British soldier executes Afghan insurgent.

[Person012345]

I don't think genocide would be necessary in all cases, just reeducation. many religions have died out through the centuries, Islam doesn't have to be the exception. If there is an easier, cheaper and more effective way to eliminate Islam, we should take it. I don't believe in doing such things just for the fun of them, only for an end goal. and only if that makes the end goal easier and more effectively attained.

And this brings us back to the fact that killing people is only going to harm your cause. The best way to eliminate Islam peacefully is to educate Muslims so that they realise religion is a load of hokey (although you need to figure out how to do this to any reasonable degree in your own country first before you attempt it elsewhere). But educated people are more likely to disagree with this kind of savagery because they can't be brainwashed into "dem ebil moslems are terrists and should die!". Plus this also takes huge amounts of time, effort and money and needs to be done under an occupation (which you already rejected). It's better to just not go around killing POWs, try and give them decent infrastructure to fight the taliban and improve their country (because most people in afghanistan are not supportive of the taliban), then try to build better ties with the muslim world so that the taliban don't feel the need to harbour and support terrorist organisations like al quaeda.

[Grossdeutsches Kaiserreich]

I don't think genocide would be necessary in all cases, just reeducation. many religions have died out through the centuries, Islam doesn't have to be the exception. If there is an easier, cheaper and more effective way to eliminate Islam, we should take it. I don't believe in doing such things just for the fun of them, only for an end goal. and only if that makes the end goal easier and more effectively attained.

And this brings us back to the fact that killing people is only going to harm your cause. The best way to eliminate Islam peacefully is to educate Muslims so that they realise religion is a load of hokey (although you need to figure out how to do this to any reasonable degree in your own country first before you attempt it elsewhere). But educated people are more likely to disagree with this kind of savagery because they can't be brainwashed into "dem ebil moslems are terrists and should die!". Plus this also takes huge amounts of time, effort and money and needs to be done under an occupation (which you already rejected). It's better to just not go around killing POWs, try and give them decent infrastructure to fight the taliban and improve their country (because most people in afghanistan are not supportive of the taliban), then try to build better ties with the muslim world so that the taliban don't feel the need to harbour and support terrorist organisations like al quaeda.

And you think it can be done quicker, cheaper and more effectively than totalitarianism, authoritarianism and perhaps even elimination and recolonization?

[Zathganastan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes#1948_Arab.E2.80.93Israeli_War

Since the Geneva convention was ratified in 1949 after world war 2, you can look at all the crimes committed beyond that date for crimes committed after the adoption of the Geneva conventions. i believe other forms of geneva conventions date earlier in the century.

I don't want to sit here and meticulously list out all the massacres but there they are for posterity.

Also, Stalin wasn't brought upon by the international community for his many, many crimes. If the U.S. plays it off right, it can get away with it pretty cleanly. although history is much more harsh than the international community, unless you happen to control how history is taught.

1.) Care to point out which ones actually involved them getting away with war crimes without the international community doing anything.

2.) What war did the Soviets fight between 1948-1953?
Regardless, the US wouldn't be able to even remotely pull off something like this, not when the UN tends to carefully monitor any alleged war crimes that are reported to them. Especially when it's a UN member state that's being reported to have carried them out.

[Person012345]

And this brings us back to the fact that killing people is only going to harm your cause. The best way to eliminate Islam peacefully is to educate Muslims so that they realise religion is a load of hokey (although you need to figure out how to do this to any reasonable degree in your own country first before you attempt it elsewhere). But educated people are more likely to disagree with this kind of savagery because they can't be brainwashed into "dem ebil moslems are terrists and should die!". Plus this also takes huge amounts of time, effort and money and needs to be done under an occupation (which you already rejected). It's better to just not go around killing POWs, try and give them decent infrastructure to fight the taliban and improve their country (because most people in afghanistan are not supportive of the taliban), then try to build better ties with the muslim world so that the taliban don't feel the need to harbour and support terrorist organisations like al quaeda.

And you think it can be done quicker, cheaper and more effectively than totalitarianism, authoritarianism and perhaps even elimination and recolonization?

Wat?

The things you have proposed so fr are stupid and counter-productive. They have a history of not working and besides that are inhuman.

War is war, there's no easy fix when you invade some craphole half the world away.

[Grossdeutsches Kaiserreich]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes#1948_Arab.E2.80.93Israeli_War

Since the Geneva convention was ratified in 1949 after world war 2, you can look at all the crimes committed beyond that date for crimes committed after the adoption of the Geneva conventions. i believe other forms of geneva conventions date earlier in the century.

I don't want to sit here and meticulously list out all the massacres but there they are for posterity.

Also, Stalin wasn't brought upon by the international community for his many, many crimes. If the U.S. plays it off right, it can get away with it pretty cleanly. although history is much more harsh than the international community, unless you happen to control how history is taught.

1.) Care to point out which ones actually involved them getting away with war crimes without the international community doing anything.

2.) What war did the Soviets fight between 1948-1953?
Regardless, the US wouldn't be able to even remotely pull off something like this, not when the UN tends to carefully monitor any alleged war crimes that are reported to them. Especially when it's a UN member state that's being reported to have carried them out.

one example is the My Lai massacre, only a captain was convicted if i recall correctly. the rest were scott-free.

I was referring to World War 2 but i guess i'll just refer to the Soviet union as a whole. they committed plenty of war crimes during the Afghanistan war, for instance.

[Breadknife]

The best way to eliminate Islam peacefully is to educate Muslims so that they realise religion is a load of hokey (although you need to figure out how to do this to any reasonable degree in your own country first before you attempt it elsewhere).

As a non-religious person myself, I think you're on the wrong tack here. Eliminate Islam? I have no problem with Islam (or Christianity or Hinduism or just about any mainstream belief system) as a cultural anchor, and "eliminating Islam" as an aim would most certainly sustain the hatred against "The West". Or whoever it is who is attempting such.

You're half-way right, in that we need to educate them smarter to refute the extremities of their religion. (And we could probably do with a good dose of that, ourselves... if we can come up with such a solution it ought to be fomulated as a universal panacea against unthinking devotion to fanatical views, probably also extreme nationalism and sports'-based hooliganism.)

While we're lacking that, the first thing to do is to not add fuel to the lies about how the enemy of the Afghan people are the occupying forces. Actually prosecuting the soldiers and convicting Soldier A is possibly going to be a usefully honourable thing to do, in the eyes of those with wavering opinions. OTOH, that it happened (and that it was confirmed to have happened, by the 'enemy', even) is still prime propaganda material for those already heavily under the influence of the extremists. (Not that they probably aren't announcing such attrocities as a matter of course, true or not!) Better that it had never happened, perhaps. It would mean that the misinformation has to be totally made up, in order to encourage the impressionable to 'resist'.

Leave the people their basic religion, but remove the possibility of the worst of the religious leaders (probably not even as devout as their flocks, but still playing the game for the look of things) from stirring things up with their own violence-based power-seeking/maintaining ends. How to do that, exactly? I don't know. But don't promote their position, instead (as you are correct in saying).

[Person012345]

The best way to eliminate Islam peacefully is to educate Muslims so that they realise religion is a load of hokey (although you need to figure out how to do this to any reasonable degree in your own country first before you attempt it elsewhere).

As a non-religious person myself, I think you're on the wrong tack here. Eliminate Islam? I have no problem with Islam (or Christianity or Hinduism or just about any mainstream belief system) as a cultural anchor, and "eliminating Islam" as an aim would most certainly sustain the hatred against "The West". Or whoever it is who is attempting such.

You're half-way right, in that we need to educate them smarter to refute the extremities of their religion. (And we could probably do with a good dose of that, ourselves... if we can come up with such a solution it ought to be fomulated as a universal panacea against unthinking devotion to fanatical views, probably also extreme nationalism and sports'-based hooliganism.)

While we're lacking that, the first thing to do is to not add fuel to the lies about how the enemy of the Afghan people are the occupying forces. Actually prosecuting the soldiers and convicting Soldier A is possibly going to be a usefully honourable thing to do, in the eyes of those with wavering opinions. OTOH, that it happened (and that it was confirmed to have happened, by the 'enemy', even) is still prime propaganda material for those already heavily under the influence of the extremists. (Not that they probably aren't announcing such attrocities as a matter of course, true or not!) Better that it had never happened, perhaps. It would mean that the misinformation has to be totally made up, in order to encourage the impressionable to 'resist'.

Leave the people their basic religion, but remove the possibility of the worst of the religious leaders (probably not even as devout as their flocks, but still playing the game for the look of things) from stirring things up with their own violence-based power-seeking/maintaining ends. How to do that, exactly? I don't know. But don't promote their position, instead (as you are correct in saying).

