British soldier executes Afghan insurgent.

[Priory Academy USSR]

I suspect many people who have committed war crimes over the years were mentally ill, too. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be charged for what they did.

Or it could be evidence that perhaps the notion of "war crimes" is a silly one, because when exposed to kill or be killed environments on a regular basis, standard morality does not apply.

How so? People who engage in such activities are obviously a danger to society who need help and rehabilitation: the whole point of prison (or in extreme cases, mental hospitals).

[Trotskylvania]

Geneva Conventions. Look it up.

Oh, you mean that Liberal hogwash full of crap about things that don't actually exist? Like rights?

Pass.

They executed a captured enemy combatant extrajudicially.

For their own good, they should be imprisoned for the rest of their lives to think about what they did.

No, they should be praised for taking out another mass murdering Islamic extremist. These men eliminated a monster from the world, there is no evil here.

I love it when people who proudly identify with a totalitarian ideology that fetishizes order above everything else start condoning flagrant acts of lawlessness.

It's almost beautiful.

[Aurora Novus]

Or it could be evidence that perhaps the notion of "war crimes" is a silly one, because when exposed to kill or be killed environments on a regular basis, standard morality does not apply.

How so? People who engage in such activities are obviously a danger to society who need help and rehabilitation: the whole point of prison (or in extreme cases, mental hospitals).

It doesn't strike you at all odd that we have "rules" for how we go about killing each other?

You know, considering we're killing each other. I really don't think anyone can say they are "morally superior" in such a conext. I mean, war is literally one society versus another. One people group seeking to dominate and/or eliminate the other society/culture. I don't really believe standard morality applies to that situation, outside of condeming the entre notion of war itself. But to try and say that one person being slightly more violent than another to their enemies is "morally wrong" is just silly.

[Ragnarum]

Oh, you mean that Liberal hogwash full of crap about things that don't actually exist? Like rights?

Pass.



No, they should be praised for taking out another mass murdering Islamic extremist. These men eliminated a monster from the world, there is no evil here.

I love it when people who proudly identify with a totalitarian ideology that fetishizes order above everything else start condoning flagrant acts of lawlessness.

It's almost beautiful.

Except not?
That doesn't make any sense.

I now give less shit about the Geneva convention if this is what it makes people deem an important issue.
An Afghan insurgent got shot in a war, now that person is dead and gone.
Nothing bad happened, move along.

How so? People who engage in such activities are obviously a danger to society who need help and rehabilitation: the whole point of prison (or in extreme cases, mental hospitals).

It doesn't strike you at all odd that we have "rules" for how we go about killing each other?

You know, considering we're killing each other. I really don't think anyone can say they are "morally superior" in such a conext. I mean, war is literally one society versus another. One people group seeking to dominate and/or eliminate the other society/culture. I don't really believe standard morality applies to that situation, outside of condeming the entre notion of war itself. But to try and say that one person being slightly more violent than another to their enemies is "morally wrong" is just silly.

That too.

[Hollorous]

Obviously, this is very bad: as the soldier himself stated, he broke the Geneva Convention. Still, though, some of the blame must be put on the extreme stress during their tour and potential PTSD. Months in a warzone seeing collleagues die is bound to change people.

this is the same tripe that has been used to defend every massacre and war crime ever

just thought you'd like to know

Concur.

Hypocritical too. I'd like to see the same rationale applied to the Taliban, just once.

"He just threw some acid in that girl's face!" "Well, the combat stress of being hunted all the time, getting into firefights, getting shelled and shot at...just made that poor Pashtun snap."

[Risottia]

The fact that this court martial is happening suggests that the law does apply in reality.

Then again, reality is known to have a liberal bias. Hence, we must discount reality.

The law applies, but the law is not reality.

The rulings issued by a court according to the law translate into real imprisonment or real acquittal.

edit: fixed quotes

[Risottia]

It doesn't strike you at all odd that we have "rules" for how we go about killing each other?

No, because the point of a war isn't "go about killing EVERYONE ELSE". It's "apply threats of violence and actual violence, even to the point of killing, to achieve a political purpose".
Having rules about who you kill, who you don't kill, and how you kill helps further the political purpose.

Contrary to what many people seem to think, war isn't mindless, lawless violence. It's violence with a specific intention and specific rules to achieve it.

[Ifreann]

And do you sympathise with the people they're fighting too? Because it really seems like you're trying to avoid classing these men as bad people because they're on the right side of the conflict.

yes, yes i do. they are fighting another monolithic empire coming to take over again. but i really don't know him, he could have just been fighting for his family, or he could have been a sadistic murderer.

the injured prisoner was an insurgent, so what he did before hand was pretty damn relevant to the troopers. war fucks you up.

Maybe war fucked you up, but you can't really speak for anyone else. Most soldiers seem to manage to deal with war without becoming murderers, so it being a war is no excuse.

