Where do you draw the line?

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

As I said previously, I feel for the soldier and his family......they have to live with the consequences of this action for the rest of their lives.

So do I, they must be going through hell

[Neil]

Originally Posted by Restless

Isn't "japs" an offensive derogatory term? Bit confusing since Craig Charles uses it all the time on takechi castle "look at that happy clappy jappy chappy"

Sorry, I am not very PC

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by Neil

it's because we are better than them and if we drop to their murdering level then there is even less point to us being there.

Yes we are, but on occasion there's a slip, something will push a trooper over the edge, causes him to act out of character. These lads have done numerous tours, constantly under threat of death or maiming either to themselves, their friends or allies, so is it any wonder when a lad goes rouge?

You're not likely to ever come close to seeing a fraction of the butchery, inhumanity & horror these lads (some of them still in their teens) have seen, even if you live to be 101. So, although it's not right, there was mitigation for the action of this Marine.

[Barrie Yates]

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

Yes we are, but on occasion there's a slip, something will push a trooper over the edge, causes him to act out of character. These lads have done numerous tours, constantly under threat of death or maiming either to themselves, their friends or allies, so is it any wonder when a lad goes rouge?

You're not likely to ever come close to seeing a fraction of the butchery, inhumanity & horror these lads (some of them still in their teens) have seen, even if you live to be 101. So, although it's not right, there was mitigation for the action of this Marine.

DinG, you know how it is - if people haven't been there then they cannot understand just what the feelings are.

[Boeing Guy]

Very true, who are we to judge.

[Neil]

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

Yes we are, but on occasion there's a slip, something will push a trooper over the edge, causes him to act out of character. These lads have done numerous tours, constantly under threat of death or maiming either to themselves, their friends or allies, so is it any wonder when a lad goes rouge?

You're not likely to ever come close to seeing a fraction of the butchery, inhumanity & horror these lads (some of them still in their teens) have seen, even if you live to be 101. So, although it's not right, there was mitigation for the action of this Marine.

I agree with you but if nothing was done because of his actions it would signal that it was ok to shoot prisoners willy nilly

[Margaret Pilkington]

Originally Posted by Neil

I agree with you but if nothing was done because of his actions it would signal that it was ok to shoot prisoners willy nilly

I am not exactly sure that it would have that effect.
Sometimes what we might think will happen does not.

I cannot imagine that killing a human being is ever easy.Those who are in the presence of death become very aware of their own mortality.....this I learned from my own life experiences......and while I do appreciate that soldiering is different to nursing, certain inherent attitudes are ingrained with your training.
These attitudes...or perhaps a better word is 'values' are extremely hard to break....to break them you must have to be able to dissociate yourself from your current situation.
Maybe this soldier was in a dissociative state when he did what he did.

We are unlikely ever to know....but all I would hope is that his past exemplary record will be taken into consideration, and that he will not be made a sacrifice at the altar of political correctness.The man and his family need help....not castigation.

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by Neil

but if nothing was done because of his actions

It was though, he went through a court martial & was found guilty. Now, prior to sentencing the military should be looking at the circumstances, physical & mental state of the individual & his company, the prevailing situation at & leading up to the incident & the available support for these troops.

Then, when all of the above has been figured in, a certain amount of leniency should be applied to the final sentence. But & it's a big but, support & solutions should be found to help the individual concerned & hopefully be actioned to prevent a recurrence of the incident with another Trooper.

[Guinness]

Originally Posted by Neil

You didn't comment if you agreed with the Japs and what they did in WW2. They saw our compassion and humanity as a weekness.

Oddly enough thats exactly how the Taliban see it too, it's why they place IED's near schools, killing and maiming their own, in the hope of drawing out our guys on the ground, so they can capture or kill them as they provide that compassion and humanity.

There is a time and place for compassion and humanity, and it ain't on a battlefield.

[Barrie Yates]

If one takes this discussion a step further, then should not the sniper, or the Drone controller, sitting fat dumb and happy in the USA, who launches a missile at a "target" who happens to be in a village somewhere and kills not only the target but also other individuals - including children, be charged with murder?
I seem to remember in the mists of time our Yellow Cards - "you are only allowed to fire at someone who has a weapon and has fired at you". We were not even supposed to load our weapons when on guard duty - some hope, two clips and one up the spout was the way it was.

[Gordon Booth]

Originally Posted by Barrie Yates

I seem to remember in the mists of time our Yellow Cards - "you are only allowed to fire at someone who has a weapon and has fired at you". We were not even supposed to load our weapons when on guard duty - some hope, two clips and one up the spout was the way it was.

What a stupid rule! At 1800 feet per second you'd have to be pretty quick to fire one back before his took your head off. Were your 'leaders' trying to save paying you a pension?
As for carrying an unloaded weapon on guard duty- why not just give you a white stick and stop pretending.
Only the British would have rules designed to get you killed in the interests of PC and human rights.I'll bet the USA and French don't.

[DaveinGermany]

Originally Posted by Gordon Booth

Were your 'leaders' trying to save paying you a pension?

More a case of covering arses Gordon, the rules of engagement were to prevent expensive legal claims against the Soldier/M.O.D. Like Barry said, in a situation were it was warranted, the troops would be locked & loaded & screw the niceties.

[Studio25]

Originally Posted by Barrie Yates

...I seem to remember in the mists of time our Yellow Cards - "you are only allowed to fire at someone who has a weapon and has fired at you"...

The yellow card figures quite highly in this episode of Panorama.

Combined, the trial of Marine A and that program are basically saying is that 40 years ago it was OK to fire upon and sometimes kill unarmed terrorists or civilians who look a bit like the terrorists as long as it was state sponsored, whereas now you issue a coup de grâce on an enemy combatant, you're guilty of murder.

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by Studio25

The yellow card figures quite highly in this episode of Panorama.

Combined, the trial of Marine A and that program are basically saying is that 40 years ago it was OK to fire upon and sometimes kill unarmed terrorists or civilians who look a bit like the terrorists as long as it was state sponsored, whereas now you issue a coup de grâce on an enemy combatant, you're guilty of murder.

Well ever since the do-gooding brigade took control of this country even terrorists have rights you know Studio