Did you not read the preceding conversation? I dont' advocate the elimination of islam. I think that would be stupid, pointless and unfeasible.

[Breadknife]

Did you not read the preceding conversation? I dont' advocate the elimination of islam. I think that would be stupid, pointless and unfeasible.

I saw that you weren't the "bomb 'em all" person. (quote: "killing people is only going to harm your cause"...) But I was responding to:

The best way to eliminate Islam peacefully is to...

Which looks quite like a suggestion to eliminate islam. Apologies if I took you too literally.

[Person012345]

Did you not read the preceding conversation? I dont' advocate the elimination of islam. I think that would be stupid, pointless and unfeasible.

I saw that you weren't the "bomb 'em all" person. (quote: "killing people is only going to harm your cause"...) But I was responding to:

The best way to eliminate Islam peacefully is to...

Which looks quite like a suggestion to eliminate islam. Apologies if I took you too literally.

The person I was talking to said:

I don't think genocide would be necessary in all cases, just reeducation. many religions have died out through the centuries, Islam doesn't have to be the exception. If there is an easier, cheaper and more effective way to eliminate Islam, we should take it.

I was just responding to that.

[Ifreann]

It was a sad day when people started making excuses for a murderer just because he's a soldier.

it always angers me to see civilian populations get on their high horse about the cruelties of soldiers. War is cruel and sometimes cruel things should be done.

I don't accept that for a moment. Certainly some people seem to very badly want it to be so, but that's not a very compelling reason to think it's true.

This man HAS HOWEVER committed a crime, and should most certainly be punished. I think that the punishment should not be blown out of proportion, as i fear it now will.

Marine A has been convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

---

Nothing wrong with executing terrorists.

The British military disagrees. Why should we listen to you over them?

[New Connorstantinople]

it always angers me to see civilian populations get on their high horse about the cruelties of soldiers. War is cruel and sometimes cruel things should be done.

I don't accept that for a moment. Certainly some people seem to very badly want it to be so, but that's not a very compelling reason to think it's true.

This man HAS HOWEVER committed a crime, and should most certainly be punished. I think that the punishment should not be blown out of proportion, as i fear it now will.

Marine A has been convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

---

Nothing wrong with executing terrorists.

The British military disagrees. Why should we listen to you over them?

I would be interested to see what situation this man was in before the execution. Was the Taliban fighter just recently killing his fellow mates and decided to surrender when they began to lose? Or was this simply killing at random? YES. HE HAS KILLED A PRISONER WITHOUT ORDERS. But is this a case of some violent Muslim extremist killing British soldiers and than a British soldier kills the Taliban after he surrenders? Im pretty confident that this is just going to be "It was still a war crime and the man is a monster who deserved nothing less" and i will admit that im being somewhat biased, as i believe a Islamic fundamentalist fighter going into an area and forcefully putting people under sharia law at the end of a gun, then trying to kill the coalition forces that go there to protect the locals deserves to die, even after surrender. The Afghans have no love for the Taliban, the West has no love for the Taliban, and i think they should all be killed.

[Farnhamia]

I don't accept that for a moment. Certainly some people seem to very badly want it to be so, but that's not a very compelling reason to think it's true.

Marine A has been convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

---

The British military disagrees. Why should we listen to you over them?

I would be interested to see what situation this man was in before the execution. Was the Taliban fighter just recently killing his fellow mates and decided to surrender when they began to lose? Or was this simply killing at random? YES. HE HAS KILLED A PRISONER WITHOUT ORDERS. But is this a case of some violent Muslim extremist killing British soldiers and than a British soldier kills the Taliban after he surrenders? Im pretty confident that this is just going to be "It was still a war crime and the man is a monster who deserved nothing less" and i will admit that im being somewhat biased, as i believe a Islamic fundamentalist fighter going into an area and forcefully putting people under sharia law at the end of a gun, then trying to kill the coalition forces that go there to protect the locals deserves to die, even after surrender. The Afghans have no love for the Taliban, the West has no love for the Taliban, and i think they should all be killed.

You could read the three articles linked in the OP and find out.

[Distruzio]

A tragedy but expected and understandable.

I pray his repentance.

[Seggagasia]

then why does it say that some afghani terrorist rat was shot by a british solider

So what you're saying is, "I don't understand law, ethics, or morality; I've never served in the miltary; and please keep weapons away from me".

All your doing is repeating yourself pal.........

[Farnhamia]

So what you're saying is, "I don't understand law, ethics, or morality; I've never served in the miltary; and please keep weapons away from me".

All your doing is repeating yourself pal.........

As are you. Your opinion is noted. Provide something more than "terrorist rat" as to why the soldier should not have been convicted of murder or drop it.

[Seggagasia]

Damn faithless liberals.......

[Ranmat]

For one IT'S WAR l, so why should he grant mercy to an enemy that is just going to try and kill him as soon as he can, there is no benefit, and like I said it is war.

[The Emerald Dawn]

For one IT'S WAR l, so why should he grant mercy to an enemy that is just going to try and kill him as soon as he can, there is no benefit, and like I said it is war.

So what unit did you serve in?

[Farnhamia]

For one IT'S WAR l, so why should he grant mercy to an enemy that is just going to try and kill him as soon as he can, there is no benefit, and like I said it is war.

Even in war you don't kill a subdued, wounded captive. This is the 21st century not the 4th millennium BCE, and even then ...

[Risottia]

For one IT'S WAR l, so why should he grant mercy to an enemy that is just going to try and kill him as soon as he can, there is no benefit, and like I said it is war.

Even in war you don't kill a subdued, wounded captive. This is the 21st century not the 4th millennium BCE, and even then ...

...it would have been stupid. You don't get ransoms for dead captives.

[Lydenburg]

For one IT'S WAR l, so why should he grant mercy to an enemy that is just going to try and kill him as soon as he can, there is no benefit, and like I said it is war.

Even in war you don't kill a subdued, wounded captive. This is the 21st century not the 4th millennium BCE, and even then ...

Even then, what? Farn, do I have to remind you of all people of a few Byzantine wars?

[Souseiseki]

I don't accept that for a moment. Certainly some people seem to very badly want it to be so, but that's not a very compelling reason to think it's true.

Marine A has been convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

---

The British military disagrees. Why should we listen to you over them?

I would be interested to see what situation this man was in before the execution. Was the Taliban fighter just recently killing his fellow mates and decided to surrender when they began to lose? Or was this simply killing at random? YES. HE HAS KILLED A PRISONER WITHOUT ORDERS. But is this a case of some violent Muslim extremist killing British soldiers and than a British soldier kills the Taliban after he surrenders? Im pretty confident that this is just going to be "It was still a war crime and the man is a monster who deserved nothing less" and i will admit that im being somewhat biased, as i believe a Islamic fundamentalist fighter going into an area and forcefully putting people under sharia law at the end of a gun, then trying to kill the coalition forces that go there to protect the locals deserves to die, even after surrender. The Afghans have no love for the Taliban, the West has no love for the Taliban, and i think they should all be killed.

while i don't particularly like the taliban i am enjoying the fact that you apparently have no problem with other radicals jumping around the world going into areas and forcefully putting people under their preferred system at the end of a gun, then trying to kill anyone that does not enjoy the prospect of foreign invasion

[Person012345]

I don't accept that for a moment. Certainly some people seem to very badly want it to be so, but that's not a very compelling reason to think it's true.

Marine A has been convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

---

The British military disagrees. Why should we listen to you over them?

I would be interested to see what situation this man was in before the execution. Was the Taliban fighter just recently killing his fellow mates and decided to surrender when they began to lose? Or was this simply killing at random? YES. HE HAS KILLED A PRISONER WITHOUT ORDERS. But is this a case of some violent Muslim extremist killing British soldiers and than a British soldier kills the Taliban after he surrenders? Im pretty confident that this is just going to be "It was still a war crime and the man is a monster who deserved nothing less" and i will admit that im being somewhat biased, as i believe a Islamic fundamentalist fighter going into an area and forcefully putting people under sharia law at the end of a gun, then trying to kill the coalition forces that go there to protect the locals deserves to die, even after surrender. The Afghans have no love for the Taliban, the West has no love for the Taliban, and i think they should all be killed.

We didn't go there to protect the locals, as evidenced by the fact that we kept blowing them up. We went there because the taliban were harbouring al quaeda, who made an attack on the home territory of a fellow NATO member state (or for you americans, because they made an attack on you directly).

[Farnhamia]

Even in war you don't kill a subdued, wounded captive. This is the 21st century not the 4th millennium BCE, and even then ...

Even then, what? Farn, do I have to remind you of all people of a few Byzantine wars?

No, but such things have been and ought to be happening less and less frequently.

[Tel]

I'm not shedding any tears at the death of a Taliban fighter, but what those soldiers did is simply wrong.