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.

 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.