Marine: Murder changed to Manslaughter

[SourceOfTheTrent]

I would classify terrorism as actions against civilians or non-combatants, actions against a guerrilla army being a military operation.

 

Mmmmmm. .... that definition would make us / our military terrorists because we've killed and maimed tens of thousands of innocent civilians over the past few years in Iraq, Afghanistan & Libya.

My own definition of terrorists is people who wish to enforce a dogma on others through intimidation, ISIS being a classic example as they're not fighting for emancipation of their country from an occupier or even for political control of their country in a civil war, they're trying to steal areas of existing countries in order to enforce their (warped) view of how to live on other people against their will. Other examples are Black September and Bader-Meinhoff.

[mr.hobblesworth]

I agree with everything you've said in this thread but that definition would rule out the IRA and ETA, wouldn't it?

[SourceOfTheTrent]

I agree with everything you've said in this thread but that definition would rule out the IRA and ETA, wouldn't it?

 

Yes, it would, in the same way as it rules out the Viet Cong. As the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter so it's very difficult to precisely define what a terrorist is. Usually it's a guerilla force fighting against the conventional forces of an opposing state / states but I think that's too simplistic and sometimes misleading. For example, would we in the UK consider the ANC or French Resistance terrorists? (Although Thatcher and Tebbit called Nelson Mandela a terrorist!)

[Houston Valiant]

Just because your enemy is brutal does it mean you have to act in the same manner?

It's ok to have that attitude as long as you accept any captured personnel from our side will suffer the same fate, or worse, without our complaining about it as it's just what happens in war.

Personally I like to think we're more civilised than the Taliban or ISIS / Dai'esh.

 

 

Yes , I like to think that we are more civilized ,

but if we think that war is civilized , and that

all is fair , then we're foolish , all of us.

It has happened for centuries in all wars and conflicts. As for captured personnel , what about all the public beheadings of soldiers ?

Every soldier reacts differently in that situation . War is hell, nothing else. No one wins in the end anyway.

[old sage]

We can all sit behind our keyboards pontificating on the rights and wrongs of the case but until you have actually been there and realised that this could be your last day on this earth and probably seen soldiers that you trained with blown to bits or heard how a mate has been caught and tortured to death then I think you have no real right to comment.

 

I say this not in any arrogant or off hand way but I know if I was in that position any enemy that I came upon would be fair game, not because I'm cruel but because I would actually be scared to death. So please anti Blackman posters just try and put yourself in his shoes and I bet many of you would have acted the same way as he did.

 

How people can criticise our soldiers after seeing and hearing about civilians being snatched then beheaded in the most barbaric of ways I find simply amazing.

 

For my money the Geneva convention is fine when both sides stick to the rules but ISIS and the Taliban certainly don't do that. In truth they have a very barbaric mindset.

 

I wonder if the people who set up the Geneva agreement actually saw any military action or experienced what our soldiers are up against in the Middle East? Makes you think doesn't it?

[Guppy 4 England]

It's the principle that matters

 

 

 

You miss the entire point...

 

If your mantra is "what happens on the battlefield stays on the battlefield" then that has to apply to both sides. So you are clearly Ok with someone who tortures and kills a British soldier on the battlefield going unpunished. or do you mean "what happens on the battlefield stays on the battlefield" as long as it's one of theirs that's been killed by one of ours???

As I said how do you know it isn't happening to our soldiers? You don't because we don't get an investigation in to terrorist actions on the war field.

[upthevale]

This thread has been an interesting read, its amazing how many differing views there are on this topic.

 

Makes a change reading a good thread with good constructive discussions.

[upthevale]

We can all sit behind our keyboards pontificating on the rights and wrongs of the case but until you have actually been there and realised that this could be your last day on this earth and probably seen soldiers that you trained with blown to bits or heard how a mate has been caught and tortured to death then I think you have no real right to comment.

 

I say this not in any arrogant or off hand way but I know if I was in that position any enemy that I came upon would be fair game, not because I'm cruel but because I would actually be scared to death. So please anti Blackman posters just try and put yourself in his shoes and I bet many of you would have acted the same way as he did.

 

How people can criticise our soldiers after seeing and hearing about civilians being snatched then beheaded in the most barbaric of ways I find simply amazing.

 

For my money the Geneva convention is fine when both sides stick to the rules but ISIS and the Taliban certainly don't do that. In truth they have a very barbaric mindset.

 

I wonder if the people who set up the Geneva agreement actually saw any military action or experienced what our soldiers are up against in the Middle East? Makes you think doesn't it?

 

Mike, you make some good points. Without any of us being there is really is difficult to form a proper and correct view.

 

What I do know is that I want our goverment to become more focused on protecting our own streets, our own decent law abiding people,our soldiers, our kids and our families, because at the moment they all these seem bottom of the list and polictical correctness sits right at the top!

[Davebrad]

Just because your enemy is brutal does it mean you have to act in the same manner?

It's ok to have that attitude as long as you accept any captured personnel from our side will suffer the same fate, or worse, without our complaining about it as it's just what happens in war.

Personally I like to think we're more civilised than the Taliban or ISIS / Dai'esh.

 

we are more a lot more civilised, ok we treat them as we would expect to be treated, but we don't get treated as we would expect to be or of your opinion they should be treated, so what do we do treat them honourably as prisoners then see what they have done to there prisoners?

you've got to fight fire with fire, beat em anyway you can, then worry what the do gooders call us after when its safe for them to come out wringing there hands about how we won...

[Davebrad]

ok, this is going back and forth, it looks as we aren't going to change each others minds... so a serious question, how do we beat the likes of the taliband and isis If we are to fight in a civilised manner?

[Fosse69]

Mmmmmm. .... that definition would make us / our military terrorists because we've killed and maimed tens of thousands of innocent civilians over the past few years in Iraq, Afghanistan & Libya.

My own definition of terrorists is people who wish to enforce a dogma on others through intimidation, ISIS being a classic example as they're not fighting for emancipation of their country from an occupier or even for political control of their country in a civil war, they're trying to steal areas of existing countries in order to enforce their (warped) view of how to live on other people against their will. Other examples are Black September and Bader-Meinhoff.

Fair enough, a much fuller definition than mine. Our activities would be called by the US as collateral, which to me cover unfortunate accidents to massive blunders even war crimes. Whereas I don't think they were rain of terror activities. But straying off the scale of the thread topic.

[upthevale]

ok, this is going back and forth, it looks as we aren't going to change each others minds... so a serious question, how do we beat the likes of the taliband and isis If we are to fight in a civilised manner?

 

Dave, I don’t think it’s possible to beat these in a civilised manner; the problem has in my view gone past repair. We created the vacuum in which these groups operate but I can’t see a way out of it. We either have to go in all guns blazing and deal with the situation and create many civilian casualties, or we stay away. Our current half in, half out measures isn’t in my view fair on the soldiers we ask to do this, and then to top it all our government frames them on their return.

 

How many times do we hear about MI5 tracking someone for years and then they go and carry out some atrocity, it happened the same in France and Belgium.

 

May question is, why don’t the governments protect the innocent people and deal with the fanatics as soon as they become known?

[FATBOYSTEVE]

Dave, I don’t think it’s possible to beat these in a civilised manner; the problem has in my view gone past repair. We created the vacuum in which these groups operate but I can’t see a way out of it. We either have to go in all guns blazing and deal with the situation and create many civilian casualties, or we stay away. Our current half in, half out measures isn’t in my view fair on the soldiers we ask to do this, and then to top it all our government frames them on their return.

 

How many times do we hear about MI5 tracking someone for years and then they go and carry out some atrocity, it happened the same in France and Belgium.

 

May question is, why don’t the governments protect the innocent people and deal with the fanatics as soon as they become known?

 

We need to do similar things like years ago in Northern Ireland when someone is identified as a possible terrorist then use our MI 5 agents to take em out like they did with the IRA

[JOHNNYAITCH]

So it's ok to just shoot prisoners of war? Why then were Japanese and German soldiers tried and executed for the same acts after WW2?

 

Cos we won

 

In those days (less so now) history is written by the victor and the victor gets to decide who committed crimes and who didn't.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

They had very little respect for the lives of those on Westminster Bridge, and those people never harmed anyone. Don't tell me if that ******* had the roles reversed that he wouldn't have killed the marine. In a heartbeat he would.

 

Well..there is as far as I am aware no proof of any connection between what happened in Westminster and ISIS.

 

However, I'm fairly confident that he would indeed have killed the marine but what's your point? because he would it's Ok for ours to do so? I thought we were better than them?