Marines Afghan execution

[FanchesterCity]

I agree about not wanting to make all soldiers sound like morons, and know a couple who are intelligent, thought provoking blokes (but they worked in Signals where you might expect them to).... but arguably it's always been the case that overly aggressive numb-nuts opt for the army and get in.... some might then turn out to great guys, and some might turn out even worse than when they went in.

 

Lads in their early 20s are commanding the younger ones. If they had older blokes like me doing the commanding, we'd probably need to put the kettle on first and consider the options carefully. Then decide it might be worth putting the kettle on again, to consider what we've just considered.

 

Probably a bit of a sweeping generalisation, but the average combat soldier is probably considered at his best when NOT thinking and just doing what he's told.

[Lee909]

You dont get paid to think, just do

[Lee909]

Royal Marine has been found guilty by a military court of murdering an injured Afghan insurgent in 2011.

 

Two other marines were acquitted at the Military Court Centre in Wiltshire.

 

The three - Marines A, B and C - had denied murdering the unknown man while on patrol in Helmand province in 2011.

 

Marine A was convicted after the prosecution said he had shot the man at close range, in what was effectively an execution. He faces a mandatory life sentence and was taken into custody.

 

Marine B inadvertently filmed the incident, which happened on 15 September 2011, on his helmet-mounted camera and the footage was shown to the court during the two-week trial.

 

'9mm pistol'

 

It showed Marine A shooting the Afghan prisoner with a 9mm pistol, and saying: "There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil... It's nothing you wouldn't do to us."

 

He added: "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention."

 

During the court martial, prosecutor David Perry told the court: "It was not a killing in the heat and exercise of any armed conflict. The prosecution case is that it amounted to an execution, a field execution."

 

Marine A was convicted by a seven-strong board, consisting of officers and non-commissioned officers.

 

Royal Military Police arrested the three marines in October 2012 after suspicious video footage was found on a serviceman's laptop by civilian police in the UK.

 

They first appeared at the Military Court Centre in Bulford in August, where they pleaded not guilty to murdering the Afghan national contrary to section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

 

Two further marines - D and E - had the charges against them dropped in February. An anonymity order granted last year to protect the five men from reprisals remains in place.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

The articles I've read on this have been silent on this issue, but was he an insurgent or an "insurgent" like all those nasty, entirely innocent "insurgents" who were rounded up and kept imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, without trial?

[Strontium]

I get what you are saying and its partly right but if we had what you considered a occupying foreign force in large numbers over hete wouldn't you be fighting back with the same gurellia tactics?

 

We're not an occupying force in Afghanistan, we're there as guests of the legally recognised Afghan government.

 

Don't confuse the Taliban with freedom fighters trying to repel alien interlopers; they're closer in thought and deed to the men who blew themselves up on the London underground or the nutters who beheaded Lee Rigby in broad daylight. Evil cowards who murder young girls for daring to get themselves an education.

[Lee909]

Im not confusing them with anyone.They are cunts no doubt and shouldnt have any power but we shouldn't be there and if the 9/11 bombings didn't happen nobody would have cared about what they did.

[xerxes]

We train young men to kill people- and they kill people.

[Stu Monty]

 

I'm sure the irony that they're now looking at 20 years in prison for doing exactly what their victim would have done if he had the opportunity isn't lost on them.

 

But these rules are what make us better than the enemy. They are the reason that we are legitimate and they are not.

 

 

 

 

We're not an occupying force in Afghanistan, we're there as guests of the legally recognised Afghan government.

 

Don't confuse the Taliban with freedom fighters trying to repel alien interlopers; they're closer in thought and deed to the men who blew themselves up on the London underground or the nutters who beheaded Lee Rigby in broad daylight. Evil cowards who murder young girls for daring to get themselves an education.

 

Your view of legitimacy is ridiculous.

 

You have no idea of this dead man's story and yet you'll happily say "we are better than them". Some amazing internalisation of some quite disgusting messages there.

 

He may be one of the lucky many to have been touched by "collateral damage". He may feel that having his family murdered by the most powerful military force in human history, and having all opportunity to support any remaining family removed by wanton destruction, has driven him to any means to survive. He may genuinely feel that a government installed or propped up by an invading enemy force isn't legitimate. He may understand that when massively outgunned you might need to kick someone in the balls instead of going all Queensbury rules. He may on the other hand be a despicable cunt. Probably just best to call him a child murderer though and be done with it; it's just easier that way. The good thing is that as more and more innocent people feel the brunt of drone bombings and western terror over the next decade there will be a lot more "insurgents" created for you to say you're better than.

 

Your view on how occupied and oppressed peoples should behave is constantly bemusing.

 

What a government say or do is irrelevant to whether a country or region is being occupied. The people themselves make that decision. You seem to have missed the whole concept of occupied people having leaders installed over them down through history.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

In all fairness though, you'd have to be a sick individual to keep a sick journal glorifying the murder of a man, and resorting to cheap name calling in said journal.

 

Also, you'd have to be sick to keep video footage of a brutal killing you were involved in on your laptop so you could probably revisit it at some later stage and frenziedly wank yourself into a sick stupor, getting off on the heinous act you were involved in.

 

Anyway, that's enough judging of the marines, can we get back to making judgmental stereotypes about those horrible Afghan people? They're the real savages. Aren't they?

[Thomo123]

The cunt deserves his 20 years. 

[FanchesterCity]

We are told the Taliban is an oppressive regime, and there's plenty of evidence to support that, but it's not the entire picture is it?

 

We were told the Russians would spy on their people (something we'd never do in England or the USA).

 

We're still being told the USA is the most free nation on Earth, whilst they have shocking disparity in wealth across its own citizens, and they are 'free' to arm themselves with semi-automatic weapons. Or hold prisoners without trial, seemingly indefinitely.

 

We don't go into North Korea, even though we constantly refer to it as an oppressive regime. The same with China to a lesser extent.

 

In my mind, we struggle to understand cultures that are dramatically different than our own, and yes, we CAN point to countless examples of behaviour we really don't agree with, but in the same way, they can do the same with us - the way we abuse alcohol, or sexualise women, or assume the moral high-ground on world affairs. We deem THEIR views to be quite absurd, whilst our own are perfectly sensible.

 

Going into Afghanistan and making the Taliban the scapegoat for 9/11 and other ills, is akin to going into Southern Ireland and making the IRA the scapegoat for all of British terrorism.

 

The USA needed someone to blame, and we wanted to be 'with them'. We've even tried to justify Afghanistan's opium trade as a reason to invade (whilst a large part of Britain's trade history and success was SELLING opium to China). We've changed very little in Afghanistan, and what little we have changed is deemed improvement or increased instability in equal measure depending on who you listen to.

 

I'm not sure what we are really fighting for, and I'm not sure the general population is certain either. So with that in mind, shooting dead some Afghan fighter is hard to justify in the grand scheme of things. Who is the real oppressor - them or us?

[Thomo123]

We are told the Taliban is an oppressive regime, and there's plenty of evidence to support that, but it's not the entire picture is it?

 

We were told the Russians would spy on their people (something we'd never do in England or the USA).

 

We're still being told the USA is the most free nation on Earth, whilst they have shocking disparity in wealth across its own citizens, and they are 'free' to arm themselves with semi-automatic weapons. Or hold prisoners without trial, seemingly indefinitely.

 

We don't go into North Korea, even though we constantly refer to it as an oppressive regime. The same with China to a lesser extent.

 

In my mind, we struggle to understand cultures that are dramatically different than our own, and yes, we CAN point to countless examples of behaviour we really don't agree with, but in the same way, they can do the same with us - the way we abuse alcohol, or sexualise women, or assume the moral high-ground on world affairs. We deem THEIR views to be quite absurd, whilst our own are perfectly sensible.

 

Going into Afghanistan and making the Taliban the scapegoat for 9/11 and other ills, is akin to going into Southern Ireland and making the IRA the scapegoat for all of British terrorism.

 

The USA needed someone to blame, and we wanted to be 'with them'. We've even tried to justify Afghanistan's opium trade as a reason to invade (whilst a large part of Britain's trade history and success was SELLING opium to China). We've changed very little in Afghanistan, and what little we have changed is deemed improvement or increased instability in equal measure depending on who you listen to.

 

I'm not sure what we are really fighting for, and I'm not sure the general population is certain either. So with that in mind, shooting dead some Afghan fighter is hard to justify in the grand scheme of things. Who is the real oppressor - them or us?

Im sure it feathered a few nests though. There will be plenty of people taking early retirement out it. 

 

It'll be interesting to see who we go after next.....Syria seemed the obvious choice but the Russians aren't playing ball.

[Stu Monty]

"We have created a hammer, and for the rest of my life, that will be looking for a nail".

 

Former JSOC employee.

[FanchesterCity]

Im sure it feathered a few nests though. There will be plenty of people taking early retirement out it. 

 

It'll be interesting to see who we go after next.....Syria seemed the obvious choice but the Russians aren't playing ball.

 

They say there's nothing like a good war to win votes. Although I think these days, it's more likely to cost votes.

 

There's people winning huge infrastructure contracts on the back of wars, and as you say, having their nests feathered. Not to mention the billions being spent on weaponry and equipment that need wars (or the threat of them) to justify the spend.

 

I don't know if we have the stomach for going after anybody else (unless we really do see an easy 'win' - and there's none of those on the horizon).

[Fugitive]

"We have created a hammer, and for the rest of my life, that will be looking for a nail".

 

Former JSOC employee.

MC Hammer Vs Jimmy Nail.

 

There is a fight I'd like to see.

[Bjornebye]

MC Hammer Vs Jimmy Nail.

 

There is a fight I'd like to see.

 

Nail would fucking batter him. 

[Section_31]

It's a tough one. You can't really put yourself in the position of a combat soldier unless you've been there I suppose, so while what's happened disgusts me - I don't profess to understand it either. But I think it's different if you're in the heat of combat, if someone's been shooting at you and they surrender but your blood's still up and you open fire, compared to what this Marine did. From listening to the audio they've released, they hadn't been exchanging fire, they were a patrol who found a helpless man and very carefully and slyly waited until they couldn't be seen before putting a bullet in his chest. I don't know what's the cause of that, had the bloke been through something horrific? Had one of his mates been killed in that conflict? Or was he just a murderous cunt?

[Fugitive]

Nail would fucking batter him.

 

 

I thought about that and I've decided to let them use their respective weapons of choice.

 

MC will be equipped with a Hammer and Jimmy will possess nail covered fists.

[Stu Monty]

They say there's nothing like a good war to win votes. Although I think these days, it's more likely to cost votes.

 

There's people winning huge infrastructure contracts on the back of wars, and as you say, having their nests feathered. Not to mention the billions being spent on weaponry and equipment that need wars (or the threat of them) to justify the spend.

 

I don't know if we have the stomach for going after anybody else (unless we really do see an easy 'win' - and there's none of those on the horizon).

 

There is also the "Killing Muslims" element of the whole thing that appeals to a certain brand of Christian fundamentalist.

 

There'll be continuous war now, for the foreseeable future. A cycle of war-waging regardless of borders, which in-turn will create more "terrorists" to wage war upon. It's not only a good earner it also allows for much better development of war tech. Go to an Israeli weapons fair if you want to see the benefits using real people as an R&D department can have on the success of your products.

 

"As tested on the caged lab-animals of Gaza".

[Phoenix]

They thought they switched the cameras off however they automatically turn back  on (due to motion sensors). A bit of Shakespeare in there aswell.  I imagine it goes on quite a lot.

[FanchesterCity]

There is also the "Killing Muslims" element of the whole thing that appeals to a certain brand of Christian fundamentalist.

 

There'll be continuous war now, for the foreseeable future. A cycle of war-waging regardless of borders, which in-turn will create more "terrorists" to wage war upon. It's not only a good earner it also allows for much better development of war tech. Go to an Israeli weapons fair if you want to see the benefits using real people as an R&D department can have on the success of your products.

 

"As tested on the caged lab-animals of Gaza".

 

Maybe, but I see it going from traditional weaponry to technology, so instead of the MOD and the manufacturers loving the 'old style' war mongering to keep their jobs and sell their wares respectively, it's now the NSA and GCHQ telling us it's a constant war out there and we must keep throwing money at them to they can keep us safe.

 

In many ways, it might not actually be a conscious thing - it's there job to intercept and spy - so you're always going to get a view from them that their work is necessary, and the 'war' out there is being fought by them. How accurate their assessment of the threat is, is tricky to say.

 

So I sort of agree with you, but the constant war will be against less tangible elements that a nation / specific religion etc. The old 'Al Queda', 'Axis of Evil' etc... who ARE these people? Where are they? What are they for / against?

 

Someone somewhere is going to be rubbing their hands at the prospect of the money to be made from the countless ways such a threat COULD manifest itself... and the equipment and manpower we'll need to defend ourselves against this invisible, ever moving target.

 

And we can't even argue against it now.... since the government will 'know' things, but can't tell us for national security reasons. Billions will go into 'special defense projects' that can't be specified... for detection algorithms instead of big ships and planes that we can see.

 

All to stop 3 lads in Bradford with a bag of fertiliser and wheelbarrow claiming to be gardeners.

[Stu Monty]

Maybe, but I see it going from traditional weaponry to technology, so instead of the MOD and the manufacturers loving the 'old style' war mongering to keep their jobs and sell their wares respectively, it's now the NSA and GCHQ telling us it's a constant war out there and we must keep throwing money at them to they can keep us safe.

 

In many ways, it might not actually be a conscious thing - it's there job to intercept and spy - so you're always going to get a view from them that their work is necessary, and the 'war' out there is being fought by them. How accurate their assessment of the threat is, is tricky to say.

 

So I sort of agree with you, but the constant war will be against less tangible elements that a nation / specific religion etc. The old 'Al Queda', 'Axis of Evil' etc... who ARE these people? Where are they? What are they for / against?

 

Someone somewhere is going to be rubbing their hands at the prospect of the money to be made from the countless ways such a threat COULD manifest itself... and the equipment and manpower we'll need to defend ourselves against this invisible, ever moving target.

 

And we can't even argue against it now.... since the government will 'know' things, but can't tell us for national security reasons. Billions will go into 'special defense projects' that can't be specified... for detection algorithms instead of big ships and planes that we can see.

 

All to stop 3 lads in Bradford with a bag of fertiliser and wheelbarrow claiming to be gardeners.

 

Who, might manage to kill a couple of dozen people.

 

You want to save lives? Put 50% of the spend into the NHS and see the difference.

[FanchesterCity]

Who, might manage to kill a couple of dozen people.

 

You want to save lives? Put 50% of the spend into the NHS and see the difference.

 

i had precisely that conversation with someone just last night... I agree entirely!

 

Is 1 billion spent on interception and foiling a dozen 'plots' going to save as many lives as putting more police on the streets, or improving the Ambulance Service, or concentrating our interception on chemical companies who might supply the necessary components to create real threats etc....

 

I'm not saying I KNOW the answers.... just what the questions should be being asked, and they aren't.

 

The best analogy I could think of was this:

 

You could spend billions trying to break down the security of the impregnable fortress, hoping you'll stumble across a weak spot in the security, OR, you might just spend a few thousand quid and decide to block all supplies to the castle, knowing you'll starve them to death instead.