Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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