

Palindrome wrote:

irrelevant. Killing captured enemies is completely illegal.

Actually it isn't. The International Law of War offers POW status only to lawful combatants, not illegal combatants. Terrorists/guerilla fighters can be executed in a war zone, within certain caveats. Those were not followed however if thge person was a terrorist rather than a civilian or lawful combatant the action doesn't count as a war crime.

The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949 (GCIII) of 1949 defines the requirements for a captive to be eligible for treatment as a POW. A lawful combatant is a person who commits belligerent acts, and, when captured, is treated as a POW. An unlawful combatant is someone who commits belligerent acts but does not qualify for POW status under GCIII Articles 4 and 5.

So if say Iran invaded in support of the Taliban, captured Iranian soldiers must be treated in accordance with the Geneva conventions. For illegal combatants national law applies. The Bush did not sign up to an agreement on prosecution of soldiers, Blair however did.

 Orlanth wrote:

Actually it isn't. The International Law of War offers POW status only to lawful combatants, not illegal combatants. Terrorists/guerilla fighters can be executed in a war zone, within certain caveats. Those were not followed however if thge person was a terrorist rather than a civilian or lawful combatant the action doesn't count as a war crime

UK servicemen are bound by UK law, the LoAC and host nation law (with certain caveats) no one can be executed in a warzone, in fact no one can be executed at all. You can kill the enemy using legitimate means but once they have surrendered or have otherwise come into your possession they gain significant rights. They are granted more rights if they are classed as PoW but that doesn't mean that 'unlawful combatants' have no rights at all.

Lets wait for more details first, I very much doubt that the Royal Marines would kill a man in captivity.

As I said, I put my notice in when I was in Kajaki because I was so angry and frustrated. We had to sit there and allow the Taliban to dig mines in and lay IEDs. We used to shoot them for it, then got the call one day about 6 weeks into the tour that it was against the ROE, and from that day forth, only warning shots were permitted unless they were a direct threat to life "at that immediate time"

Mine and IED use went through the roof, and a couple months later my friend Dave Marsh and the troop boss chippie Thornton were blown to bits.

I left shortly afterwards, and to say that I am bitter is an understatement.

Anyway, I can't see British soldiers murdering an unarmed man in cold blood. So lets wait and see, I will wager it is down to our ridiculously tight ROE and its a complex tale, rather than a full blown murder of a man in captivity. I absolutely despise the Taliban, but it takes a different kind of man than a soldier, to cold bloodedly execute an unarmed man, and this comes from a bloke that has personally captured and handled prisoners.

Im fine shooting an enemy combatant, I doubt Id have the nerve to shoot the unarmed guy sat cross legged on the floor of our compound who we just gave a bottle of water. Its something you need to experience first hand, but looking into a mans eyes from 5 feet away and then executing him is something I wouldn't want to do even If it WAS legal.

 mattyrm wrote:
Lets wait for more details first, I very much doubt that the Royal Marines would kill a man in captivity.

I admire your loyalty, but I think its a bit optimistic. Remember discipline is not what it used to be due to the wishy washy training doctrines. Soldiers in general (I cant speak for marines you are the only marine I 'talk' to) have such watered down training now that I would not be surprised if soldiers went over the edge, IIRC the drill sergeants cant even shout at the squaddies anymore in case it hurts their feelings, thats no way to prepare a man for battle.

 mattyrm wrote:

Mine and IED use went through the roof, and a couple months later my friend Dave Marsh and the troop boss chippie Thornton were blown to bits.

You mentioned this on a previous occasion, you have my sympathies.

 mattyrm wrote:

Anyway, I can't see British soldiers murdering an unarmed man in cold blood. So lets wait and see, I will wager it is down to our ridiculously tight ROE and its a complex tale, rather than a full blown murder of a man in captivity. I absolutely despise the Taliban, but it takes a different kind of man than a soldier, to cold bloodedly execute an unarmed man, and this comes from a bloke that has personally captured and handled prisoners.

That I can believe, a lot of officers now are up their own bottoms and no longer put the men first, many are dogmatised which is even worse. I heard of one soldier in Ganners being put on a charge by one of his own officers after he saw a local shaking the dust out of a carpet from an upstairs window, he shouted up 'cant you get it started'. The local got the joke, the officer didn't, considered it 'racist' and broke him on a disciplinary.
Might an officer like that fail to overlook an incident like a mercy killing of a wounded man or not giving an extra warning to an armed man or something else not by the book and get all officious, I hope not but I fear so. All we really know was that the 'victim' was not a civilian.I would not be surprised at all if he was one British raised, two very lippy, three transparently murderous and contemptuous and four demanding of his rights. It would take a patient man not to give him a hard time one way or another.



on the other hand

 Orlanth wrote:

 AduroT wrote:


These people are monsters who will kill you if they capture you! We should kill them all when we capture them!

There is a difference.

Yes, we've dropped hundreds of thousands of bombs and invaded two countries in a decade as well as fomented coups of democratically elected officials and backed murderous tyrants for half a century. We've jailed tens of thousands of them, sometimes for years, with a great many of those jailed being totally innocent. We've tortured our captives and sent them to be tortured out of our hands. Clearly we're on the side of angels.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mattyrm wrote:


Anyway, I can't see British soldiers murdering an unarmed man in cold blood. So lets wait and see, I will wager it is down to our ridiculously tight ROE and its a complex tale, rather than a full blown murder of a man in captivity. I absolutely despise the Taliban, but it takes a different kind of man than a soldier, to cold bloodedly execute an unarmed man, and this comes from a bloke that has personally captured and handled prisoners.

Im fine shooting an enemy combatant, I doubt Id have the nerve to shoot the unarmed guy sat cross legged on the floor of our compound who we just gave a bottle of water. Its something you need to experience first hand, but looking into a mans eyes from 5 feet away and then executing him is something I wouldn't want to do even If it WAS legal.

American soldiers have done it more than a few times. I don't doubt you have the resolve to keep up honorable conduct in terrible situations, but not everyone does.

 Orlanth wrote:
IIRC the drill sergeants cant even shout at the squaddies anymore in case it hurts their feelings, thats no way to prepare a man for battle.

Haha really? Its nothing like that in Australia. That is just shocking if its accurate.

And I'm sure theres more to the story, we shouldn't jump to anything until we know.

I highly doubt it was a captivity kill. Most I heard of these type of incidents is a ROE violation. Seven guys from the same squad getting arrested at the same time sounds like a ROE violation.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
You know the Dark Ages is a really poor term for the Middle Ages, Chivalry was in fact a thing... even if it didn't get practiced much XD

it was extensively practiced. It's just that the type of thing that most people think of when they hear Chivalry, is not what it actually was. But, that's a topic for another topic in OT

 Jihadin wrote:
I highly doubt it was a captivity kill. Most I heard of these type of incidents is a ROE violation. Seven guys from the same squad getting arrested at the same time sounds like a ROE violation.

I'm gonna stick with what our mil guys say until further details come out...speculating at without any solid data or knowledge c'est stupid

 Orlanth wrote:

Actually it isn't. The International Law of War offers POW status only to lawful combatants, not illegal combatants. Terrorists/guerilla fighters can be executed in a war zone, within certain caveats. Those were not followed however if the person was a terrorist rather than a civilian or lawful combatant the action doesn't count as a war crime.

G3, Article 4 might be worth perusing.

 Orlanth wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Lets wait for more details first, I very much doubt that the Royal Marines would kill a man in captivity.

I admire your loyalty, but I think its a bit optimistic. Remember discipline is not what it used to be due to the wishy washy training doctrines. Soldiers in general (I cant speak for marines you are the only marine I 'talk' to) have such watered down training now that I would not be surprised if soldiers went over the edge, IIRC the drill sergeants cant even shout at the squaddies anymore in case it hurts their feelings, thats no way to prepare a man for battle

RM training isnt average infantry or serviceman training, this idea that they cant shout at people is a nonsense to me.. they do far worse than that.

As I said, I dont think im being optimistic, I really dont see any of my brother Royal Marines doing a prisoner because it makes no sense, maybe you would get one guy willing to do that, but you wouldnt find 7 sociapaths all together who are willing to all collaborate to murder an unarmed prisoner. Its why I think incidents of rape and such are so uncommon as well, maybe one guy would do it, but you never patrol alone. Absolute minimum is a troop of 24, and if a bloke tries to murder or rape a civvie, the other 23 are going to have fething harsh words you know what I mean?

Anyway, I stand by my assessment, Id be amazed if they killed an unarmed captive.

And I have some further intel for you lot.

Its from a mate of mine serving with 42 commando, who apparently are the parent unit of the blokes charged (7 lads from Juliet company Ive been led to believe) Its not 100% obviously, but Ill give you what I know for a discussion regardless.

Apparently, the 7 lads charged were from a section that was engaged by a Taliban fighter, fire was exchanged, and he got shot...im unaware if any of our lads were shot as well, but it may certainly be a factor, and 42 lost 23 men during that tour. Anyway, one of the lads was wearing a helmet camera, and then the 7 blokes were heard discussing whether or not they should administer first aid to the enemy combatant who had been slotted a few times but was still alive.

And they basically said "Ah.. feth him" .. OR, they administered a 5.56 sleeping pill to a severely injured man rather than call in the mert team as per ROE. Although, that in turn would have been shot at putting more lives in danger, plus a chinook by the sounds of things.

Either way, its possibly unprofessional, but entirely understandable. If that turns out to be the case, surely to feth we are looking at something like manslaughter with diminished responsibility or unlawful wounding or some gak instead?

Anyway, no doubt the scum fighters family will have the British government pay for Johnnie Cochran to be resurrected, while the Royal Navy pay for this guy.

 mattyrm wrote:


Apparently, the 7 lads charged were from a section that was engaged by a Taliban fighter, fire was exchanged, and he got shot...im unaware if any of our lads were shot as well, but it may certainly be a factor, and 42 lost 23 men during that tour. Anyway, one of the lads was wearing a helmet camera, and then the 7 blokes were heard discussing whether or not they should administer first aid to the enemy combatant who had been slotted a few times but was still alive.

And they basically said "Ah.. feth him"

Only more proof that morons who take cameras into combat, or even combat zones should be flogged. No good ever comes of it. Ever.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh yeah I forgot about the big letters...something something "Aim better." I had something witty and then realized it was 0130 and my brain flushed.

So that sounds like something of nothing. And entirely politically motivated?

I can't understand how this whole thing can be any benefit to anyone at all, and who would have even brought it to attention? Even the fact that now a load of Afghans will think someone has been 'murdered' by British soldiers, even though that was patently not the case, will serve as a further recruiting agent for the insurgency.

This isn't like that video of those civilians getting machine-gunned by the helicopter, yet undoubtedly given the information presented so far the Afghans will jump to that conclusion.

 AustonT wrote:

Only more proof that morons who take cameras into combat, or even combat zones should be flogged. No good ever comes of it. Ever.

Indeed, the thing is, its only for fethers wanting to show off and spin war dits when they get home. They should just blanket ban them.

Ive also heard that it was a reservist guy who had the footage, who was a fireman. He then showed it to one of his civvie fireman mates, and it was he who phoned the authorities.

What a fething penis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
So that sounds like something of nothing. And entirely politically motivated?

I can't understand how this whole thing can be any benefit to anyone at all, and who would have even brought it to attention? Even the fact that now a load of Afghans will think someone has been 'murdered' by British soldiers, even though that was patently not the case, will serve as a further recruiting agent for the insurgency.

This isn't like that video of those civilians getting machine-gunned by the helicopter, yet undoubtedly given the information presented so far the Afghans will jump to that conclusion.

Yeah, remember those photos Piers Morgan published of our troops "torturing" an Iraqi, when really the photos were faked by some TA scousers!?

That went down like a lead balloon as well.. I saw those fething pictures on placards all over the place from Afghanistan to Zambia! The headline or picture is worth more than the story when most of our enemies struggle to read.

 Pacific wrote:
So that sounds like something of nothing. And entirely politically motivated?

Injured enemies are entitled to the same level of medical attention as friendly forces. If the above is what happened its not nothing but its a long way from a murder charge. As it is a murder charge though I think that there is more to this (or they did just shoot him).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

IIRC the drill sergeants cant even shout at the squaddies anymore in case it hurts their feelings, thats no way to prepare a man for battle.

Thats complete bollocks by the way. Phase 1 and 2 training is a lot less harsh than it used to be but considering some of the crap that used to go on that can only be a good thing.

Palindrome wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
So that sounds like something of nothing. And entirely politically motivated?

Injured enemies are entitled to the same level of medical attention as friendly forces. If the above is what happened its not nothing but its a long way from a murder charge. As it is a murder charge though I think that there is more to this (or they did just shoot him).

Considering they are on the charge, I would presume he was badly injured, so they shot the fether.

As I said, I reckon any lawyer worth his salt could get them off a murder though, and I disagree with the charge. Surely to feth there is a huge difference between an actual murder, say, plotting to kill a shop keeper, going to his house, and stabbing him in the neck, than if a soldier shoots an enemy combatant after an action in a war?

I'm not saying they don't want disciplining, its callous and its unprofessional, but its not murder as we know it, and I think its outrageous that they have let this into the public forum.

As always, politics. They care more about looking good in front of the Afghans than looking after their own. I understand it, there's a war to win... but I don't have to like it.

 mattyrm wrote:


Considering they are on the charge, I would presume he was badly injured, so they shot the fether.

As I said, I reckon any lawyer worth his salt could get them off a murder though, and I disagree with the charge.

If this is the case though it is murder and as such will be difficult to get the charges dropped, especially if it was filmed.

In principle I also agree with the charge but obviously there isn't enough information to make an informed opinion.

Palindrome wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:


Considering they are on the charge, I would presume he was badly injured, so they shot the fether.

As I said, I reckon any lawyer worth his salt could get them off a murder though, and I disagree with the charge.

If this is the case though it is murder and as such will be difficult to get the charges dropped, especially if it was filmed.

In principle I also agree with the charge but obviously there isn't enough information to make an informed opinion

Is it murder if you put your dog to sleep?

It's quite surprising that helmet cameras are allowed in such a disciplined organisation. Are they owned by the person bringing them, or are the assigned by the Marines/Army/Etc?

What happens to insurgents that are saved from death anyway? Are they imprisoned until such time as Coalition forces depart?

 mattyrm wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:


Considering they are on the charge, I would presume he was badly injured, so they shot the fether.

As I said, I reckon any lawyer worth his salt could get them off a murder though, and I disagree with the charge.

If this is the case though it is murder and as such will be difficult to get the charges dropped, especially if it was filmed.

In principle I also agree with the charge but obviously there isn't enough information to make an informed opinion

Is it murder if you put your dog to sleep?

I'm sure I could shoehorn a wife/GF joke in here but will resist this time.

Anyway you own a dog but not a Jundi so YMMV.. I see this going to a manslaughter/dischage type of affair since they will want at appease Karzi who is already lecturing us on the rights/wrongs and best form of international law and good behaviour. Can I get a lol?

 Medium of Death wrote:
It's quite surprising that helmet cameras are allowed in such a disciplined organisation. Are they owned by the person bringing them, or are the assigned by the Marines/Army/Etc?

What happens to insurgents that are saved from death anyway? Are they imprisoned until such time as Coalition forces depart?

Helmet cameras aren't issues, idiots buy them. Regards prisoners, they treat them, and then question and detain them obviously.. here is the good part. We took a prisoner when I was in Kajaki in 2008, and apparently the same bloke got captured again by another unit in 2011.

The point is, what if the bloke was shot several times, and the lads on the ground deemed that he was too badly injured to be saved? Or if the engagement was ongoing and they deemed that the threat to the medical personnel (fly in on a chinook) was too great?

I don't believe it should be determined as murder if its a case of slotting an injured combatant, and Id be curious to hear what a lawyer would make of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 notprop wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:


Considering they are on the charge, I would presume he was badly injured, so they shot the fether.

As I said, I reckon any lawyer worth his salt could get them off a murder though, and I disagree with the charge.

If this is the case though it is murder and as such will be difficult to get the charges dropped, especially if it was filmed.

In principle I also agree with the charge but obviously there isn't enough information to make an informed opinion

Is it murder if you put your dog to sleep?

I'm sure I could shoehorn a wife/GF joke in here but will resist this time.

Anyway you own a dog but not a Jundi so YMMV.. I see this going to a manslaughter/dischage type of affair since they will want at appease Karzi who is already lecturing us on the rights/wrongs and best form of international law and good behaviour. Can I get a lol?

Bare in mind I still haven't got all the facts.. another guy told me they just let him bleed out, and the 7 blokes are the ones who were heard discussing it like "feth him, hes dying anyway" kinda thing.

As I said, both situations aren't murder in my book, and id be fething amazed if a jury convicts them as such. The MOD are just after brownie points with Karzai or some gak.

 mattyrm wrote:


The point is, what if the bloke was shot several times, and the lads on the ground deemed that he was too badly injured to be saved? Or if the engagement was ongoing and they deemed that the threat to the medical personnel (fly in on a chinook) was too great?

I don't believe it should be determined as murder if its a case of slotting an injured combatant, and Id be curious to hear what a lawyer would make of it.

The guys on the ground don't have the authority to decide that, the must provide the same level of care to injured enemy as they provide to their own. If the engagement was ongoing then the engagement was ongoing, that takes precedence. If they weren't under effective fire they should have provided at least a basic level of first aid. I know fine well that isn't always what happens but it is what should be happening from a legal standpoint. Once casualties reach professional medical staff they will be treated according to the severity of their injuries, irrespective of their status.

The 'mercy' killing of an injured enemy combatant is quite simply murder, there is no way around that. Remember you are supposed to treat prisoners how you would expect to be treated in a similar situation.

 mattyrm wrote:
The MOD are just after brownie points with Karzai or some gak.

Too right they are, its the same here, 'Sorry we blew something up, we were looking for someone who had arced up on our soldiers. He was a member of your security forces who we had trained come to think of it. But thats cool, our bad.'

Hey matty, this may be a tad OT, but does Britain have the same problem as Aussies do with the pricks you are training opening up on your soldiers?

 mattyrm wrote:

Is it murder if you put your dog to sleep?

We aren't talking about dogs here.

While I think that the 'murder' of a so-called terrorist is sort of silly, I get where the outrage is coming from. Not saying that I think these guys are murdering dogs who'd shoot unarmed children, more like people who want revenge/justice.

I'm sure this'll last longer than it should, as with most of the crap like this. Although, from what I've read from previous issues regarding the Corps, they deal with this gak with a quickness.

I hope that this crap doesn't make an appearance on the evening news. Last thing we need are snot-nosed whiners to get ahold of this and go on a campaign of jackassery.

Palindrome wrote:

The 'mercy' killing of an injured enemy combatant is quite simply murder, there is no way around that. Remember you are supposed to treat prisoners how you would expect to be treated in a similar situation.

Considering I would "expect" to be at best, shot again, and at worst, video taped and then decapitated, I think the bloke got off better than expected, we play nicer than our enemies no matter how you look at it.

The point is, I agree that you shouldn't shoot badly wounded enemy soldiers, as per the law of armed conflict they must be treated for their injuries, I'm just saying there is a huge difference between shooting an injured enemy combatant/not bothering to administer first aid, and "murder" as a civilian knows it. I'm conceding they acted wrongly if we have the right of the situation but I'm saying there are mitigating circumstances. You are the one making a black and white judgement from your ivory tower, I'm saying that War is fethed up and its ridiculous to judge soldiers who have just seconds earlier been subjected to sustained gunfire from a hostile enemy with an automatic weapon the same as you would a bloke walking up to an old lady in Boots and putting two in her face.

As I said, lets wait and see. I would be stunned if any jury in the land would find 7 soldiers guilty of first degree murder just because they didn't treat the fether that was trying to kill them moments earlier. I reckon if its simply a case of not treating an enemy that was injured they won't even be looking at a custodial sentence.

feth me, If OJ can get off scot free, we can get these lads diagnosed with PTSD and get them some counseling or something!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:


Hey matty, this may be a tad OT, but does Britain have the same problem as Aussies do with the pricks you are training opening up on your soldiers?

Christ! Check the news, I think we have had about 15 guys purposely killed by Afghan security forces (blue on green) in the past two years. Its fething outrageous!

 mattyrm wrote:
You are the one making a black and white judgement from your ivory tower,

I am not making any judgement at all, as you said there is not enough information, I am simply laying out the legalities of the situation that you suggested. You have probably had to sit through the exact same briefs that I have, surely you know all this?

I reckon if its simply a case of not treating an enemy that was injured they won't even be looking at a custodial sentence.

If that was the case I doubt that they would be looking at a murder charge.

Not treating an enemy is against the ROE, but so long as he was lawfully shot, as an enemy combatant it is not murder.

I am far more concerned with the idiot with a camera than the lack of treatment given to a terrorist. Where was the supervision of his platoon commander?

 Orlanth wrote:
Not treating an enemy is against the ROE, but so long as he was lawfully shot, as an enemy combatant it is not murder.

The RMP seem to think that there is sufficent evidence to call it murder. Why are the RMP arresting RMs anyway, I thought that regulators were the Naval equivalent?

I've to see the video to get an idea. All we can do is patch them and give them motrin (Ibuprofin) till we pass them off to a CASH unit. Remember though our medics treat our wounded first before treating EPW's.

 Jihadin wrote:
I've to see the video to get an idea. All we can do is patch them and give them motrin (Ibuprofin) till we pass them off to a CASH unit. Remember though our medics treat our wounded first before treating EPW's.

Based on all of the Law of Armed Conflict training that I've received, the treatement of terrorists and our own guys is lawfully done by who has the greatest need, not by "well i guess we have some supplies left over and all our guys are patched up so we'll help him". Of course, I doubt that anyone actually follows the letter here, and does in essence, the latter.

