Where do you draw the line?

[Margaret Pilkington]

For those of is who are not into such things ....TLDR stands for 'too long didn't read'

I can really understand that acronym when it follows one of the long rambling unreadable posts of one of the members on here. But in my estimation Guinness , for what it is worth, your posts are not at all like that. They have something to say which is worth reading, and usually said with balance and common sense.
I may not always agree with what you have today, but you always make a point clearly and eloquently.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

For those of is who are not into such things ....TLDR stands for 'too long didn't read'

I can really understand that acronym when it follows one of the long rambling unreadable posts of one of the members on here. But in my estimation Guinness , for what it is worth, your posts are not at all like that. They have something to say which is worth reading, and usually said with balance and common sense.
I may not always agree with what you have today, but you always make a point clearly and eloquently.

Hang on a minute Margaret, you'll have Guinness taking C'mon under his wing, then who would we have to laugh at.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

I may not always agree with what you have today, but you always make a point clearly and eloquently.

That should read....'I may not agree with what you have to say'
Predictive text has a lot to answer for.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by jaysay

Hang on a minute Margaret, you'll have Guinness taking C'mon under his wing, then who would we have to laugh at.

John, I have great respect for the abilities of Guinness...but I think that it is beyond him...anyway, I never said who it was that wrote long rambling unreadable posts....I could have meant ..........ME!

[Boeing Guy]

Well its one less of them, shame the lads filmed it.

[cmonstanley]

we should not be there . he should not be charged he needs help. the art of combat affects peoples minds in ways other lifestyles cant. we should sort out our own country first . would not surprise me if the taliban owned half our water supply.

[Margaret Pilkington]

well C'mon....you seem to have got to grips with full stops. Now, would you like to move on to capital letters?

Back on thread.....the point you make is not the issue here.
Some political party took us into an unwinnable conflict.......a conflict that other forces(like the Russians) gave up as a bad job.
The Army are sent where they are sent...they do not choose. They have a job to do and they do it well.
It is inevitable that things like this will happen, but I do agree that the chap needs help and that he should not be charged. After 15 years of service in theatres of war he is a damaged man...and has to live with that.

[Studio25]

Originally Posted by Guinness

...Do you drop them to half health and move on, or do you make sure they are dead?

Killing the insurgent was not his undoing. If he had said:
"This one isn't going to make it, let's put him out of his misery." then the outcome would have been the same in terms of the insurgent being dead, but very different in terms Marine A's liberty. It wouldn't have even got as far as court. He could have considered collecting up their morphine and making it quick and painless, but they may have needed that later if they had been injured themselves. The bullet was the sensible option.

The insurgent had been fired on by an Apache at long range using depleted uranium bullets more than an inch thick that explode on contact. They are rated to have a "kill radius" of ten metres, so even if they don't hit the target directly, there is the shrapnel/dislodged landscape that become deadly (supposedly). Now these pilots decided that instead of flying a mile to do their own BDA, they'd rather let a squad of marines do it. If the pilots were concerned for their safety in their heavily armoured gunship which should shrug off AK47 rounds, and toting up to 38 rockets, 8 missiles and potentially more than a thousand more of these tank-killing bullets, surely nobody would expect a CASEVAC of a wounded insurgent putting more lives at risk?

He was probably quite badly injured, but even if he was mildly injured but just wasn't mobile, they did the right thing, they just said the wrong things while they were doing it.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

This marine is as much a casualty of the conflict as those soldiers who have been killed.
War and conflict can never be 'civilised'.
If the Taliban had captured a British soldier they see him as the enemy, and will shoot him...they do not recognise the Geneva convention. Yet they expect the Geneva convention to be applied when it comes to those insurgents who are captured.
This conflict is not like the previous wars....where the enemy could easliy be recognised by their uniform...you knew which side they belonged to.
In Afghanistan the soldiers are just as likely to be shot by someone wearing an afghan police uniform...it is, in effect, a guerilla war.

So, I don't blame this soldier. I feel sorry for him...and his family.
He was killing the enemy before they killed him(or his comrades)....he just did it the wrong way(according to Geneva conventions).

It was murder and I am surprised you justified it to yourself like that. He was no threat to the soldiers, he had been disarmed and was a prisoner.
Next you will be saying is was right what the Japs did to our soldiers in WW2 or what the Russians and Germans did to each other soldiers.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Studio25

He was probably quite badly injured, but even if he was mildly injured but just wasn't mobile, they did the right thing, they just said the wrong things while they were doing it.

So you agree with killing injured people as though they are sick dogs?
Shall we issue the Police with side arms incase they come across badly injured people in road traffic accidents so they can put them down?

[Retlaw]

Originally Posted by Neil

So you agree with killing injured people as though they are sick dogs?
Shall we issue the Police with side arms incase they come across badly injured people in road traffic accidents so they can put them down?

Them Afghans have a completely different mind set, they view our attitude as a weakness, if they had rendered first aid, brought him back with them and he recovered, he would most likely have gone on to kill another British soldier.
As John Wayne said the only good injun is a dead injun, as he fired his Winchester .44. The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist no matter how or who kills him.
The one that should be punished is the clown who filmed it.
When my old mate and his platoon arrived in Belsen, one of the platoon was so enraged he shot the first german he saw, the platoon officer just said we'll have no more of that, and that was the end of the matter.

[Studio25]

Originally Posted by Neil

So you agree with killing injured people as though they are sick dogs?

Nope - I agree with killing people who are beyond help. With a dog, there's usually a financial consideration. It's rare that anyone would have to risk their life in order to save him.

Please try to keep the thread in context.

Originally Posted by Neil

Shall we issue the Police with side arms incase they come across badly injured people in road traffic accidents so they can put them down?

Again, to keep it in context, the police will not come to the aid of someone in danger of death if it presents a risk to their own welfare.
Police refuse to save drowning man due to lack of training - Crime - News - London Evening Standard

[Boeing Guy]

But, the police are not operating in a war zone.

Our troops are out there fighting a war, during war things happen.
I'm with Retlaw on this.

[jaysay]

Remember these gentlemen have 72 virgins and rivers of honey waiting for them in the afterlife as reward for their deeds

[Restless]

I think that is a urban myth more than anything jaysay