Alexander Blackman

The Deuce said:
I'm sure if the roles were reversed, we'd be seeing a video of Marine A in an orange boiler suit getting his head hacked off!
Click to expand...

I don't get the 'if roles were reversed' point that people often put forward.

You don't get to choose what you get punished for. If you want to be a soldier you follow the rules or face the consequences. If you don't like the rules then your on the wrong side.
 
The Deuce said:
what don't you get about it?
Click to expand...

The roles weren't reversed. We could play the whole "what if" game until the cows come home, doesn't change what happened. Also, does the enemy being animals justify our guys being animals? We may as well go back to throwing rocks at each other then
 
The point your making. So what difference would it make knowing that if roles were reversed heads would be rolling. At the end of the day, roles are not reversed and that guy wont have the opportunity to reverse them, its irrelevant.
 
The Deuce said:
I'm sure if the roles were reversed, we'd be seeing a video of Marine A in an orange boiler suit getting his head hacked off!
Click to expand...

So as long as we stop short of hacking his head off then we can still take the moral high ground?
 
If it was done in the heat of the moment = manslaughter. It was premeditated, remove prisoner from surveillance camera coverage then shoot him, = murder.
 
I see the Mail are going down the "look at this sickening liberal judge" route again, absolute scummers. The bloke is guilty as can be and should be grateful to only get an 8 year minimum term.
 
The waters get very muddied when your superior orders you to break the Geneva Convention, especially when there is no "paper trail" of sorts to show actions were done following orders, rather than risking insubordination punishment.
 
Don't want to go to prison, don't commit a war crime, particularly don't allow yourself to be recorded admitting to committing a war crime, not overly complex.

If we're willing to scrap the Geneva Convention and lower ourselves to using any tactic that the terrorists are willing to use then we might as well throw in the towel as we've already lost.
 
FortuitousFluke said:
Don't want to go to prison, don't commit a war crime, particularly don't allow yourself to be recorded admitting to committing a war crime, not overly complex.

If we're willing to scrap the Geneva Convention and lower ourselves to using any tactic that the terrorists are willing to use then we might as well throw in the towel as we've already lost.
Click to expand...

Tell me one war where every side stuck to the Geneva Convention.
 
deuse said:
Tell me one war where every side stuck to the Geneva Convention.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the "everyone else was doing it, so it's okay for me to do it" approach applies here. Just because people break the Geneva Convention does not mean that those people who are caught doing so shouldn't be punished.
 
deuse said:
Tell me one war where every side stuck to the Geneva Convention.
Click to expand...

Tell me a war where there haven't been reports of rape by some soldiers?

Just because it happens does not mean we should allow it.

punishing law breakers enforces the law. Allowing people to get away with things because they thought it was fine turns rules into guidelines.
 
robfosters said:
I like the way the DM are going on about the prisoner already being fatally wounded. IMO that makes it worse. He's captured, he's wounded, he's no danger at all, get him medical help. He's not some mangy dog that needs to be put out of his misery, he's a human being ffs.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? I wouldn't consider the taliban human beings at all. You obviously know nothing about them.

I find it funny that moments before an apache was shooting at them, but the moment he finished him off (he was probably already dead?) its all of a sudden murder... but but.... we we're literally just trying to kill them.

I'ts red tape, bureaucracy, and BS.
 
It is murder because he was neutralised and unarmed. You would be outraged if ISIS just put a bullet in an injured soldier.

They have a duty of care to the soldier to try and treat him, not put him down like a dog.
 
FortuitousFluke said:
I'm not sure the "everyone else was doing it, so it's okay for me to do it" approach applies here. Just because people break the Geneva Convention does not mean that those people who are caught doing so shouldn't be punished.
Click to expand...

FuriousGeorge said:
Whats that got to do with anything.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with it. Making an army stick to old rules when the enemy isn't is just plain silly.
It's like having a off side rule for one team but not the other.

Avenged7Fold said:
Tell me a war where there haven't been reports of rape by some soldiers?.
Click to expand...

So I take it you can't\won't answer me? Do you need the question posted again?
 
deuse said:
It has everything to do with it. Making an army stick to old rules when the enemy isn't is just plain silly.
It's like having a off side rule for one team but not the other.



So I take it you can't\won't answer me? Do you need the question posted again?
Click to expand...

My answer shows the irrelevance of your question. Just because previous wars people broke rules, doesn't mean that you should make a show of allowing rule breaking. So no need to post it again, but feel free since i had to answer you.... again, not that itl help you :rolleyes:

It is about keeping order and enforcing rules, not about keeping or gaining an advantage because the other team dont follow the rules. If your soldiers are willing to break one rule, they are willing to break others and if you let that go on, it will be detrimental to your cause regardless of what rules were originally broken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom