Gurkha ordered back to UK after beheading dead Taliban fighter

[The Running Man]

Of course you can have we not got peace in NI, keep it going and eventually as new generations come through hostilities decrease.

well there have been multiple bombings already this year, is that peace?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/16/northern-ireland-bombing-lurgan-reaction

an earlier bombing:

chairman of the nationalist SDLP in Newry, Gary McKeown, condemned those responsible. "Lives could have been lost as a result of this bombing," he said. "It serves absolutely no purpose and does nothing for the community, or the cause of a united Ireland. If people want to advance their beliefs, they should enter the democratic process and debate with their political opponents, rather than resorting to violence. Planting bombs outside courthouses will achieve nothing."

Earlier this month, police on both sides of the Irish border launched separate operations against dissident republicans. Police in Northern Ireland arrested two men and a woman in connection with the murder of Constable Stephen Carroll, the first PSNI officer killed by terrorists in the province.

The Continuity IRA shot the 48-year-old policeman dead on a housing estate in Craigavon, County Armagh, on 9 March last year. His murder came just 48 hours after the Real IRA killed two British soldiers outside the Massereene barracks in Antrim. In September police discovered a massive 600lb bomb in the south Armagh village of Forkhill.

how many years has this been dragging on for?

the people in iraq are much more..easily exciteable shall we say and will possibly never be made to see 'sense' or join hands and accept each other or a peace. can we afford to stay in iraq for that long?

would it not be better to pull out and let them 'get it out of their system' once and for all?
or to let china solve the issue being as they have the oil contracts which are worth protecting etc

 

[Glaucus]

What do you not understand about things taking lots of time. What do you keep bring up the current state as some sort of argument that it is not working. These things can not happen over night.


How long did NI take to get to this point. Iraq is harder than that.

The proccess hasn't even started yet. The real work will start when and if they get a general sense of stability.

We don't need to stay there that long. We have to stay and support Iraq goverment until they can secure themselves.

 

[The Running Man]

What do you not understand about things taking lots of time. What do you keep bring up the current state as some sort of argument that it is not working. These things can not happen over night.


How long did NI take to get to this point. Iraq is harder than that.

thats what i mean, iraq is a much longer burner that NI and NI has been raging for how long now?

do you expect our troops or US troops to stay there until that happens? what time frame is reasonable for this to happen, i reckon you;d be lucky if it took less than a century.

i guess my point is, you either decide that you are going to invest hundred years of peace process or you rule them like saddam did. currently we are doing neither and they are almost spiralling out of control

 

[Glaucus]

We don't need to be thee until you have peace.

You only need to stay untill internal forces, police, departments can secure themselfs.

 

[The Running Man]

but we are still in NI..otherwise a british soldier wouldnt have been killed last year outside his barracks.

we have never been able to broker peace in the middle east without uber control. as i say, what about israel and palestine?

 

[Glaucus]

Because NI is part of us, hence we are there.
Longterm it is Iraq government that has to do the peace process.

What about isreal and palistine? Different situation for a start and as I keep say UN needs to grow some balls. It should not be down to us to do this on our own. It should be UN which would also protect against self interest and improve public opinion and lower costs as it would be split.

 

[meghatronic]

tbh, it amazes me at the blindness of people and the way they only see a single aspect of a very complex and unstable situation.

I can't think of a single serious issue that the average person can knowledgeable comment on. I was reduced to things like "how to use the bathroom" but even then I drew blanks as some people blatantly can't.

Trident, Iraq/Afghan, Iran, Economy.. these aren't little issues. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[naefeart]

Those top brass sitting comfortably behind their desks will have a very good idea, as they will have seen combat at some point in their career.

Indeed because history hasn't shown us in that past that the men ordering others into battle are at all out of touch with life on the front lines

Having previous combat experience and being there at the time when this particular solider (and his squad) were taking fire are completely different. No-one, other than his teammates will ever fully appreciate the mavity of the situation that lead this soldier to decide to take the actions he did.

Sure, his superiors will make judgement based on the reports, their background and what ever politics/public pandering is involved. Doesn't mean this soldier didn't do the best thing at the time for him and his team.

The original point I was trying to make was how can people with little idea of what was going on, sit there and say:'ooh why didn't he just get his camera out? simples blah blah.'

 

[Calabi]

Its funny how, we go to war and yet some people cant take the ramifications of war.

Its like with the geneva convention. Its rubbish. All these rules to make war more civilised and palatable. That wont prevent wars. Just make it more likely.

No wars before breakfast. No interrupting one another when they are speaking. No killing one another unless written permission is given first.

War is hell and should always be. They do to the worst to you, you do the worst to them, one side feels a bit sick. Has second thoughts. One side wins or capitulates.

You cant put judgements on what people are doing in direct conflicts, they are making split second decisions, they have literally split seconds to decide whether they live or die or what may be the best course of action to take.

And saying about how the natives will percieve this and will hate the army. The army is not a PR machine, its a fighting machine. The army never can never (in the long term, on its own) win the hearts and minds of the people.

Besides doing whatever they are doing in afghanistan will never work, not the way they are doing it, and they know it.

 

[dustofnations]

Its funny how, we go to war and yet some people cant take the ramifications of war.

On this point, you're absolutely right. There were some polls taken recently, where almost all respondents stated that soldiers should have the best equipment and vehicles available, and increases in helicopters and surveillance.

An almost equal number also stated that defence spending (and hence taxation) should not increase. So people want major improvements without actually having it impact their own pockets, completely impossible.

Sentiment is all well and good, but if it isn't backed with substance it is just hot air really.

I'm not making any particular commentary on the rights/wrongs of the war incidentally, just an observation.

 

[EdGey]

Why train them to be ruthless and formidable soldiers if you are then going to punish them for being those very things.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

From what I hear, the Gurkhas' have a natural instinct and ability that training can't give.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

Indeed because history hasn't shown us in that past that the men ordering others into battle are at all out of touch with life on the front lines

Having previous combat experience and being there at the time when this particular solider (and his squad) were taking fire are completely different. No-one, other than his teammates will ever fully appreciate the mavity of the situation that lead this soldier to decide to take the actions he did.

Sure, his superiors will make judgement based on the reports, their background and what ever politics/public pandering is involved. Doesn't mean this soldier didn't do the best thing at the time for him and his team.

The original point I was trying to make was how can people with little idea of what was going on, sit there and say:'ooh why didn't he just get his camera out? simples blah blah.'

And yet, we don't need any experience to simply see that cutting the guys head off was uncalled for, do we?

He cut the guys head off. How can you not see this as far and beyond what was necessary?!

 

[Castiel]

Its funny how, we go to war and yet some people cant take the ramifications of war.

There are Codes of Conduct and Rules of Engagement that are designed to address some of those ramifications, including the beheading of enemy combatants simply to assess their identification.

Its like with the geneva convention. Its rubbish. All these rules to make war more civilised and palatable. That wont prevent wars. Just make it more likely.

The GC is not designed to prevent war, it is designed to enable a common code of conduct to all it's signitory members and their conduct when in conflict with those that are not.

It allows for the commissioning of war-crimes tribunals and gives international legal guidelines on the humanitarian treatment of POW's and victims of War, regardless of the status of the combatatants.

No wars before breakfast. No interrupting one another when they are speaking. No killing one another unless written permission is given first.

These are not conditions included in the Geneva Conventions or any related treaty.

War is hell and should always be. They do to the worst to you, you do the worst to them, one side feels a bit sick. Has second thoughts. One side wins or capitulates.

Experience? The reason these rules and codes of conduct exist is so that civilised nations do not act in a barbaric way as a matter of course. War is War, but when the dust has settled someone needs to answer for the crimes committed, the GC and RofE employed by Western Nations in combat operations protect their soldiers from committing acts that would be deemed illegal under internation law and treaty requirements.

You cant put judgements on what people are doing in direct conflicts, they are making split second decisions, they have literally split seconds to decide whether they live or die or what may be the best course of action to take.

You can judge them on their application of the standard RofE and standard codes of conduct they recieved in training along with their ability to carry out orders within these requirements. If the Gurka was ordered to behead this Taliban commander then it will be his superiors who will carry the responsibility, but knowing the Gurka's as I do, I would expect this is simply a misinterpretation of the orders given to him and any reprimand will be fairly minor. His removal from combat theatre will no doubt be more to do with the political situation in Afghanistan than his actual actions and is more to protect him than the feeling of the Taliban.

and saying about how the natives will percieve this and will hate the army. The army is not a PR machine, its a fighting machine. The army never can never (in the long term, on its own) win the hearts and minds of the people.

Besides doing whatever they are doing in afghanistan will never work, not the way they are doing it, and they know it.

You are mistaken, the Armed Forces are more than simply a big stick, they also represent our moral and legal responsibility to those they are sworn to protect.

Removing the conscience of the Armed Forces simply to 'bring hell' to the enemy to win by attrition is self defeating if the civilain population begin to support those you are fighting enmass because of those tactics.

 

[Castiel]

From what I hear, the Gurkhas' have a natural instinct and ability that training can't give.

They are nutters that is for sure. Once on excercise with them we were about to do low altitude insertion training and one (seriously) asked if he could have a parachute as he didn't think he could make the jump from the plane without injury....

 

[chrisd]

Its like with the geneva convention. Its rubbish. All these rules to make war more civilised and palatable. That wont prevent wars. Just make it more likely.

Seriously, what are you talking about?

 

[hurfdurf]

You are mistaken, the Armed Forces are more than simply a big stick, they also represent our moral and legal responsibility to those they are sworn to protect.

Removing the conscience of the Armed Forces simply to 'bring hell' to the enemy to win by attrition is self defeating if the civilain population begin to support those you are fighting enmass because of those tactics.

Came in here to take the ****, did not expect someone with some common sense and actual knowledge to be schooling GD. Fair play Castiel. You serve?

 

[Castiel]

Came in here to take the ****, did not expect someone with some common sense and actual knowledge to be schooling GD. Fair play Castiel. You serve?

almost 18 years in the royal marines. invalided in 2005

 

[Calabi]

There are Codes of Conduct and Rules of Engagement that are designed to address some of those ramifications, including the beheading of enemy combatants simply to assess their identification.



The GC is not designed to prevent war, it is designed to enable a common code of conduct to all it's signitory members and their conduct when in conflict with those that are not.

It allows for the commissioning of war-crimes tribunals and gives international legal guidelines on the humanitarian treatment of POW's and victims of War, regardless of the status of the combatatants.



These are not conditions included in the Geneva Conventions or any related treaty.



Experience? The reason these rules and codes of conduct exist is so that civilised nations do not act in a barbaric way as a matter of course. War is War, but when the dust has settled someone needs to answer for the crimes committed, the GC and RofE employed by Western Nations in combat operations protect their soldiers from committing acts that would be deemed illegal under internation law and treaty requirements.



You can judge them on their application of the standard RofE and standard codes of conduct they recieved in training along with their ability to carry out orders within these requirements. If the Gurka was ordered to behead this Taliban commander then it will be his superiors who will carry the responsibility, but knowing the Gurka's as I do, I would expect this is simply a misinterpretation of the orders given to him and any reprimand will be fairly minor. His removal from combat theatre will no doubt be more to do with the political situation in Afghanistan than his actual actions and is more to protect him than the feeling of the Taliban.



You are mistaken, the Armed Forces are more than simply a big stick, they also represent our moral and legal responsibility to those they are sworn to protect.

Removing the conscience of the Armed Forces simply to 'bring hell' to the enemy to win by attrition is self defeating if the civilain population begin to support those you are fighting enmass because of those tactics.

I know the gc was not created to prevent war, it was made to make people think better about going to war. That if they went to war they wouldnt likely get stabbed in the back by some underhanded trick.

The idea that if these people decide on these rules that they wont do this that or the other, that, that somehow makes them civilised, is ludicrous. And those were joke rules, and they might have been included if the persons had taken offence to them, or decided on them. And why do they not make wars illegal?

This idea that if you adhere to these things, follow these rules then your somehow better than your neighbour, that your civilised, it does not work like that.

The people should decide what they are happy to do at that time they should bare the guilt and punishment of what they do(if there is any to bare). Not because of some unilaterally agreed rules which make everyone feel good about themselves, and which are so abitrary and dont take into account the experience of war, and just makes them behave barbaric in other ways.

I'm not talking about removing the armed forces conscience, but giving it a more personal one.

Theres the impossibilitly of the situation, the soldiers are fighting a war, against an enemy that is not fighting the same war. They have to protect or mitigate collateral damage all the while under the threat of attack at any moment. The enemy can dissapear and reappear at a moments notice, cause the allies to attack civilian targets unwittingly. They keep playing things certain ways, they dont have to do much to make the afghans hate us. The way they are fighting it with some near timetable, how can they win?

 

[Castiel]

I know the gc was not created to prevent war, it was made to make people think better about going to war. That if they went to war they wouldnt likely get stabbed in the back by some underhanded trick.

The idea that if these people decide on these rules that they wont do this that or the other, that, that somehow makes them civilised, is ludicrous. And those were joke rules, and they might have been included if the persons had taken offence to them, or decided on them. And why do they not make wars illegal?

This idea that if you adhere to these things, follow these rules then your somehow better than your neighbour, that your civilised, it does not work like that.

The people should decide what they are happy to do at that time they should bare the guilt and punishment of what they do(if there is any to bare). Not because of some unilaterally agreed rules which make everyone feel good about themselves, and which are so abitrary and dont take into account the experience of war, and just makes them behave barbaric in other ways.

I'm not talking about removing the armed forces conscience, but giving it a more personal one.

Theres the impossibilitly of the situation, the soldiers are fighting a war, against an enemy that is not fighting the same war. They have to protect or mitigate collateral damage all the while under the threat of attack at any moment. The enemy can dissapear and reappear at a moments notice, cause the allies to attack civilian targets unwittingly. They keep playing things certain ways, they dont have to do much to make the afghans hate us. The way they are fighting it with some near timetable, how can they win?

It is simply the dfifference between Law and Lawlessness. You cannot bring order to a region if you do not abide by those same rules of society that you wish is impose.

I could go into great depth about why abiding by a set of conditions regarding treatment of prisoners of war and non-combatants is neccessary, but I have neither the time, nor do I think you would accept the reasoning anyway.