British soldier executes Afghan insurgent.

[The High Guardians]

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)

Who would have known? These guys were alone in a field and this guy was badly wounded from an Apache attack. If head-cam footage hadn't been found, no one would have known...ever.

[Ifreann]

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)

If only British soldiers had just killed all the Catholics, Ireland and the UK would be on much better terms.

[Souseiseki]

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)

Who would have known? These guys were alone in a field and this guy was badly wounded from an Apache attack. If head-cam footage hadn't been found, no one would have known...ever.

the morality of actions is not determined by whether you get caught or not. unless you're permanently stuck on stage 1 of kohlbergs six stages of moral development.

[The High Guardians]

Who would have known? These guys were alone in a field and this guy was badly wounded from an Apache attack. If head-cam footage hadn't been found, no one would have known...ever.

the morality of actions is not determined by whether you get caught or not. unless you're permanently stuck on stage 1 of kohlbergs six stages of moral development.

You're speaking morals. I'm speaking tactics. We'll never agree.

[Souseiseki]

the morality of actions is not determined by whether you get caught or not. unless you're permanently stuck on stage 1 of kohlbergs six stages of moral development.

You're speaking morals. I'm speaking tactics. We'll never agree.

i like to call your approach the soviet approach, not only because it's pretty damn similar ("hey, let's execute all the afghan insurgents and religious extremist leaders! that'll do it!" "hey, i know a way we can get rid of political dissidents AND make it look like our enemies did it! they'll never find out!") but because it was already tried in afghanistan and failed

[Ifreann]

the morality of actions is not determined by whether you get caught or not. unless you're permanently stuck on stage 1 of kohlbergs six stages of moral development.

You're speaking morals. I'm speaking tactics. We'll never agree.

If you employ the tactic of executing prisoners then people will find out eventually. You can't quietly drag them all off like Marine A did and only get caught because a headcam got knocked on accidentally.

[Grossdeutsches Kaiserreich]

You're speaking morals. I'm speaking tactics. We'll never agree.

i like to call your approach the soviet approach, not only because it's pretty damn similar ("hey, let's execute all the afghan insurgents and religious extremist leaders! that'll do it!" "hey, i know a way we can get rid of political dissidents AND make it look like our enemies did it! they'll never find out!") but because it was already tried in afghanistan and failed

It failed because the soviets didn't execute enough of them. Hitler took out 6 million jews in 3 years in 1942-1945. I think we can kill 30 million afghans in 9 years in the 21st century.

[Camicon]

i like to call your approach the soviet approach, not only because it's pretty damn similar ("hey, let's execute all the afghan insurgents and religious extremist leaders! that'll do it!" "hey, i know a way we can get rid of political dissidents AND make it look like our enemies did it! they'll never find out!") but because it was already tried in afghanistan and failed

It failed because the soviets didn't execute enough of them. Hitler took out 6 million jews in 3 years in 1942-1945. I think we can kill 30 million afghans in 9 years in the 21st century.

Fairly certain that advocating genocide violates forum rules. Among other things.

[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.

Afghanistan isn't uncivilised.

---

"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?

The TALIBAN are uncivilized. Do you realize who we are actually fighting? The Afghan National Army is fine, in fact they are helping us fight the religious extremist savages that the man killed.
Why does it matter? Because it is easy to think yourself morale superior as you sit in a safe environment and watch MLP, going on the internet and claim they would have taken a different approach to a to a incredibly intense and emotional situation that you have never actually been exposed to, as men risk their lives IN THOSE SITUATIONS to protect people like you from having to be in those situations.
And why should you listen to me? Well, for the reason i gave. Its easy to attack a man's "credentials" instead of arguing the validity of his statement. If i really wanted too, i could attack your expertise in the situation in any given conversation, but lets stay on the topic, shall we?

I do not condone the actions of the man, but express the importance of realizing who the real enemy is.

[Imperializt Russia]

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?
"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.

An execution by a platoon sergeant is exactly that.
It's also completely illegal, hence why Marine A has been sentenced to life in prison for murder, the first British serviceperson to have been convicted of crimes committed in Afghanistan.

You literally just posted,

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

Which implies the complete opposite viewpoint that you're espousing here.

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".

Whether helicopters were called in is not an indicator of the intensity of a firefight.

Many commanders will be quoted as saying they never want a "fair fight" (notably in the USMC), and there was once a time when Parachute Battalion personnel wouldn't go on patrol without helicopter support, not because they felt so at risk, but because the presence of the helicopter was such an effective deterrent to attack.

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.

The Taliban are taken prisoner like every military adversary ever.

They aren't just released at the end of firefights, put down the crackpipe.

the morality of actions is not determined by whether you get caught or not. unless you're permanently stuck on stage 1 of kohlbergs six stages of moral development.

You're speaking morals. I'm speaking tactics. We'll never agree.

You're not speaking accepted tactics.
Get out.

i like to call your approach the soviet approach, not only because it's pretty damn similar ("hey, let's execute all the afghan insurgents and religious extremist leaders! that'll do it!" "hey, i know a way we can get rid of political dissidents AND make it look like our enemies did it! they'll never find out!") but because it was already tried in afghanistan and failed

It failed because the soviets didn't execute enough of them. Hitler took out 6 million jews in 3 years in 1942-1945. I think we can kill 30 million afghans in 9 years in the 21st century.

Why are you pro-genocide in Afghanistan?
The vast majority of Afghans, like any wartorn country, aren't combatants.

[Fordorsia]

I think everyone's forgetting the fact that he straight up murdered a dude.

[Ifreann]

Afghanistan isn't uncivilised.

---

What does it matter?

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

The TALIBAN are uncivilized. Do you realize who we are actually fighting? The Afghan National Army is fine, in fact they are helping us fight the religious extremist savages that the man killed.

If you meant the Taliban then maybe you should have said that.

Why does it matter? Because it is easy to think yourself morale superior as you sit in a safe environment and watch MLP, going on the internet and claim they would have taken a different approach to a to a incredibly intense and emotional situation that you have never actually been exposed to,

I suppose it is easy. Doesn't especially change anything, since intense and emotional situations don't excuse cold-blooded murder.

as men risk their lives IN THOSE SITUATIONS to protect people like you from having to be in those situations.

The War in Afghanistan is doing basically shit all to protect me from anything.

And why should you listen to me? Well, for the reason i gave. Its easy to attack a man's "credentials" instead of arguing the validity of his statement.

So no reason at all. You have no particular knowledge of warfare, whereas the actual British Military quite obviously does.

If i really wanted too, i could attack your expertise in the situation in any given conversation, but lets stay on the topic, shall we?

Like...how you did?

I do not condone the actions of the man, but express the importance of realizing who the real enemy is.

So you agree with his conviction and life sentence? Good.

[The High Guardians]

I've seen videos of Apache gunships tearing groups of Taliban fighters up and then coming back to finish those laying on the ground off, were they charged with murder? No they were not. IF he had survived, he would have gone onto kill more civilians and soldiers. Lets not forget the Taliban ideology is on par with German Fascism? Okay, what would you say to an allied soldier shooting dead a SS trooper who was laying injured next to a death camp?

[Risottia]

I've seen videos of Apache gunships tearing groups of Taliban fighters up

Perfectly legit.

and then coming back to finish those laying on the ground off,

Murder. By the military law of almost every country in the world and by international laws.
Also, sauce on your claim?

were they charged with murder? No they were not.

I'm totally sure that failing to prosecute one or more murders legitimates all other murders.
Where did you study law, at Failing Hard At Logic Summer Camp?
Also, sauce on your claim?

IF he had survived, he would have gone onto kill more civilians and soldiers.

This is a speculation of yours. Law is about facts.
Another possible scenario would have been the Taliban being treated and then handed over to the legitimate Afghani authorities for a trial for his eventual crimes. And maybe him also turning coat and spilling about other Talibans.

Lets not forget the Taliban ideology is on par with German Fascism?

And I'm sure this proves British soldiers don't have to obey British military law.
OH WAIT. No, that's utter bullshit.

Okay, what would you say to an allied soldier shooting dead a SS trooper who was laying injured next to a death camp?

That he's a criminal. Deliberately and illegally killing defenseless people is murder.

[Risottia]

i like to call your approach the soviet approach, not only because it's pretty damn similar ("hey, let's execute all the afghan insurgents and religious extremist leaders! that'll do it!" "hey, i know a way we can get rid of political dissidents AND make it look like our enemies did it! they'll never find out!") but because it was already tried in afghanistan and failed

It failed because the soviets didn't execute enough of them. Hitler took out 6 million jews in 3 years in 1942-1945. I think we can kill 30 million afghans in 9 years in the 21st century.

Apart from your incitation to genocide, Hitler failed, by the way.

[Ifreann]

I've seen videos of Apache gunships tearing groups of Taliban fighters up and then coming back to finish those laying on the ground off, were they charged with murder? No they were not.

I've seen videos of Godzilla thrashing Tokyo. Was he charged with murder? No he was not.

IF he had survived, he would have gone onto kill more civilians and soldiers.

Maybe so. Maybe you'll go on to kill civilians and soldiers.

Lets not forget the Taliban ideology is on par with German Fascism? Okay, what would you say to an allied soldier shooting dead a SS trooper who was laying injured next to a death camp?

"You're under arrest for murder, surrender your weapons and come with me"

[Farnhamia]

i like to call your approach the soviet approach, not only because it's pretty damn similar ("hey, let's execute all the afghan insurgents and religious extremist leaders! that'll do it!" "hey, i know a way we can get rid of political dissidents AND make it look like our enemies did it! they'll never find out!") but because it was already tried in afghanistan and failed

It failed because the soviets didn't execute enough of them. Hitler took out 6 million jews in 3 years in 1942-1945. I think we can kill 30 million afghans in 9 years in the 21st century.

*** Warned for trolling ***

[Ragnarum]

Is this still being talked about?

[Ifreann]

Is this still being talked about?

No. You're having a very specific hallucination due to something you ate. If the condition persists, contact a physician.

[Ragnarum]

Is this still being talked about?

No. You're having a very specific hallucination due to something you ate. If the condition persists, contact a physician.

Ok then.

[Out Of The Ashes]

While they're dealing with this cock could they not go after the ones stating they shot unarmed civilians in the 70s in the North of Ireland too

[Imperializt Russia]

I've seen videos of Apache gunships tearing groups of Taliban fighters up

Perfectly legit.

and then coming back to finish those laying on the ground off,

Murder. By the military law of almost every country in the world and by international laws.
Also, sauce on your claim?

I don't believe it is.

In any case, in the British forces at least, all gun tapes must be reviewed by a senior officer as part of the debriefing of air operations.

[Nadkor]

Murder. By the military law of almost every country in the world and by international laws.
Also, sauce on your claim?

I don't believe it is.

Nobody gives a shit what you believe.

It's unlawful killing under British law and under the laws of war within which British Armed Forces are required to operate.

Regardless of whether we consider the insurgent to be an actual prisoner of war (which I wouldn't) or to be a civilian who has been arrested by the British Army (which is how I, and I think international law, would see it) it was unlawful to kill him.

It was murder. Of which the soldier was rightfully convicted.

And while what you "believe" contradicts facts and actual reality nobody gives a shit what you "believe". I can "believe" that Manchester is 20 miles from London, but it doesn't make it so.

It's irrelevant bullshit. You're talking bullshit.

[The High Guardians]

Dude if I posted the video on here of Taliban insurgents being blown to bits by shells...I'd be banned quicker than you could say "Enemy insurgent down!"

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't believe it is.

Nobody gives a shit what you believe.

It's unlawful killing under British law and under the laws of war within which British Armed Forces are required to operate.

Regardless of whether we consider the insurgent to be an actual prisoner of war (which I wouldn't) or to be a civilian who has been arrested by the British Army (which is how I, and I think international law, would see it) it was unlawful to kill him.

It was murder. Of which the soldier was rightfully convicted.

And while what you "believe" contradicts facts and actual reality nobody gives a shit what you "believe". I can "believe" that Manchester is 20 miles from London, but it doesn't make it so.

It's irrelevant bullshit. You're talking bullshit.

I've already given my opinion on the OP event, which is... not what you seem to be responding to.

This is to the claim that helicopter gunships repeatedly firing at insurgents on the ground may or may not be war crimes. By and large, it does not seem to be.