7 Royal Marines arrested on suspicion of murder

Richie · 11 Oct 2012 at 21:57

arctine said:
Oh I take it back, this guy knows what happened. Source?

Craterloads said:
You need a source to comprehend that soldiers have abused their positions in Afghanistan? You been living under a rock?

So, again, we are at the "Guilty until they can prove themselves otherwise" standpoint?....

Destination · 11 Oct 2012 at 21:57

Not quite the same as shooting a 14 year old schoolgirl in the head for campaigning for education for women...

Craterloads · 11 Oct 2012 at 21:58

arctine said:
I need a source that the soldiers in question, "have abused their positions and murdered unarmed or innocent civilians" because you know, that's an entirely different thing.

did i say otherwise? Did i state these soldiers in particular? no

arctine · 11 Oct 2012 at 21:59

Richie said:
So, again, we are at the "Guilty until they can prove themselves otherwise" standpoint?....

What?

There is nothing to suggest that the 7 marines in the article "have abused their positions and murdered unarmed or innocent civilians"

I'm quite sure one of them is guilty of something but we have no idea what.

Daze · 11 Oct 2012 at 22:00

troops said:
must have had bullet wounds in his back from running away, still war is war if it was an insurgent.
Shame they don't play by the rules too.

I've watched a few vids from Apache FLIR of Taliban getting shot running away, even watched a vid where a Taliban got shot out of a tree he was hiding in. I'd link them however I doubt they're appropriate for the forum.

Craterloads · 11 Oct 2012 at 22:00

arctine said:
What?

There is nothing to suggest that the 7 marines in the article "have abused their positions and murdered unarmed or innocent civilians"

I'm quite sure one of them is guilty of something but we have no idea what.

Well clearly they have been arrested for a reason.

Danthus · 11 Oct 2012 at 22:00

Gilly said:
I don't understand. Doesn't 'insurgent' roughly equate to 'man trying to kill British troops'?

The rules of engagement are bizarre.

Richie · 11 Oct 2012 at 22:02

arctine said:
What?

There is nothing to suggest that the 7 marines in the article "have abused their positions and murdered unarmed or innocent civilians"

I'm quite sure one of them is guilty of something but we have no idea what.

You may want to re-read my entire post and read the quoted sections in my post to get what I am saying.

I am all for innocent until proven guilty.

Richie · 11 Oct 2012 at 22:02

Craterloads said:
Well clearly they have been arrested for a reason.

What reason do you think they have been arrested for?

Xordium · 11 Oct 2012 at 22:04

OldCoals said:
The rules of engagement are bizarre.

They aren't bizarre they are there for good reason, they are understandable, and everyone is quite clear on their existence and content.

Zbornak · 11 Oct 2012 at 22:04

Richie said:
What reason do you think they have been arrested for?

Murder?

Craterloads · 11 Oct 2012 at 22:04

Richie said:
What reason do you think they have been arrested for?

For what ever they are in suspicion of doing.

As above maybe you should go back and have a proper read of what i have said

if guilty

Strife212 · 11 Oct 2012 at 22:05

I'm sure I read that if an insurgent throws a grenade at the troops, the moment the grenade leaves his hands hes counted as being unarmed so they cant touch him.

arctine · 11 Oct 2012 at 22:05

Craterloads said:
did i say otherwise? Did i state these soldiers in particular? no

Erm, you answered a question asked by someone who was talking about these soldiers, yes.

Craterloads said:
Well clearly they have been arrested for a reason.

That reason is clearly stated in the OP; suspicion of murder.

Xordium · 11 Oct 2012 at 22:06

The way that reads to me is that it is not necessarily about the shooting of an 'insurgent'.

Craterloads · 11 Oct 2012 at 22:06

arctine said:
Erm, you answered a question asked by someone who was talking about these soldiers, yes.

The reason is clearly stated in OP; suspicion of murder.

Exactly murder, hardly suprising. To be honest dont understand what you're trying to say?

Richie · 11 Oct 2012 at 22:08

Craterloads said:
For what ever they are in suspicion of doing.

As above maybe you should go back and have a proper read of what i have said

I don't need to. I know what you said.

Your posts all read as if these men are already guilty of an offence. This is what I am alluding to.

arctine · 11 Oct 2012 at 22:08

Craterloads said:
Exactly murder, hardly suprising. To be honest dont understand what you're trying to say?

That's because apparently you don't understand a lot else either.

My point is to jump from 7 soldiers being arrested on SUSPICION of murder to "soldiers have abused their positions and murdered unarmed or innocent civilians" is ****ing moronic.

Zefan · 11 Oct 2012 at 22:10

Strife212 said:
I'm sure I read that if an insurgent throws a grenade at the troops, the moment the grenade leaves his hands hes counted as being unarmed so they cant touch him.

If you think about it it makes complete sense. If he is not carrying any more weapons then he is no longer a threat - killing him is entirely unnecessary and there's no reason to call it anything but murder. If he is carrying weapons, or you believe that he is still going to be a threat towards you or others then you can use controlled force to stop that happening. That's what the UK ROE is anyway, not so sure about OOA.

What a lot of people seem to want is for the ROE to be more like vengeance - "He shot at me so I get to shoot him!" - which really, really wouldn't work.

Craterloads · 11 Oct 2012 at 22:15

arctine said:
That's because apparently you don't understand a lot else either.

My point is to jump from 7 soldiers being arrested on SUSPICION of murder to "soldiers have abused their positions and murdered unarmed or innocent civilians" is ****ing moronic.

Wow dont know where you got that from :confused:

I said its hardly surprising, given what else has occurred in Afghanistan.

Furthermore you seem to be purposely ignoring the "if guilty" part which pretty much is counter to your assumptions.