Marine A - Right or wrong?

[hovis]

A couple of things

1. I'm not hiding behind anything
2. - I didn't call him a coward - I said it was a cowardly act and he acted like a coward but that of course doesn't suit certain people like yourself who add nothing but just look to score points on an internet and all because it's me posting the opinion.

Myself and Paul may have differing points of view and I fully understand why he believes the way he does but you are no better than that other poster who flipped his opinion to jump on the bandwagon point scoring. Pathetic.

so your saying that someone committed a cowardly act and acted cowardly isn't calling someone a coward?

am i the only one on this forum that is bemused?

 

[Papas1982]

A couple of things

1. I'm not hiding behind anything
2. - I didn't call him a coward - I said it was a cowardly act and he acted like a coward but that of course doesn't suit certain people like yourself who add nothing but just look to score points on an internet and all because it's me posting the opinion.

Myself and Paul may have differing points of view and I fully understand why he believes the way he does but you are no better than that other poster who flipped his opinion to jump on the bandwagon point scoring. Pathetic.

Phil, I fully respect your opinion on it and you have a far better grasp on the situation that I. BUT,

If i see an animal in the lake and say its acting like a duck and doing something that a duck would. Then the animal is a duck.

You can squirm, hide and deflect all you wish. Everyone interpreted what you said as you calling him a coward. You don't have to categorically right "YOU are a coward" to say it.

Would have been a whole lot easier to just clarify that you weren't meaning to call him a coward than imply you hadn't.....

 

[bluewolf]

Phil, I fully respect your opinion on it and you have a far better grasp on the situation that I. BUT,

If i see an animal in the lake and say its acting like a duck and doing something that a duck would. Then the animal is a duck.

You can squirm, hide and deflect all you wish. Everyone interpreted what you said as you calling him a coward. You don't have to categorically right "YOU are a coward" to say it.

Would have been a whole lot easier to just clarify that you weren't meaning to call him a coward than imply you hadn't.....

So you're saying that we should all judge a persons character by a single action? If it was a cowardly action, it doesn't necessarily follow that the man is a coward. Seems relatively straightforward to me.

 

[Old Skier]

A couple of things

1. I'm not hiding behind anything
2. - I didn't call him a coward - I said it was a cowardly act and he acted like a coward but that of course doesn't suit certain people like yourself who add nothing but just look to score points on an internet and all because it's me posting the opinion.

Myself and Paul may have differing points of view and I fully understand why he believes the way he does but you are no better than that other poster who flipped his opinion to jump on the bandwagon point scoring. Pathetic.

Why would I want to score points, there are a lot of holes in your interpretation of the facts which is unfortunate but that's what can happens when you use google.

You did however write he acted like a coward nowhere can I see the quote from you suggesting it was a cowardly act which would be much more easy to agree with.

There would be very few people who have served that disagree that punishment was due but I have said previously, the sentence and charge IMO are what was OTT.

Please point out were I flipped my opinion and jumped on anyone's bandwagon.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I don't know the specifics of this particular case, but I am very uncomfortable with ordering our soldiers into massively stressful life and death situations, putting their own very existence at risk and then prosecute them for things that may or may not happen when they follow these orders.
War is war and I don't believe the average man or woman in the street has the slightest clue how horrendous that really is - myself included and I thank God every day for that. I am afraid war is brutal and by nature often a fight to the death. We simply cannot fight wars with one arm tied behind our backs, especially when it's us that is tying our own arm. I wonder if we continue down this road of prosecuting our own soldiers in this way, how on earth we are going to get anyone to sign up for the armed forces in the future and how many of our own lives we are putting at risk when those soldiers are made to hesitate in the middle of a frantic firefight.

If the soldier had refused to go into battle we would have sent him to a court martial. When he does go into battle then we have to place our trust in him and the training we have given him. We cannot send our men and women into situations like this in fear of prosecution. We are telling our people that it's OK to kill the enemy as long as they pose a threat but not if they don't. Then, we are asking them to determine if the enemy poses a threat but if they get it wrong we will send them to jail. And these decisions are taken in a highly stressful environment where their own life is in imminent danger. I don't think I would be signing that employment contract.

The Armed Forces are following the same rules they have been for over a hundred years - our soldiers followed it in WW1 and 2 , and every single conflict since - there is no "one hand tied behind the back" . There are rules of Engagement and Geneva Convention to follow - any time a weapon is fired you have to ensure you are doing it within those laws , that's valid for the armed guard on the gate to the guy on patrol. You have to ensure when firing your weapon it's for the right reasons - following those rules is what sets us apart from the Germans in WW1 and 2 or Milosovic and his troops or the Taliban and Bin Laden or indeed anyone who has commited war crimes in the past.

Yes we do ask our military to ensure that they determine the threat - that's not a new thing and everyone is trained to judge that situation to the very best of their ability , that's what sets the UK armed forces apart - because they can judge those situations.

There is so many boxes to mentally tick when you are in any situation with a rifle in your hand - or indeed when in charge of a tank or an AC - it's the same rules of Engagement.

 

[Papas1982]

So you're saying that we should all judge a persons character by a single action? If it was a cowardly action, it doesn't necessarily follow that the man is a coward. Seems relatively straightforward to me.

I'm saying he called him a coward.

Whether his single act makes him one isn't my debate. If someone snarls something racist at someone but its only witnessed once. Is that person a racist? Or was it slip of the tongue?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Why would I want to score points, there are a lot of holes in your interpretation of the facts which is unfortunate but that's what can happens when you use google.

Going on about use of google is nothing but point scoring

Fill in the holes of the facts then please - remember you were the one that it appeared attempted to dismiss a link I posted to the actual words used by the judge in his summing up

You did however write he acted like a coward nowhere can I see the quote from you suggesting it was a cowardly act which would be much more easy to agree with.

Post 45

There would be very few people who have served that disagree that punishment was due but I have said previously, the sentence and charge IMO are what was OTT.

I also stated that it should have been manslaughter

Please point out were I flipped my opinion and jumped on anyone's bandwagon.

Please read what I posted
"You are no better than the poster who flipped his opinion to jump on the bandwagon"

Maybe if you actually read what I posted instead of filling in your own words because of who posted it

 

[bluewolf]

I'm saying he called him a coward.

Whether his single act makes him one isn't my debate. If someone snarls something racist at someone but its only witnessed once. Is that person a racist? Or was it slip of the tongue?

He said "he acted like a coward". Not the same thing.

And saying one racist thing does not make anyone a racist. Believing what you state and not learning make someone a racist. If we are all to be judged by how we act at times of severe stress then we all fail the humanity test, or have you never made a mistake?

 

[Old Skier]

I honestly think there appears to be a geniue misunderstanding between the Geneva Convention and the British Forces ROE by some.

 

[Papas1982]

He said "he acted like a coward". Not the same thing.

And saying one racist thing does not make anyone a racist. Believing what you state and not learning make someone a racist. If we are all to be judged by how we act at times of severe stress then we all fail the humanity test, or have you never made a mistake?

Surely to act like a coward, or a racist or anything in particular. You are at that time a racist, coward etc.

If someone said i'd acted like an idiot whilst drunk then i'd agree. Yes i was an idiot. I wouldn't say id acted like an idiot and shouldnt be judged as one.

Either way, its totally not the main crux of this discussion.

For the record, i dont think anybody in a war zone, irrespective of their actions is a coward, or acting like one.

 

[Sweep]

The Armed Forces are following the same rules they have been for over a hundred years - our soldiers followed it in WW1 and 2 , and every single conflict since - there is no "one hand tied behind the back" . There are rules of Engagement and Geneva Convention to follow - any time a weapon is fired you have to ensure you are doing it within those laws , that's valid for the armed guard on the gate to the guy on patrol. You have to ensure when firing your weapon it's for the right reasons - following those rules is what sets us apart from the Germans in WW1 and 2 or Milosovic and his troops or the Taliban and Bin Laden or indeed anyone who has commited war crimes in the past.

Yes we do ask our military to ensure that they determine the threat - that's not a new thing and everyone is trained to judge that situation to the very best of their ability , that's what sets the UK armed forces apart - because they can judge those situations.

There is so many boxes to mentally tick when you are in any situation with a rifle in your hand - or indeed when in charge of a tank or an AC - it's the same rules of Engagement.

I understand that but if setting ourselves apart is subjecting ourselves to rules the enemy does not have to follow, then we are tying one arm behind our back. Which is fine as long as you are not the soldier on the ground.
Just because it's nothing new or it's the way we have always done it does not mean it's right.
I agree that it is desirable to act in the way you describe and indeed train for it, but we have to accept there will be transgressions. People are human with human emotions. You can't prosecute people for this in this way.

 

[bluewolf]

Surely to act like a coward, or a racist or anything in particular. You are at that time a racist, coward etc.

If someone said i'd acted like an idiot whilst drunk then i'd agree. Yes i was an idiot. I wouldn't say id acted like an idiot and shouldnt be judged as one.

Either way, its totally not the main crux of this discussion.

For the record, i dont think anybody in a war zone, irrespective of their actions is a coward, or acting like one.

For the record, I don't think it was a cowardly act. However, there are a few in here (not you) who have latched onto the phrase LP used and distorted it in order to launch a personal attack.

It's very interesting reading the thoughts of ex service people. And let's face it, they understand the situation far better than we ever could. 👍

 

[Old Skier]

Fill in the holes of the facts then please - remember you were the one that it appeared attempted to dismiss a link I posted to the actual words used by the judge in his summing up



Post 45i

1. I questioned the link as it is not a credible link so you have no guarantee as to its accuracy.

2. I was referring to post 20.

Its unfortunate that you have to always argue down to a personal level when people fail to agree with your point of view.

 

[Sweep]

I'm saying he called him a coward.

Whether his single act makes him one isn't my debate. If someone snarls something racist at someone but its only witnessed once. Is that person a racist? Or was it slip of the tongue?

Coward is an insult used all too often and a highly emotive word. I simply don't think you can call anyone who goes into battle and puts their own life in imminent danger a coward.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I understand that but if setting ourselves apart is subjecting ourselves to rules the enemy does not have to follow, then we are tying one arm behind our back. Which is fine as long as you are not the soldier on the ground.
Just because it's nothing new or it's the way we have always done it does not mean it's right.
I agree that it is desirable to act in the way you describe and indeed train for it, but we have to accept there will be transgressions. People are human with human emotions. You can't prosecute people for this in this way.

So which transgressions do we accept ?

Does that not open the door for people to use "human emotions" as justification for going beyond the line ?

The enemy also has to follow the same rules - they don't so if we don't then what sets us apart from then ?

All marine As actions were as said by the judge from some who appeared calm and in charge of the situation, actions done within the period seem to be of someone in full control of himself.

If it was all the opposite way around - a Taliban shooting an unarmed injured Brit on the ground would we say he was being compassionate to the injured soldiers needs or was he going over the line.

 

[Fish]

I don't know the specifics of this particular case, but I am very uncomfortable with ordering our soldiers into massively stressful life and death situations, putting their own very existence at risk and then prosecute them for things that may or may not happen when they follow these orders.
War is war and I don't believe the average man or woman in the street has the slightest clue how horrendous that really is - myself included and I thank God every day for that. I am afraid war is brutal and by nature often a fight to the death. We simply cannot fight wars with one arm tied behind our backs, especially when it's us that is tying our own arm. I wonder if we continue down this road of prosecuting our own soldiers in this way, how on earth we are going to get anyone to sign up for the armed forces in the future and how many of our own lives we are putting at risk when those soldiers are made to hesitate in the middle of a frantic firefight.

If the soldier had refused to go into battle we would have sent him to a court martial. When he does go into battle then we have to place our trust in him and the training we have given him. We cannot send our men and women into situations like this in fear of prosecution. We are telling our people that it's OK to kill the enemy as long as they pose a threat but not if they don't. Then, we are asking them to determine if the enemy poses a threat but if they get it wrong we will send them to jail. And these decisions are taken in a highly stressful environment where their own life is in imminent danger. I don't think I would be signing that employment contract.

The latter of your post is something that many servicemen that are on the front line and constantly in conflict far more often than those who do token tours have serious concerns about and they have had those concerns for many years.

Again, referring to the yellow card or basic ROE, I can shoot someone who is about to throw a bomb at me or anyone I am in the presence of protecting, however, if that bomb leaves the aggressors grasp and then I shoot him it's a crime, furthermore, if what initially looks like a bomb doesn't turn out to be a bomb and whether it's in his grasp still or not, it again is a criminal act if I've shot him!

When in conflict when split seconds count for your own life and those that you are there to protect we are shackled with this stupidity that can create delay & doubt and get us killed because of the fear of being prosecuted for murder, which for a number of years was the minimum you'd be charged with, manslaughter was never a consideration.

You cannot have these kind of rules when in full battle or any kind of close quarter conflict, we don't have the time to evaluate every possibility to the degree they expect without getting the odd one wrong, so, it's usually a case of him or me and I'd always pick him, but if I'm wrong in that split second decision, should I then be tried for murder when everything before me is indicating to me that what he's about to throw or has thrown is an imminent threat to life?

Good soldiers will leave the forces and many won't join if we are to shackle them and threaten them with criminal acts for getting a decision wrong in the heat of battle, which many people sitting in the comfort of their homes enjoying their lives due to these brave servicemen will never understand that pressure and in some situations I have been in, wouldn't ever want you to experience.

You can dress words up however you like, it was not an act of cowardice, it was not a cowardly act and he most certainly could never be called a coward, unless you were there and stood by him and could understand the pressures and adrenalin of everything that has happened that day or within that tour and had any inkling of what was going through his head, the word coward in any form is not justified and is a disgrace that it's been used, especially by an ex-serviceman.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

1. I questioned the link as it is not a credible link so you have no guarantee as to its accuracy.

2. I was referring to post 20.

Its unfortunate that you have to always argue down to a personal level when people fail to agree with your point of view.

If it's not a credible link why do the "free marine A" use it as a link to the findings ? If you go through the judiciary findings there is no difference - you can dismiss it all you want but its the transcript.

People took it down to a personal level long before I did with people questioning my service and then also suggesting I was hiding behind the internet including you.

 

[Papas1982]

For the record, I don't think it was a cowardly act. However, there are a few in here (not you) who have latched onto the phrase LP used and distorted it in order to launch a personal attack.

It's very interesting reading the thoughts of ex service people. And let's face it, they understand the situation far better than we ever could. 

Fully agree. Have commented previously that i'm not the greatest believer in all our "efforts" overseas. But those are decisions made by people far removed from the dangers the brave men and woman face.,

 

[Fish]

I honestly think there appears to be a geniue misunderstanding between the Geneva Convention and the British Forces ROE by some.

I agree, and there isn't a single ROE either as it's adapted at times dependent on the conflict we are serving at/in, I'm aware of 4 various adaptations of ROE during my time in, but I wouldn't expect those that don't get involved in regular frontline conflicts to know or even except that!

 

[pokerjoke]

A couple of things

1. I'm not hiding behind anything
2. - I didn't call him a coward - I said it was a cowardly act and he acted like a coward but that of course doesn't suit certain people like yourself who add nothing but just look to score points on an internet and all because it's me posting the opinion.

Myself and Paul may have differing points of view and I fully understand why he believes the way he does but you are no better than that other poster who flipped his opinion to jump on the bandwagon point scoring. Pathetic.

You called him a coward Phil not directly but many people new what you meant.
People questioned this straight away but you failed to clear up what you really meant so yes it doesn't suit certain people including myself.

As for the pathetic points scoring you were the king of this but lately you have been trying to make out your squeaky clean,get a flippin grip.

Calling people pathetic for doing everything you have done in abundance is just imo laughable.