Marine A - Right or wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted Member 1156
  • Start date Start date
The way I see it is the guy was under severe strain, pressure that few of us on a golf forum could ever contemplate from the comfort of our sofas.

For months he endured a war zone, he encountered death and destruction on a daily basis, was asked to kill in the morning while told to win hearts and minds in the afternoon, all the while having to guess friend from foe.

He, along with those other brave marines, were used as target practice. Ordered to walk out and act as human bait for the Taliban while the engineers attempted to clear the i.e.d's from the roads, villages and fields they had to patrol.

The enemy he killed had moments before been trying to kill him and his, he had already taken a hit from a helicopter round, was in a pretty bad way and in all likelihood would have succumbed to his wounds.

The other choice he had open to him was to call in a medical evacuation. This would have involved either an aircraft or wheeled convoy being mobilised and having to travel and land within extremely hostile territory, presenting bigger, easier and more valuable targets for the enemy to exploit.

He effectively robbed the enemy of this opportunity, didn't play into their hands and ensured the safety of those around him. Bare in mind that minutes before they were finding live grenades still in the pockets of this person who wouldn't have thought twice about pulling one of those pins.

Did he go about it the right way, no. His comments on film after the shooting don't come across well, but in my opinion the end result was the right one. Just a pity the sorry individual didn't succumb sooner and save him the decision.
 
That's one less person now who was willing to kill british soldiers and innocent civilians.

I personally wouldn't have brought any charges against the soldier as he was doing his job IMO.
 
That's one less person now who was willing to kill british soldiers and innocent civilians.

I personally wouldn't have brought any charges against the soldier as he was doing his job IMO.

I'm inclined to agree Sean, if the opposition isn't sticking to the Geneva Convention im not sure I'd be too inclined to imprison our guys.
 
I'm inclined to agree Sean, if the opposition isn't sticking to the Geneva Convention im not sure I'd be too inclined to imprison our guys.
Following the Geneva Convention sets us apart from them , its what gives our troops the moral high ground. Many people through history have been tried for war crimes and the Geneva Convention is there to stop that happening. The old saying two wrongs don't make a right - if the troops don't follow the rules and they are caught then they are bang to rights.
 
I'm inclined to agree Sean, if the opposition isn't sticking to the Geneva Convention im not sure I'd be too inclined to imprison our guys.
Spot on Chris, It was written over 60 years ago and is now used as a stick to beat our Forces rather than protecting them, all well and good when everybody plays by the rules, but in reality, sometimes you fight fire with fire.
 
...It was written over 60 years ago...

And is still totally relevant to 'the proper approach' today! They actually originate nearly 100 years earlier too!The fact that 'the other side' does not abide by them is only relevant in that it indicates the sort of reason why 'the good guys' are there!

...... and is now used as a stick to beat our Forces rather than protecting them...
Twaddle! When 'our forces' are being 'beaten by the stick of the Geneva Convention', it means they have breached some pretty fundamental elements of what makes humans 'human(e)' - even in a war! Sticking to the GC, when the other side may not be, gives 'the good guys' the moral high ground. When the other side knows that they will be treated humanely, the fear of 'nothing to lose, so may as well fight to the death' does not exist, which can actually reduce casualties on both sides!
 
War is 'ugly' and 'ugly stuff' happens... Not sure how you can use everyday values to measure this ugliness....

The efforts of Bomber Command were quickly swept under the carpet after WW2 because what they did didn't fit in with the 'moral high ground'...
 
And is still totally relevant to 'the proper approach' today! They actually originate nearly 100 years earlier too!The fact that 'the other side' does not abide by them is only relevant in that it indicates the sort of reason why 'the good guys' are there!


Twaddle! When 'our forces' are being 'beaten by the stick of the Geneva Convention', it means they have breached some pretty fundamental elements of what makes humans 'human(e)' - even in a war! Sticking to the GC, when the other side may not be, gives 'the good guys' the moral high ground. When the other side knows that they will be treated humanely, the fear of 'nothing to lose, so may as well fight to the death' does not exist, which can actually reduce casualties on both sides!
I'm sure you believe that, I don't. As far as I'm concerned we should totally and utterley rip up the GC when facing an enemy such as the Taliban and ISIS.

Different types of warfare need different rules.
 
I'm sure you believe that, I don't. As far as I'm concerned we should totally and utterley rip up the GC when facing an enemy such as the Taliban and ISIS.

Different types of warfare need different rules.

Then I hope, for all our sakes, that you are never actively involved in areas covered by the GC!
 
And is still totally relevant to 'the proper approach' today! They actually originate nearly 100 years earlier too!The fact that 'the other side' does not abide by them is only relevant in that it indicates the sort of reason why 'the good guys' are there!


Twaddle! When 'our forces' are being 'beaten by the stick of the Geneva Convention', it means they have breached some pretty fundamental elements of what makes humans 'human(e)' - even in a war! Sticking to the GC, when the other side may not be, gives 'the good guys' the moral high ground. When the other side knows that they will be treated humanely, the fear of 'nothing to lose, so may as well fight to the death' does not exist, which can actually reduce casualties on both sides!

:thup: What is right is right!
 
Then I hope, for all our sakes, that you are never actively involved in areas covered by the GC!
After 36 years serving my Country proudly I can assure you I know more about this subject than you.

I have experienced at first hand the GC and I take great offence at you questioning my professionalism and integrity.
 
Top