Gurkha ordered back to UK after beheading dead Taliban fighter

ChrisJSY said:
I see no problem either, nobody complained when they killed the said "taliban fighter" did they.

Quote...
-"This is considered a gross insult to the Muslims of Afghanistan! and
-"trying to build bridges with local Afghan communities who have spent decades under Taliban rule."

Doesn't stop other *cough* "muslims" *cough* cutting off other peoples heads now and which is it?
An insult to muslims who oppose or support the taliban? I guess it doesn't matter though, good or bad I think they want the dead to be respected the same.

Which I absolutely do not agree with.
Click to expand...
exactly... if its such an insult dont be a taliban member....

its different when they drag dead soldiers behind pickup trucks often with the bodies on fire parading them around a village or whatever

That's not always the case, but then you take the entire body.

For one of our soldiers to behead a body is disgraceful and goes against core targets of the mission.
Click to expand...
its fine to blow someone to peices with a grenade or whatever though?
 
arknor said:
its fine to blow someone to peices with a grenade or whatever though?
Click to expand...

Yes you are neutralising a target in combat.

Not everyone over there is Taliban and not everyone supports them, or parades dead soldiers about. Huge generalisation and teh attitudes in this thread are pretty disgusting.
They do it, so we can. What a load of rubbish.
 
ac1d1ty said:
Because in the troubles the British troops really were so honourable and wouldn't dream of shooting them.

:rolleyes:


Guess you haven't heard the old trick of shouting surrender 3 times......whilst firing your machine gun.

Have a read up on the shoot to kill policy that was evident in Northern Ireland.....
Click to expand...

Your talking B/S I have served in northern myself.
 
ac1d1ty said:
Because in the troubles the British troops really were so honourable and wouldn't dream of shooting them.

:rolleyes:


Guess you haven't heard the old trick of shouting surrender 3 times......whilst firing your machine gun.

Have a read up on the shoot to kill policy that was evident in Northern Ireland.....
Click to expand...
I've read more than you on the subject, I assure you. Plus two of my friends served in NI, so, yeah...

The link you posted does not mention normal troops. The SAS are hardly likely to go around shooting up marketplaces.


ac1d1ty said:
What changed is that the general rule is you do not engage the human target, you target his webbing ;)

Achieves the same end, but circumvents the GC quite nicely.
Click to expand...
I'm beginning to think you're on crack.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

You don't need to eradicate them, You need a decent Afghan Army and police to be able to secure themselves, this is being worked on albeit at far to slow a pace.
 
pirate said:
The politicians know that. But admitting defeat is the last thing this country needs. The soviet union broke up for a similar reason.
Click to expand...


last thing we need or last thing we care about ?
we CANNOT win this war unless we kill everybody there and if we are willing to do that.... then the wrong side won.
 
pirate said:
"Decent" by whose standards?
Click to expand...

decent in the sense it can achieve it's objective. Mainly once the international army has destroyed or captured Taliban strongholds they don;t allow them to fall once again.
And are good at their job and don;t take bribes or as the book I'm reading at the moment says. Put roadblocks up and demeaned extortionate amounts of money.


You need policy/army that civilians generally accept and respect as well as economic boost. Why have they not legalised opium production for medical use. Isn't there a world shortage?

we CANNOT win this war unless we kill everybody there and if we are willing to do that.... then the wrong side won.
Click to expand...
Why on both accounts.
 
meghatronic said:
I'm beginning to think you're on crack.
Click to expand...

I have actually been told by several people that have served in Afghanistan and read the same in various books. Though they were talking about using 50 cal machine gun, would make sense that it would apply to the rifle as well
 
AcidHell2 said:
Why on both accounts.
Click to expand...


Amnesia said:
we CANNOT win this war unless we kill everybody there and if we are willing to do that.
Click to expand...

because we are not fighting just a set amount of taliban fighters. the people what we call terrorists are afghanistans people who are fighting against our occupation of their country....now unless we are willing to pretty much kill all their people they will keep coming.



Amnesia said:
then the wrong side won.
Click to expand...

you really need to ask ?
 
Amnesia said:
because we are not fighting just a set amount of taliban fighters. the people what we call terrorists are afghanistans people who are fighting against our occupation of their country....now unless we are willing to pretty much kill all their people they will keep coming.
Click to expand...

But this is not the case they are not all Taliban. There is a huge amount of none Taliban supporters.

It's like say all people in NI want independence.
 
meghatronic said:
I've read more than you on the subject, I assure you. Plus two of my friends served in NI, so, yeah...

The link you posted does not mention normal troops. The SAS are hardly likely to go around shooting up marketplaces.



I'm beginning to think you're on crack.
Click to expand...

Ignore him, he is talking rubbish as anyone who has served in NI or used a sniper rifle in combat will tell you.

The shoot-to-kill allegations were made on a few select operations and no allegation of them being standing orders was ever made.
 
Repta said:
I have actually been told by several people that have served in Afghanistan and read the same in various books. Though they were talking about using 50 cal machine gun, would make sense that it would apply to the rifle as well
Click to expand...

The misconception that some treaties including the GC ban the use of .50 Cal Sniper Rifles against human targets and that commanders advised soldiers to aim for webbing instead si just that, a misconception. It has no basis in fact.

It was simply not a major application in it's design.
 
Last edited:
AcidHell2 said:
But they aren't all fighting us, a fraction of the population are fighting us.
Click to expand...

it's not about how many are fighting us currently but how many want us there and who they support. we are an occupying western force and these are very strict muslims, what ever gives you the illusion that they will be happy ?
 
Amnesia said:
it's not about how many are fighting us currently but how many want us there and who they support. we are an occupying western force and these are very strict muslims, what ever gives you the illusion that they will be happy ?
Click to expand...

It is not a permanent occupation. In fact it is not an occupation at all, aren't we there under afghan governments request

How many are fighting us.

How many have joined the police/army and other goverment agencies
How many are living there lives as normally as possible.

One far outways the other
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
The misconception that some treaties including the GC ban the use of .50 Cal Sniper Rifles against human targets and that commanders advised soldiers to aim for webbing instead si just that, a misconception. It has no basis in fact.

It was simply not a major application in it's design. I served in Afghanistan and Iraq as a Sniper and I can tell you that you can indeed use any .50 cal rifle against human enemy targets without contravening any treaty agreements currently in place.
Click to expand...
I thought .338 was the 'daddy' nowadays anyway? (e.g. L115A1 rather than AW50).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom