British soldier executes Afghan insurgent.

[The Grand World Order]

I hope the jihadist was first thoroughly pumped for intel.

most Taliban fighters are mercenaries hired from the Afghan National Army population of poor farmers. They don't have much intel to pump, and they're hardly jihadists.

[Hollorous]

I'd like you to name a scenario in the last hundred and fifty years when this method has not only worked, but also avoided massive atrocities against civilians. Armies with the "no rules" mentality in guerrilla warfare tend to jump straight to burning down whole villages and killing everyone in them.

Guerrillas have done that, too.

Which is besides the point.

[Hollorous]

So says you but in modern war every member of a nation contributes to the war keeping soldiers in the field in some way shape or form. So no the term civilians in the classical sense died in WWI. In this way the British were perfectly justified starving the German civilians with there blockade during WW I.

though for the record this logic basically means that 9/11 and every other terrorist attack was ok because, hey, they were contributing to the war!

Well, no, it means that NATO would be perfectly justified in purposefully starving the entire Afghan population in order to cleanse them of the Taliban (and, of course, thousands of other unimportant people). It's the classic anti-Maoist strategy of draining the ocean to get the fish. It didn't work in 1960s Vietnam or 1980s Afghanistan, but third time's the charm, right?

[Imperializt Russia]

though for the record this logic basically means that 9/11 and every other terrorist attack was ok because, hey, they were contributing to the war!

Well, no, it means that NATO would be perfectly justified in purposefully starving the entire Afghan population in order to cleanse them of the Taliban (and, of course, thousands of other unimportant people). It's the classic anti-Maoist strategy of draining the ocean to get the fish. It didn't work in 1960s Vietnam or 1980s Afghanistan, but third time's the charm, right?

The Grave of Empires consumes all.
Even the Americas.

[New Connorstantinople]

if you try and civilize a completely uncivilized practice, especially when the enemy is not doing the same, your gonna have a bad time.

[Bobanopula]

though for the record this logic basically means that 9/11 and every other terrorist attack was ok because, hey, they were contributing to the war!

Well, no, it means that NATO would be perfectly justified in purposefully starving the entire Afghan population in order to cleanse them of the Taliban (and, of course, thousands of other unimportant people). It's the classic anti-Maoist strategy of draining the ocean to get the fish. It didn't work in 1960s Vietnam or 1980s Afghanistan, but third time's the charm, right?

1960's Vietnam is not a good example to use as in that war America fought with one hand tied behind its back in terms of its ability to bring the war into North Vietnam.

[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 don't accept that for a moment." and when was the last time you were in a warzone, having men try and kill you?
"The British military disagrees. Why should we listen to you over them?" because a lot of militaries have become chocked with bureaucracy, where they have focused less on war fighting and more on agendas and dogma.

[Hollorous]

Well, no, it means that NATO would be perfectly justified in purposefully starving the entire Afghan population in order to cleanse them of the Taliban (and, of course, thousands of other unimportant people). It's the classic anti-Maoist strategy of draining the ocean to get the fish. It didn't work in 1960s Vietnam or 1980s Afghanistan, but third time's the charm, right?

1960's Vietnam is not a good example to use as in that war America fought with one hand tied behind its back in terms of its ability to bring the war into North Vietnam.

It had the ability and often did bring the war into North Vietnam. After all, that's what Rolling Thunder was and there were also commando raids, etc...the civilian population of the North was severely punished, with an estimated 65,000 dead. Invasion and occupation of the North was nixed due to being a poor strategic choice for several reasons, namely that they wanted to keep the war limited (in sense of its area, anyway) and they didn't want to risk Chinese intervention (which happened the last time the USA tried occupying a country right on Chinese borders).

I was mainly speaking of how the war was waged in South Vietnam. With gunships, napalm, free fire zones, strategic hamlets, routine use of torture, and commonly occurring atrocities directed at the civilian population. How is that fighting with one hand behind the back? By that logic, the USSR was doing the same in Afghanistan, when it didn't kick down Pakistan's and China's door for supporting the guerrillas (not to mention the USA).

[Ifreann]

if you try and civilize a completely uncivilized practice, especially when the enemy is not doing the same, your gonna have a bad time.

Afghanistan isn't uncivilised.

---

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 don't accept that for a moment." and when was the last time you were in a warzone, having men try and kill you?

What does it matter?

"The British military disagrees. Why should we listen to you over them?" because a lot of militaries have become chocked with bureaucracy, where they have focused less on war fighting and more on agendas and dogma.

But why should we listen to you? What do you know about it?

[Bobanopula]

1960's Vietnam is not a good example to use as in that war America fought with one hand tied behind its back in terms of its ability to bring the war into North Vietnam.

It had the ability and often did bring the war into North Vietnam. After all, that's what Rolling Thunder was and there were also commando raids, etc...the civilian population of the North was severely punished, with an estimated 65,000 dead. Invasion and occupation of the North was nixed due to being a poor strategic choice for several reasons, namely that they wanted to keep the war limited (in sense of its area, anyway) and they didn't want to risk Chinese intervention (which happened the last time the USA tried occupying a country right on Chinese borders).

I was mainly speaking of how the war was waged in South Vietnam. With gunships, napalm, free fire zones, strategic hamlets, routine use of torture, and commonly occurring atrocities directed at the civilian population. How is that fighting with one hand behind the back? By that logic, the USSR was doing the same in Afghanistan, when it didn't kick down Pakistan's and China's door for supporting the guerrillas (not to mention the USA).

Rolling Thunder failed because the US (Johnson) was unwilling do strike at the heart of North Vietnam Hanoi.

Mass invasion of the North never happened as Johnson through out Rolling Thunder paused the bombing trying to get a peace deal. Really Johnson tried to deal with the Vietnam war like he did with his opponents in the Senate.

[UNIverseVERSE]

Doesn't matter what your point of view is. The guy was not a threat to them, and he killed him. That's murder, whether you like it or not. And what's murder, kids? That right, illegal everywhere.

I've seen a lot of Facebook activists saying the three of them should be given medals for being over there and killing the enemy, which completely negates the point of medals. There are too many people who jump to defend someone just because they wear camouflage, and his name would be revealed otherwise.

Don't go somewhere claiming to make it a better place and then do exactly what the people you are fighting do.

The thing I like about the Facebook Hawks best is how their views contrast with those of soldiers out there in Afghan right now.

I have a friend - just qualified as an officer, now deployed in Helmand. A few weeks ago when this was all front page news for a while, I happened to be talking with this person, and inquired what the opinion was over there among the troops and officers. The answer? To paraphrase: "he broke the law and got what he deserved. We don't fight our wars by murdering people. Also it's a great way to ruin all of our massively hard work at building relations with the locals."

It's not even controversial among our troops that people who murder captives should be punished. When the enemy do it, we capture them and punish them. And when our guys do it, we prosecute and punish them.

[Ifreann]

Doesn't matter what your point of view is. The guy was not a threat to them, and he killed him. That's murder, whether you like it or not. And what's murder, kids? That right, illegal everywhere.

I've seen a lot of Facebook activists saying the three of them should be given medals for being over there and killing the enemy, which completely negates the point of medals. There are too many people who jump to defend someone just because they wear camouflage, and his name would be revealed otherwise.

Don't go somewhere claiming to make it a better place and then do exactly what the people you are fighting do.

The thing I like about the Facebook Hawks best is how their views contrast with those of soldiers out there in Afghan right now.

I have a friend - just qualified as an officer, now deployed in Helmand. A few weeks ago when this was all front page news for a while, I happened to be talking with this person, and inquired what the opinion was over there among the troops and officers. The answer? To paraphrase: "he broke the law and got what he deserved. We don't fight our wars by murdering people. Also it's a great way to ruin all of our massively hard work at building relations with the locals."

It's not even controversial among our troops that people who murder captives should be punished. When the enemy do it, we capture them and punish them. And when our guys do it, we prosecute and punish them.

Bah, troops serving in Helmand. What do they know about war? I bet they don't even play COD on hardcore mode.

[Souseiseki]

"Also it's a great way to ruin all of our massively hard work at building relations with the locals."

holy shit this seriously

just copy and paste this from actual soldiers to everyone in this thread

it's like "how to actually win this kind of war 101"

[The High Guardians]

Its easy for a civilian to look in and go "bad soldier". Now look at it like this, this is how it went down. They had been in a firefight for a while, it go so intense a chopper was needed for support. The marines stumbled across said insurgent and shot him after a few words. In the words of the Royal Marine "He would have done it to us".

[Arumdaum]

If an Afghan insurgent executed a wounded British soldier I wonder what responses would be on here~

[Arumdaum]

Its easy for a civilian to look in and go "bad soldier". Now look at it like this, this is how it went down. They had been in a firefight for a while, it go so intense a chopper was needed for support. The marines stumbled across said insurgent and shot him after a few words. In the words of the Royal Marine "He would have done it to us".

has the time for a deutsch holocaust come yet

[The High Guardians]

Its easy for a civilian to look in and go "bad soldier". Now look at it like this, this is how it went down. They had been in a firefight for a while, it go so intense a chopper was needed for support. The marines stumbled across said insurgent and shot him after a few words. In the words of the Royal Marine "He would have done it to us".

has the time for a deutsch holocaust come yet

Don't get me wrong, if it had been a professional soldier killing a professional soldier then BAM, that's wrong. The Taliban are a ideological enemy as well as a physically one. If he had lived and got away, he would have killed more civilians and troops.

[Souseiseki]

If an Afghan insurgent executed a wounded British soldier I wonder what responses would be on here~

well, i imagine the people who were against this guy shooting the afghan insurgent would want the insurgent taken down/arrested. and i assume the guys that are here crying for blood would still be crying for blood. so really i actually imagine it'd be basically the same.

"oh man, what a dick terrorist. terrorists sure are dicks." -my hypothetical response

[Ifreann]

Its easy for a civilian to look in and go "bad soldier".

It was also easy for the serving officers who found Marine A guilty of murder to look in and go "bad soldier".

---

If an Afghan insurgent executed a wounded British soldier I wonder what responses would be on here~

I assume there'd be many people calling for him to receive a medal.

[Souseiseki]

has the time for a deutsch holocaust come yet

Don't get me wrong, if it had been a professional soldier killing a professional soldier then BAM, that's wrong. The Taliban are a ideological enemy as well as a physically one. If he had lived and got away, he would have killed more civilians and troops.

what if the professional soldier got away? you think he wouldn't have killed more troops or even civilians?

executing prisoners: not cool

[The High Guardians]

Don't get me wrong, if it had been a professional soldier killing a professional soldier then BAM, that's wrong. The Taliban are a ideological enemy as well as a physically one. If he had lived and got away, he would have killed more civilians and troops.

what if the professional soldier got away? you think he wouldn't have killed more troops or even civilians?

executing prisoners: not cool

If he was a professional soldier he could have been sent to a prison camp and released at the end of the war. Like every other single war ever.

HOWEVER

The Taliban aren't professional and like I said are radicalized,unlike professional soldiers who are paid to be there, one less insurgent to blow up allied troops.

[Souseiseki]

what if the professional soldier got away? you think he wouldn't have killed more troops or even civilians?

executing prisoners: not cool

If he was a professional soldier he could have been sent to a prison camp and released at the end of the war. Like every other single war ever.
[nation]
HOWEVER
The Taliban aren't professional and like I said are radicalized,unlike professional soldiers who are paid to be there, one less insurgent to blow up allied troops.

we refused to recognize the IRA as prisoners of war

they just got sent to jail

how about we send them to jail if they live

it doesn't seem that complicated tbh

e: i mean unless you are expecting a 40 year clusterfuck

[Estado Paulista]

Meh.

[The High Guardians]

If he was a professional soldier he could have been sent to a prison camp and released at the end of the war. Like every other single war ever.
[nation]
HOWEVER
The Taliban aren't professional and like I said are radicalized,unlike professional soldiers who are paid to be there, one less insurgent to blow up allied troops.

we refused to recognize the IRA as prisoners of war

they just got sent to jail

how about we send them to jail if they live

it doesn't seem that complicated tbh

The IRA also targeted civilians...much like the Taliban. Using rules to define two nations smashing against each other who will follow the Genva convention. The Taliban won't so fighting them is like fighting uphill. Very..very different and complicated as hell.

[Souseiseki]

we refused to recognize the IRA as prisoners of war

they just got sent to jail

how about we send them to jail if they live

it doesn't seem that complicated tbh

The IRA also targeted civilians...much like the Taliban. Using rules to define two nations smashing against each other who will follow the Genva convention. The Taliban won't so fighting them is like fighting uphill. Very..very different and complicated as hell.

hmm. i suppose. it's almost like the best way to win this is to get the population on your side thereby reducing the chances people will harbour the enemy or pick up arms themselves. (it is at this point that you realize that executing prisoners and all the other crazy shit people in this thread like to suggest does not do very well for this goal)