---

"This is very bad"

"No it isn't, insurgents broke the Geneva Convention too"

Am I misreading something here?

Ah. It's now clearer how you misinterpreted my context.

My nitpick is not with the rules of war or even with either side, but rather with the media coverage and outraged indignation this has drawn while David John Addison gets a column each in two minor UK papers. Hence, the big deal sarcasm.

What, do you expect newspapers to run stories every day on how the Taliban aren't nice people? That's not news, man. Everyone knows that. You may as well run stories about the sky being blue or rain being wet.

---

I don't think he did anything wrong. What is the difference, if he shot him from 300 ft away or 3 ft away.
It was the enemy and this is what real war is, you can't go smack an insurgent on the wrist and say, "Don't do it again!".

In real war you aren't allowed to execute injured prisoners. If you do, and you're caught, you'll be subject to a court martial. Like what's happening right now.

But please, tell us more about your knowledge of real war, person who is most likely a teenage boy whose only experience of war is FPS games.

---

Sounds like that soldier was just putting the insurgent out of his misery.

Even though Marine C testified that he thought the insurgent was dead? Even though excerpts from his diary show him writing that he wanted to shoot the insurgent himself and was annoyed that Marine A shot him instead? Sounds like you're just making up bullshit so you can excuse a blatant act of murder.

Not a first for this thread.

---

I love it when people who proudly identify with a totalitarian ideology that fetishizes order above everything else start condoning flagrant acts of lawlessness.

It's almost beautiful.

Except not?
That doesn't make any sense.

I now give less shit about the Geneva convention if this is what it makes people deem an important issue.
An Afghan insurgent got shot in a war, now that person is dead and gone.
Nothing bad happened, move along.

An injured prisoner was murdered.

[Galloism]

yes, yes i do. they are fighting another monolithic empire coming to take over again. but i really don't know him, he could have just been fighting for his family, or he could have been a sadistic murderer.

the injured prisoner was an insurgent, so what he did before hand was pretty damn relevant to the troopers. war fucks you up.

Maybe war fucked you up, but you can't really speak for anyone else. Most soldiers seem to manage to deal with war without becoming murderers, so it being a war is no excuse.

---

Ah. It's now clearer how you misinterpreted my context.

My nitpick is not with the rules of war or even with either side, but rather with the media coverage and outraged indignation this has drawn while David John Addison gets a column each in two minor UK papers. Hence, the big deal sarcasm.

What, do you expect newspapers to run stories every day on how the Taliban aren't nice people? That's not news, man. Everyone knows that. You may as well run stories about the sky being blue or rain being wet.

---

I don't think he did anything wrong. What is the difference, if he shot him from 300 ft away or 3 ft away.
It was the enemy and this is what real war is, you can't go smack an insurgent on the wrist and say, "Don't do it again!".

In real war you aren't allowed to execute injured prisoners. If you do, and you're caught, you'll be subject to a court martial. Like what's happening right now.

But please, tell us more about your knowledge of real war, person who is most likely a teenage boy whose only experience of war is FPS games.

---

Sounds like that soldier was just putting the insurgent out of his misery.

Even though Marine C testified that he thought the insurgent was dead? Even though excerpts from his diary show him writing that he wanted to shoot the insurgent himself and was annoyed that Marine A shot him instead? Sounds like you're just making up bullshit so you can excuse a blatant act of murder.

Not a first for this thread.

---

Except not?
That doesn't make any sense.

I now give less shit about the Geneva convention if this is what it makes people deem an important issue.
An Afghan insurgent got shot in a war, now that person is dead and gone.
Nothing bad happened, move along.

An injured prisoner was murdered.

And that's not the Jedi way.

[L Ron Cupboard]

One found guilty, two acquitted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24870699

Seems a pretty good verdict to me.

[Ifreann]

One found guilty, two acquitted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24870699

Seems a pretty good verdict to me.

Marine A was convicted by a seven-strong board, consisting of officers and non-commissioned officers.

Looking forward to more top prestige COD players telling us that they know more about real war than these actual soldiers.

[UNIverseVERSE]

I think in order to be under the protection of the Geneva convention the insurgent would have had to qualify as a legal combatant . Considering that he was fighting against the recognised afghan government and not a member of any formal army I'm not sure that he would have been, and thus wouldn't have been protected under the convention. I could be wrong.

If he wasn't a legally recognised combatant, then he was a civilian.

And pretty much the only thing worse than executing prisoners of war is shooting civilians in cold blood, so...

This false attempt to invent some category of enemy who the laws don't apply to is bollocks. Either he's a combatant, held as a prisoner of war - in which case you can't just up and shoot him without a trial etc. Or he's a civilian - in which case you can't just up and shoot him without a trial etc. No inbetween.

[Ragnarum]

Except not?
That doesn't make any sense.

I now give less shit about the Geneva convention if this is what it makes people deem an important issue.
An Afghan insurgent got shot in a war, now that person is dead and gone.
Nothing bad happened, move along.

An injured prisoner was murdered.

An injured Afghan insurgent was shot in a war would be more realistic of a statement.

Imo, murder doesn't happen in war, war has its own word and definition for it, and it isn't considered bad usually.

Genocide on the other hand, is obviously bad.
But this isn't genocide, nor a mass execution.

[Neo-Achaemenid Empire (Ancient)]

An injured prisoner was murdered.

An injured Afghan insurgent was shot in a war would be more realistic of a statement.

Imo, murder doesn't happen in war, war has its own word and definition for it, and it isn't considered bad usually.

So I guess if a soldier just picked a random civilian off the street during a war and shot them in the head, that isn't murder right?

[Ragnarum]

An injured Afghan insurgent was shot in a war would be more realistic of a statement.

Imo, murder doesn't happen in war, war has its own word and definition for it, and it isn't considered bad usually.

So I guess if a soldier just picked a random civilian off the street during a war and shot them in the head, that isn't murder right?

Thats killing a civilian, which is bad

However, when they start to shoot at you...

[Escasia]

An injured prisoner was murdered.

An injured Afghan insurgent was shot in a war would be more realistic of a statement.

No, Ifreann's statement was more accurate because it actually takes into account that the insurgent was a prisoner of war and no longer a combatant.

So I guess if a soldier just picked a random civilian off the street during a war and shot them in the head, that isn't murder right?

Thats killing a civilian, which is bad

However, when they start to shoot at you...

If they're your prisoner and disarmed, they're not shooting at you. Non-combatant. Any harm inflicted upon them beyond this point is a crime.

[Neo-Achaemenid Empire (Ancient)]

So I guess if a soldier just picked a random civilian off the street during a war and shot them in the head, that isn't murder right?

Thats killing a civilian, which is bad

However, when they start to shoot at you...

Ah, but you said there is no murder in war.

[Ragnarum]

Thats killing a civilian, which is bad

However, when they start to shoot at you...

Ah, but you said there is no murder in war.

No there isn't, but that doesn't make killing civilians all right.

And technically, the civilians can be murdered since they should be separate from the war.

An injured Afghan insurgent was shot in a war would be more realistic of a statement.

No, Ifreann's statement was more accurate because it actually takes into account that the insurgent was a prisoner of war and no longer a combatant.

Thats killing a civilian, which is bad

However, when they start to shoot at you...

If they're your prisoner and disarmed, they're not shooting at you. Non-combatant. Any harm inflicted upon them beyond this point is a crime.

So? Still an Afghan insurgent, and as mentioned before they would gladly kill them if they captured them.
And before you ask, if the taliban/afghan insurgents do this without taking into account how their enemies usually treat them (take them prisoner), then yes, we should 'stoop down to their level', maybe then it will help stop people from joining these groups, its not like we bomb weddings etc.

[Verdum]

Let's all feel bad for the insurgent, a fellow who probably did the same thing once or twice.

[The Equal Peoples State of Steelia]

It's war in a war morality is not a priority that man he killed took part in a war it doesn't matter how he was killed but he was killed and that's how war works

[Neo-Achaemenid Empire (Ancient)]

Let's all feel bad for the insurgent, a fellow who probably did the same thing once or twice.

So we should stoop to his level then shall we? Thus forfeiting any moral high ground? Brilliant idea.

[New Frenco Empire]

Shame on the soldier...for getting caught. Make sure the camera is off next time.

[Verdum]

Let's all feel bad for the insurgent, a fellow who probably did the same thing once or twice.

So we should stoop to his level then shall we? Thus forfeiting any moral high ground? Brilliant idea.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

[Blasveck]

Ah, but you said there is no murder in war.

No there isn't, but that doesn't make killing civilians all right.

No, Ifreann's statement was more accurate because it actually takes into account that the insurgent was a prisoner of war and no longer a combatant.



If they're your prisoner and disarmed, they're not shooting at you. Non-combatant. Any harm inflicted upon them beyond this point is a crime.

So? Still an Afghan insurgent, and as mentioned before they would gladly kill them if they captured them.
And before you ask, if the taliban/afghan insurgents do this without taking into account how their enemies usually treat them (take them prisoner), then yes, we should 'stoop down to their level', maybe then it will help stop people from joining these groups, its not like we bomb weddings etc.

I get the feeling you're not understanding the repercussions of the statements you're making concerning the treatment of prisoners.

[Neo-Achaemenid Empire (Ancient)]

Ah, but you said there is no murder in war.

No there isn't, but that doesn't make killing civilians all right.

And technically, the civilians can be murdered since they should be separate from the war.

But they aren't separate from war.

And murdering injured, prisoners of war is bad as well. Which is what this murderer did.