SInce I'm still in a drug induce haze/sleep. A combat lifetak....combat life saver can still patch the guy or anyone using their IFAK can still render first aid till the medics get there. SHould have clarified my post more.

Yeah law of armed conflict states you must treat the enemy first if they are more badly injured.

Personally I've always thought we should replace that law with a similar and more practical tree based system, whereby you treat the injured in the following order.

Injured Troops
Injured civilians
Injured Donkeys
Injured fowl
Injured rats, leeches and ticks
Cup of tea for the injured troops
Water for the Donkey
Injured Taliban.

Careful Matty...someone might go off to the deep end screaming that their human to and need to be treated as such......."fires up the bronson burner for coffee/tea"

 mattyrm wrote:
Yeah law of armed conflict states you must treat the enemy first if they are more badly injured.

Personally I've always thought we should replace that law with a similar and more practical tree based system, whereby you treat the injured in the following order.

Injured Troops
Injured civilians
Injured Donkeys
Injured fowl
Injured rats, leeches and ticks
Cup of tea for the injured troops
Water for the Donkey
Injured Taliban.

I agree with this list. Donkeys are truly majestic creatures, they deserve all the care we can give them.

So many donkey rape victims

 Jihadin wrote:
So many donkey rape victims

Especially in THAT part of the world, Lol

Y'know, I figure I'll get flamed for this but has anyone considered that perhaps the prisoner brought this on himself? Not that we need to kill prisoners, but perhaps this guy forced the Marines hand and well, he ended up worse off.

Running the risk of sounding like my conspiracy theory friends, the popular media got hold of this (BBC) so there's an excellent chance that the facts as reported are complete crap. Not the first time it's happened.

 Frankenberry wrote:

Running the risk of sounding like my conspiracy theory friends, the popular media got hold of this (BBC) so there's an excellent chance that the facts as reported are complete crap. Not the first time it's happened.

Firstly this story originates from a press release from the MoD and secondly the BBC is possibly the most trustworthy news source in the world.

If this individual did force the RMs to kill him then the RMPs would have not have arrested them on suspicion of murder. Servicemen get a lot of leeway with this kind of situation.

Strangely enough the "most trustworthy" news source in the world reported incorrectly on several military engagements. And I'm not talking about getting a city's name wrong or something like that. I'm talking about reporting that American soldiers killed women in children in an assault on a peaceful town. When in fact, the only dead or wounded were insurgents or our own troops.


Not saying the BBC isn't on point, just jaded towards the news industry as a whole.

 Coolyo294 wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Yeah law of armed conflict states you must treat the enemy first if they are more badly injured.

Personally I've always thought we should replace that law with a similar and more practical tree based system, whereby you treat the injured in the following order.

Injured Troops
Injured civilians
Injured Donkeys
Injured fowl
Injured rats, leeches and ticks
Cup of tea for the injured troops
Water for the Donkey
Injured Taliban.

I agree with this list. Donkeys are truly majestic creatures, they deserve all the care we can give them.

I find this list abhorrent! Simply SHAMEFUL! that camels aren't including in the table is an absolute travesty. Also field mice.

I'd also like to support forcing the Karzai regime to recognize the human rights of Donkeys and his regime be forced to provide psychiatric care for the many four legged rape victims wandering Afghanistan today. Only by enforcing this humane standard of care for donkeys can we truly prove ourselves the civilized beings we claim to be.

A camel is a bit to high to get behind while a donkey is like at the right height....nightvision great but there are times I wish they were never made

Palindrome wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Not treating an enemy is against the ROE, but so long as he was lawfully shot, as an enemy combatant it is not murder.

The RMP seem to think that there is sufficent evidence to call it murder. Why are the RMP arresting RMs anyway, I thought that regulators were the Naval equivalent?

Arrested in the UK. The idiot with the camera was back at his day job as a fireman. So the RMP had jurisdiction. Had he been on ship then the master at arms would have taken him into custody and he would be handed over to the RMP on return to port.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mattyrm wrote:
Yeah law of armed conflict states you must treat the enemy first if they are more badly injured.

Personally I've always thought we should replace that law with a similar and more practical tree based system, whereby you treat the injured in the following order.

Injured Troops
Injured civilians
Injured Donkeys
Injured fowl
Injured rats, leeches and ticks
Cup of tea for the injured troops
Water for the Donkey
Injured Taliban.

This gents is what the Exalt feature was made for.

Not really able to have much sympathy for an idiot that screwed up at least three times.

1) Actually do something that was wrong
2) Record himself doing something that was wrong
3) Show people the recording of himself doing something wrong

Idiots...

 d-usa wrote:
Not really able to have much sympathy for an idiot that screwed up at least three times.

1) Actually do something that was wrong
2) Record himself doing something that was wrong
3) Show people the recording of himself doing something wrong

Idiots...

True enough.. boys will be boys I suppose. I was 19 when I first deployed, I was much stupider than when I was 29 and In Afghanistan the last time. At this point I detailed all of my section off and told them that If I saw anyone with a helmet camera on I would stomp it into the fething floor.. I also briefed them about the necessity to check over both shoulders before you ever consider shooting someone outside the ROE.

I mean, I'm an honest bloke, I'd be lying if I said I was massively bothered about blokes putting injured fighters to bed.

I am bothered about them being fething stupid enough to get caught though... its almost as bad as the American marines who let people take photos of them pissing on a dead guy.

Basically, young soldiers just fething love to show off. The more this gak happens the sooner they might learn their lesson.

 Frankenberry wrote:
Y'know, I figure I'll get flamed for this but has anyone considered that perhaps the prisoner brought this on himself? Not that we need to kill prisoners, but perhaps this guy forced the Marines hand and well, he ended up worse off.

... .

Quite right.

He should not have invaded our country, and then it would not have been necessary to shoot him.

mattyrm wrote:Yeah law of armed conflict states you must treat the enemy first if they are more badly injured.

Personally I've always thought we should replace that law with a similar and more practical tree based system, whereby you treat the injured in the following order.

Injured Troops
Injured civilians
Injured Donkeys
Injured fowl
Injured rats, leeches and ticks
Cup of tea for the injured troops
Water for the Donkey
Injured Taliban.

I've always thought there was something fundamentally wrong with the idea I should have to render aid to a dude I just shot, right after he was shooting at me. I feel like its reasonable to wait for a third party to show up, just in case the other guy is still in a shooting mood.

NATO just needs to agree on a more lethal round.

When do you figure more information will come out Matty?

 AustonT wrote:

When do you figure more information will come out Matty?

Today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19940138

It has now dropped down to 5 marines,4 have been released without charge. The remaining 5 are likely to be court marshalled though.

 AustonT wrote:

When do you figure more information will come out Matty?

Aye there's plenty more info out now, the intel I received was correct and apparently the 5 men charged were caught on film "discussing" what to do about an injured Taliban fighter, the film ended before anything else happened, but the fighter subsequently died.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217537/Royal-Marines-charged-5-custody-charged-murder-tour-Afghanistan.html?ITO=1490

As I said, they can charge all they want, I doubt they will get a murder conviction from that, and I am genuinely intrigued to see what comes of it. I am well aware that the LOAC says you have to treat the enemy, but there are numerous mitigating circumstances, the most obvious being, if the exchange of fire was all perfectly legal, indeed, it was instigated by the dead man, surely the decision not to administer first aid isn't "murder" its "murd- not bothering your arse to help some feth who shot at you seconds earlier! - er "

If a woman who kills her husband can get her murder charge knocked down to manslaughter or even quashed entirely by proving that he mistreated her terribly, then surely some mitigation will be considered with regards to soldiers treating their enemies?

Also, what if the same fighter actually shot and hit an allied soldier? Would a court really expect a soldier to put 100% effort into saving the life of the guy who seconds earlier was trying to kill him? Or successfully kiled a friend? Bare in mind the unit lost 7 men on that tour of duty. What constitutes murder in a war zone? Can you hold soldiers to the same standard as civilians in non combatant situations?

I really think its a different kettle of fish when you are dealing with an enemy fighter and not civilians. Can anyone really expect soldiers to switch from an aggressive kinetic operation with the objective to kill their enemy, to suddenly becoming nursemaid at the drop of a hat? Soldiers aren't robots, they are young men in extremely high pressure situations. Who decides what is an acceptable level of effort on the part of the soldiers who are expected to treat their enemies?

Either way, Ill be watching events closely because I think there are numerous things to consider and I find it quite fascinating.

Like I said at the start, fair dos if they killed an unarmed prisoner in cold blood or a civilian, but failing to offer first aid to a man who would cut your crust off given half the chance is nowhere near a murder as we know it in civvie street.

Johnnie Cochran would have got them off within a week, and the Taliban would be billed for their dry cleaning!

Its going to come down to the extent of the wounds themselves. Sounds like the fighter bleed out from multiple hits......trauma bandages can only go so far if you brought enough along....sounded like the medic already used some of his up.

 AustonT wrote:

I've always thought there was something fundamentally wrong with the idea I should have to render aid to a dude I just shot, right after he was shooting at me. I feel like its reasonable to wait for a third party to show up, just in case the other guy is still in a shooting mood.

Well historically Britain has faught wars against other civilised peoples, who'd treat our injured with respect and we'd do the same.

I can't imagine what the Taliban would do if they captured a Royal Marine...well, I can. It's not pretty.

 Testify wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

I've always thought there was something fundamentally wrong with the idea I should have to render aid to a dude I just shot, right after he was shooting at me. I feel like its reasonable to wait for a third party to show up, just in case the other guy is still in a shooting mood.

Well historically Britain has faught wars against other civilised peoples, who'd treat our injured with respect and we'd do the same.

I can't imagine what the Taliban would do if they captured a Royal Marine...well, I can. It's not pretty.

You don't even have to imagine, they like to release video tapes of what happens.

Have they ever gotten a hold of an RM though? That sounds kind of like putting a wolverine in a burlap sack.

I don't think they've managed to grab an RM... but I doubt they'd do anything different then their usual videotaped "hair cut"

We know they executed american soldiers when captured. 3rd ID lost four troops that way. They won't advertise it via video because of the effect it would have on them by us.

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

If 'legitimate' militaries act like that what is to seperate them from the Talibanis that they fight?
There's a difference in instantly rendering aid to someone you shot and leaving them to bleed out.
When we start to treat people as less then human, and strip them of their dignity then we ourselves become unhumane and without dignity.

 Phototoxin wrote:
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

If 'legitimate' militaries act like that what is to seperate them from the Talibanis that they fight?
There's a difference in instantly rendering aid to someone you shot and leaving them to bleed out.
When we start to treat people as less then human, and strip them of their dignity then we ourselves become unhumane and without dignity.

No. If British troops used children as human shields, like the taliban do, then we would be worse than them.

The Taliban are not like the German soldiers during the last war. They do not want to retire to a decent, quiet life with their family. They want to destroy the entire western world...

 Testify wrote:

The Taliban are not like the German soldiers during the last war. They do not want to retire to a decent, quiet life with their family. They want to destroy the entire western world...

And????

We are withdrawing combat troops in 2014; if Afghanistan is to survive it needs to be stable. ISAF troops acting like savages will make that an impossiblity.

Palindrome wrote:

 Testify wrote:

The Taliban are not like the German soldiers during the last war. They do not want to retire to a decent, quiet life with their family. They want to destroy the entire western world...

And????

They really disapprove of titty bars?

Don't forget internet porn to.

 mattyrm wrote:

They really disapprove of titty bars?

Only in public

Quite a few injured taliban stay on the wards in the hospital in Bastion before beign handed over and apparently they are extremely interested in the scantily clad women on MTV.

You know what knd of intell we get when we pay in Hustler mags? Actually it was a Playboy mag the SF guys traded for intell.

Palindrome wrote:

 Testify wrote:

The Taliban are not like the German soldiers during the last war. They do not want to retire to a decent, quiet life with their family. They want to destroy the entire western world...

And????

We are withdrawing combat troops in 2014; if Afghanistan is to survive it needs to be stable. ISAF troops acting like savages will make that an impossiblity.

*snort* trying to keep Afghanistan stable is like trying to keep a house of cards up outside in a hurricane. Hell they don't even need the Taliban any more, the ANA is shooting plenty of ISAF troops.

Here's the schedule for the pull out:

ISAF leaves X time in 2014
Two months later - Afghanistan is the same festering hell hole it's always been and has reverted back to it's normal state of oppression, murder and generally sucking.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

*snort* trying to keep Afghanistan stable is like trying to keep a house of cards up outside in a hurricane.

You do know what Afghanistan was like with the Taliban in government, don't you?

Palindrome wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

*snort* trying to keep Afghanistan stable is like trying to keep a house of cards up outside in a hurricane.

You do know what Afghanistan was like with the Taliban in government, don't you?

An absolutely spiffy place to live *rolleyes*

 Testify wrote:

 Phototoxin wrote:
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

If 'legitimate' militaries act like that what is to seperate them from the Talibanis that they fight?
There's a difference in instantly rendering aid to someone you shot and leaving them to bleed out.
When we start to treat people as less then human, and strip them of their dignity then we ourselves become unhumane and without dignity.

No. If British troops used children as human shields, like the taliban do, then we would be worse than them.

The Taliban are not like the German soldiers during the last war. They do not want to retire to a decent, quiet life with their family. They want to destroy the entire western world...

They also didn't work in a military force that invaded three continents and were directly responsible for the slaughter of millions of civilians. I'm not sure saying they're worse than nazi era germans makes a lot of sense, do you have any idea what germany did with the people it captured? They also aren't using flying assassinbots that are rsponsible for hundreds of civilian deaths. Of course the RN, and for that matter American militaries aren't worse than who they're fighting, but the idea that fighting a low enemy means we should abandon civility is dangerous.

 ShumaGorath wrote:


They also didn't work in a military force that invaded three continents and were directly responsible for the slaughter of millions of civilians. I'm not sure saying they're worse than nazi era germans makes a lot of sense, do you have any idea what germany did with the people it captured? They also aren't using flying assassinbots that are rsponsible for hundreds of civilian deaths. Of course the RN, and for that matter American militaries aren't worse than who they're fighting, but the idea that fighting a low enemy means we should abandon civility is dangerous.

Bolded the parts that were obviously a moral choice and not a lack of opportunity.

It's also worth pointing out "The Slaughter of Millions of Civilians" is a gross over exaggeration to the point of comedy.

Erm, I think the Nazis WERE responsible for the slaughter of millions of civilians, like. I don't think that's up for debate.

Sounds like fantasist Jew talk to me, Albatross...

Zionists!

 Albatross wrote:
Erm, I think the Nazis WERE responsible for the slaughter of millions of civilians, like. I don't think that's up for debate.

Ah no sorry, I misread Shuma's post and it came off as putting a millions+ civilian death toll on the ISAF/U.S. Military for OIF/OEF (which people HAVE told me before)

 d-usa wrote:
Zionists!

You can't just call people that for no reason. They have to say something about ha-Eretz first.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Erm, I think the Nazis WERE responsible for the slaughter of millions of civilians, like. I don't think that's up for debate.

Ah no sorry, I misread Shuma's post and it came off as putting a millions+ civilian death toll on the ISAF/U.S. Military for OIF/OEF (which people HAVE told me before)

I've never heard anyone say that.

 Albatross wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Erm, I think the Nazis WERE responsible for the slaughter of millions of civilians, like. I don't think that's up for debate.

Ah no sorry, I misread Shuma's post and it came off as putting a millions+ civilian death toll on the ISAF/U.S. Military for OIF/OEF (which people HAVE told me before)

I've never heard anyone say that.

Hippies will have.

I mean, we kinda HAVE killed about what? Between 250,000 - half a million all in.. facts don't bother people with an agenda, I'm sure they would happily add a zero if they were waving a sign outside a submarine base in a Save the Whales T-shirt or something.

In fact, Im pretty sure at that music festival we went to In Kendal someone told me that the Americans killed a million Iraqis.. remember? I was arguing with a bird because she said the Americans "purposely" buried 100,000 Iraqis in the middle of the desert on Desert Storm to "cover up" the theft of some dinars or some such utterly absurd story.

If people can think the moon landings are faked, George Bush hired some Muslim ninjas to take the twin towers down in a controlled explosion, and the holocaust was faked, you can bet your arse some of the great unwashed think we have "butchered" a few million civvies in Iraq and Ganners.

The moon landings WERE faked!

 AustonT wrote:
The moon landings WERE faked!

The best argument I ever had about that was with a mate of mine who believes in literally every conspiracy theory. We were arguing in the pub and I said "If the pictures were faked, surely you wouldn't need to rely on unreliable beardy weirdos in Hawaiian shirts on crappy documentaries to prove it.. the Russian government would come right out with loads of evidence because they were pissed they lost the space race!" and he said

"I bet it was all over the TV and newspapers in Russia.. but nobody in America and Britain speaks Russian!"

The only semi credible thing I have ever heard was ONE guy, who described the sky as "patent leather" which is shiny...I mostly think thats just the deepest black he could think of but come on; space isn't shiny. Fake!

but I'm pretty sure the Soviets were the ones who called it fake first. Even if they thought it was real it was in thier best interests to say otherwise.

 mattyrm wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Erm, I think the Nazis WERE responsible for the slaughter of millions of civilians, like. I don't think that's up for debate.

Ah no sorry, I misread Shuma's post and it came off as putting a millions+ civilian death toll on the ISAF/U.S. Military for OIF/OEF (which people HAVE told me before)

I've never heard anyone say that.

Hippies will have.

I mean, we kinda HAVE killed about what? Between 250,000 - half a million all in.. facts don't bother people with an agenda, I'm sure they would happily add a zero if they were waving a sign outside a submarine base in a Save the Whales T-shirt or something.

In fact, Im pretty sure at that music festival we went to In Kendal someone told me that the Americans killed a million Iraqis.. remember? I was arguing with a bird because she said the Americans "purposely" buried 100,000 Iraqis in the middle of the desert on Desert Storm to "cover up" the theft of some dinars or some such utterly absurd story.

If people can think the moon landings are faked, George Bush hired some Muslim ninjas to take the twin towers down in a controlled explosion, and the holocaust was faked, you can bet your arse some of the great unwashed think we have "butchered" a few million civvies in Iraq and Ganners.

You'd be amazed the things I hear from various rejects from sane society. Especially when I got a couple month's recruiting duty. Walk around a major American city in dress uniform, even a military friendly one like where I am and you'll get some flying rodent gak crazy comments from people.

 mattyrm wrote:

 Albatross wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Erm, I think the Nazis WERE responsible for the slaughter of millions of civilians, like. I don't think that's up for debate.

Ah no sorry, I misread Shuma's post and it came off as putting a millions+ civilian death toll on the ISAF/U.S. Military for OIF/OEF (which people HAVE told me before)

I've never heard anyone say that.

Hippies will have.

I mean, we kinda HAVE killed about what? Between 250,000 - half a million all in.. facts don't bother people with an agenda, I'm sure they would happily add a zero if they were waving a sign outside a submarine base in a Save the Whales T-shirt or something.

In fact, Im pretty sure at that music festival we went to In Kendal someone told me that the Americans killed a million Iraqis.. remember? I was arguing with a bird because she said the Americans "purposely" buried 100,000 Iraqis in the middle of the desert on Desert Storm to "cover up" the theft of some dinars or some such utterly absurd story.
\

Who had just seen 'three kings'

 mattyrm wrote:
If people can think the moon landings are faked, George Bush hired some Muslim ninjas to take the twin towers down in a controlled explosion, and the holocaust was faked, you can bet your arse some of the great unwashed think we have "butchered" a few million civvies in Iraq and Ganners.

And they are right. Ha. Hahaha.

Mythbusters did an episode and debunked 6 (I think) different theories on the moon landings being faked...

In about an hour long episode ... I lol'd... Because I remember one of my old college tutors saying he reckoned they were faked, and six seperate theories that "proved" it were busted...

He was a very strange person, even beside that one view. Not a tutor I would be particularly happy to see again...

EDIT: Woah, that was a little OT...

Saw this on FB and was struck by the statement, do you guys agree with him? I do think it is ridiculous that killing the enemy is considered murder.

Except killing isn't murder.

Unlawful killing that violates the ROE and the rules of the forces you are serving under is murder.

Well killing is the act of taking a life. Murder is the act of illegally taking a life.

R.O.E, LOAC, the Geneva Conventions, etc et al, all exist to help define the legality of taking a human life in combat, to answer the question whether or not one is committing murder from a legal perspective. (there's other things those laws do of course, but this is fairly important)

Is killing the enemy murder? No. Can you still commit murder in a warzone? Yes. Was the act of these RMs murder? Me personally? No.

All up to a Court Martial now.

Edit: Ninja'd by d-usa

 d-usa wrote:
Except killing isn't murder.

Unlawful killing that violates the ROE and the rules of the forces you are serving under is murder.

Indigenous combatant fires on NATO troops, NATO troops shot back, enemy combatant killed.
ROE fulfilled.
/later in the Brit Cave
Dick wearing a camera ruins it for everyone.

 AustonT wrote:

Dick wearing a camera ruins it for everyone.

I would have though that a section standing aroud watching someone bleed out would have ruined things first.

Palindrome wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Dick wearing a camera ruins it for everyone.

I would have though that a section standing aroud watching someone bleed out would have ruined things first.

Nope Camera

I wonder what bitte bitte means.

 AustonT wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Dick wearing a camera ruins it for everyone.

I would have though that a section standing aroud watching someone bleed out would have ruined things first.

Nope Camera

I wonder what bitte bitte means.

If the particular terd knows German, then it means please.... which would be fairly odd to say the least. And I definitely agree, the camera will get you every time.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Dick wearing a camera ruins it for everyone.

I would have though that a section standing aroud watching someone bleed out would have ruined things first.

Nope Camera

I wonder what bitte bitte means.

If the particular terd knows German, then it means please.... which would be fairly odd to say the least. And I definitely agree, the camera will get you every time.

Its from Longest Day.