Gurkha ordered back to UK after beheading dead Taliban fighter

rypt said:
War cannot be won by politicians though, which is my point.

They can "end" it, but they cannot get a victory.

Politicians did not get a victory in WW2 or Falklands, the armies did
Click to expand...

Politics decide everything, from engagement, to withdrawal. The military are simply a tool to gain a political objective.
 
Castiel said:
So we should compromise our own values and morals simply because those we fight against (because of their lack of morals and values) simply to gain an easier victory. Why fight at all, nuke them all.

Our raison d'etre is to overthrow those despotic values and encourage a free, democratic system within Afghanistan, you cannot resort to the total war tactics you suggest and ultimately accomplish your objectives.

I would not have been able to use some of the tactics employed by the insurgents especially regarding reprisals and civilian punishment in good conscience.

Becoming the enemy to defeat the enemy is self-defeating.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you have said there, and I know that the total war approach I am suggesting will never work, but it does highlight some important questions

Why is our raison d'etre to overthrow despotic vlaues and encourgae a free democratic system in Afghanistan ? who are we to be acting in such a 'police the world' fashion. Why is our way of life supposedly better than theirs.

Ultimately as someone else said in an earlier post this war will never be won by the generals. I don't even think the politicians can win it either. History has taught us that wining in Afghanistan is nigh on impossible. The former USSR spent years there in the 80's to early 90's and they employed a few questionable tactics and still were unable to secure a meaningful victory.

I know total war tactics can't bring victory, but then what is the victory we are looking to achieve ?

total annihilation of the Taliban ?
imposition of a new political system in the country ?

what is our end game in Afghanistan. I don't think anyone can really say with any conviction what we are really doing there. People throw around the 'we are there to protect our way of life from terrorists' but since we deployed there an to Iraq we were subject to more acts / attempts of acts of terrorism than before. So I don't think we are really any safer than when we started this ludicrous war.
 
Castiel said:
Politics decide everything, from engagement, to withdrawal. The military are simply a tool to gain a political objective.
Click to expand...

A withdrawl is not a victory, a victory occurs via the actions of the military ... the withdrawl is just the time at which you measure whether you've won or not

For instance, we withdrew from Iraq but we did not win there
 
this is their custom.thats why the enemy have always feared the ghurkas over the years.our government has always dumped on the ghurkas even though they have done great things for this country.
 
stupid media blowing things out of proportion... It was not meant in malice, nor to demean the enemy, it's a perfect proof of ID... I certainly hope this person doesn't face consequences for his actions... the army shouldn't have to answer to media pressure .. this should have been swept under the rug and ignored.... "offending muslims"- its ridiculous.. the person lost in the field of battle, a commander i may add, his body wasn't hung on a pole, his head was cut off as proof of id, if they're so bothered, they should just return the head..
 
Last edited:
How can politics win this war? The only way the war is going to end is by eradicating the Taliban which to be honest is never going to happen anyway.

I really cannot see how. They are extremists for a reason(they don't give a ****) & like hell the Taliban will listen to any of our Politician anyways. It is a battle that can never be won & everyone knows it.

On to the topic I say good on the Gurkha.
 
Mattey1 said:
How can politics win this war? The only way the war is going to end is by eradicating the Taliban which to be honest is never going to happen anyway.

I really cannot see how. They are extremists for a reason(they don't give a ****) & like hell the Taliban will listen to any of our Politician anyways. It is a battle that can never be won & everyone knows it.

On to the topic I say good on the Gurkha.
Click to expand...

which brings me again to say, if its a war we know we can't win why the hell are we there ? better to come home and save the lives of our troops than needlessly send them to their deaths for a cause that 1. no one knows and 2. we can't win
 
rypt said:
A withdrawl is not a victory, a victory occurs via the actions of the military ... the withdrawl is just the time at which you measure whether you've won or not

For instance, we withdrew from Iraq but we did not win there
Click to expand...

You ae missing the point entirely. Our civilian Government decide the objectives and the military is a tool of that Government to acheive those objectives. The Politicians decide, the militiary do.

A withdrawal can indeed be because those objectives have been accomplished, thus facititating a victory in those terms.

Back to the Geneva Convention however:
Article 2 GPGC:

1..In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

2..The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

3.. Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Article 3 GPGC.

1..Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

* violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
* taking of hostages;
* outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
* the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Basically as long as the Taliban are considered Combatants (which they are) then we are subject to the Geneva Convention and they should be treated within its bounds, this includes not mutilating their bodies in the event of death.

We also have the Unlawful Combatant status, but that is not applied to the Taliban Fighters like it has been to al-Qaeda operatives and that is a legal minefield to say the least.
 
rypt said:
Take Falklands for example, the MOD felt that the best way to get the Argies to give the islands back was to send some bombers to Buenos Aires, Thatcher blocked that plan as she felt it would upset Regan.
Click to expand...

to be fair to her she did threaten to nuke Buenos Aires unless the French turned over exocet codes.


* violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
* taking of hostages;
* outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
Click to expand...


just me or do both of your highlighted bits apply to living people?
 
Tefal said:
just me or do both of your highlighted bits apply to living people?
Click to expand...

If you read the whole thing it states:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause,
Click to expand...


Being dead could come under any other cause.
 
this makes me so mad about the so called rules of engagement.my brother in law is in the TA.he did 6 months in iraq and was in basra.he had bullets wizzing past his head and was NOT allowed to fire back as they were there as peace keepers.they were not allowed to antagonise the iraqi ppl.how can we fight wars like that and win???
 
well there is nothing to win anyway, from what i saw on the news Iraq is going to crumble and a new military regime is going to come in and replace saddam ultimately...

ah well
 
FTM said:
are the Taliban covered under the geneva convention anyway as they are not a recognised uniformed enemy force?

you see a lot of shotguns being used in house clearances now which I am sure wouldnt normally be allowed to be used against enemy soldiers but I assume are ok against the taliban?
Click to expand...

Similar to shotguns, I was wondering about the use of Barret .50 sniper rifles. Before the war in Iraq I read in a few places that they were strictly anti-material rifles under the Geneva Convention. Now they are openly used against human targets. What changed?
 
Forde said:
Similar to shotguns, I was wondering about the use of Barret .50 sniper rifles. Before the war in Iraq I read in a few places that they were strictly anti-material rifles under the Geneva Convention. Now they are openly used against human targets. What changed?
Click to expand...
They're not as popular as games would have you believe apparently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom