7 Royal Marines arrested on suspicion of murder

DaZe said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's the thing they know the rules of engagement and will twist it to suit them, dropping there weapons and/or running when it suits them.
Cant expect the same from them would likely end with a rusty blade to the throat.

Cant say if this is the case here of course.
 
arctine said:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=22943453&postcount=13

Do you remember posting this?
Click to expand...

Yes i do and you have taken it completely out of context. Was an answer to
"what do you find hardly suprising"
Click to expand...

Which to i answered

That soldiers have abused their positions and murdered unarmed or innocent civilians, its hardly a shocker.
Click to expand...

Notice i did not say these particular soldiers, just soldiers in general. Which is a factual statement.
 
Xordium said:
Maybe so but you can hardly shoot him for a different viewpoint and the use of harsh language. These are Royal Marines not Congolese militia.
Click to expand...

So if you have two people who are members of opposing armies, are they supposed to just stand there and wait to get shot?

And then after they're dead they can fight back?

I know it's obviously not as simple as this and we won't have the faintest idea what's gone on until more details are released, if ever, but come on...

By calling the person an insurgent that means they're not a civilian, they're presumably not unarmed, and they're actively a member of the opposing force who are, let's not forget, trying to kill our troops including these marines.

These people are trained and conditioned for years to become killing machines - These are Royal Marines, not Congolese militia!

They're not sent into areas to pussyfoot about and make friends with everyone.
 
Craterloads said:
Notice i did not say these particular soldiers, just soldiers in general. Which is a factual statement.
Click to expand...

...

Your response to the OP:
Craterloads said:
Hardly suprising, hang them all if guilty.
Click to expand...

The follow up:
Richie said:
What is "hardly surprising"?
Click to expand...

Craterloads said:
That soldiers have abused their positions and murdered unarmed or innocent civilians, its hardly a shocker.
Click to expand...

Suggests that you took from an article detailing that 7 soldiers are being arrested on suspicion of murder, that the same soldiers must have "abused their positions and murdered unarmed or innocent civilians" and are not surprised by the fact.

Either that or you don't have any sort of grasp on the concept of dialogue.
 
Last edited:
The problem PardontheWait, is not that the victim was an insurgent, but that he was presumably not an imminent or present threat, I am not sure what the RoE were in Afghanistan in 2011 but as a general rule of thumb they are extremely restrictive in theatres where there is an indigenous mistrust. You can't just kill indisciminantly, even enemy combatants.....unfortunately we are limited by several universal treaties and conventions and also each soldier is subject to the stated Rules of Engagement which exist for good reason. We are not there to murder people after all, despite what some people might think.

The trouble is without details we can speculate all day long to no avail.
 
Last edited:
PardonTheWait said:
They're not sent into areas to pussyfoot about and make friends with everyone.
Click to expand...

No they are not they are sent into area to work under rules of engagement and not shoot the place up and commit massacres. We're wasting our money if we are using them in such blunt fashions. There are guiding laws for good reasons - to stop escalation and atrocities.
 
Zefan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well it's a war, surely the guy will just return the next day and do the same thing again?

If it was nation vs nation a rule like that makes sense, fighting an insurgency with no rules with strict rules of engagement is a recipe for failure, like in Vietnam.
 
arctine said:
...

Your response to the OP:


The follow up:


Suggests that you took from an article detailing that 7 soldiers are being arrested on suspicion of murder, that the same soldiers must have "abused their positions and murdered unarmed or innocent civilians" and are not surprised by the fact.

Either that or you don't have any sort of grasp on the concept of monologue.
Click to expand...

Clearly you have misunderstood pretty basic language here, i can’t really argue with you since you will not even accept you got it wrong even after i have explained it to you. It’s clear as day, can’t fathom why you are struggling.
 
I'm fairly sure if its the grenade scenario when you're in combat you don't think "Oh that man threw a grenade, so now he is not a threat" you think "**** HE JUST THREW A GRENADE AT ME AND MY TEAM! SHOOT HIM BEFORE HE KILLS SOMEONE"

Its war but there are rules that set us apart from the "Bad guys" that said a lot of those rules don't actually apply to terrorists as terrorists themselves attack civilians and dress as civilians using them as cover. Not all of it ofc. But there is room to play with the rules against a terrorist force (rather conveniently)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom