Marchers show support for 5 Royal Marines charged with murder
207 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SKEEA;38232159]I am very empathetic. I just have no empathy with the people that are trying to kill people I love.[/QUOTE]
if you were "very empathetic" you wouldn't have volunteered to kill anyone the US military told you to (yes youre a heli mechanic or whatever we get it the point is your empathy is worthless seeing as you're the one that volunteered to be put into a conflict with these people)
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38232185]Does it ever occur to you that you're putting yourself into that position? I mean, you spend more time reminding us you're in the military every 8 or 9 seconds of your waking life, surely the thought "oh this is my choice" popped into your head at some point.
Point is, you don't get to choose who you have empathy for when you're in this situation. You have your obligation if you're going to do this. If you have an enemy wounded with his life in your hands, you get on your god damn knees and stabilise him. Doesn't fucking matter if he tried to kill your 'loved ones', your choice, you don't get to sit one law out because you're bitter.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry I am trying to apply my direct experience here in a thread that just so happens to be military related, as they are mostly the threads I inhabit. Yeah, my choice to join, and I am damn glad I did. Anyways, if I was in this situation I would wait for trained medical personnel to arrive. The limit of my medical experience is applying tourniquets, performing needle chest decompression, applying quick-clot, and applying dressings and pressure dressings. The medics have far more knowledge and experience to deal with grievous injury. I can do my best to stabilize an enemy combatant, but no guarantees. You see, this is where you differ fundamentally with soldiers. You are an EMT correct? Your duty is to save everyone. My duty is vastly different, as well as the laws that govern my profession. If these British Marines did just refuse to aid this person solely because he shot at them, and there is a medic present, then there is something wrong here. No medic, no problem.
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Kopimi;38232203]if you were "very empathetic" you wouldn't have volunteered to kill anyone the US military told you to (yes youre a heli mechanic or whatever we get it the point is your empathy is worthless seeing as you're the one that volunteered to be put into a conflict with these people)[/QUOTE]
The military doesn't tell me to kill anyone. They give me an objective, and I am to accomplish it. If people shoot at me in the course of accomplishing the mission, I shoot back with prejudice. If no one shoots at you, you still go on to accomplish the mission, just bloodless that time around. Empathy just means that you can feel what others are going through. I feel nothing for people that are trying to kill me, only annoyance and recoil. I am empathetic with everyone else that is not an insurgent trying to kill me or my buddies, or an innocent civilian.
You see, you're creating this horrible and fucked up logic to defend this.
First of all, with the medical knowledge you say you have you have enough time to stabilise a man until medics arrive - at the VERY least you tried and would not be held accountable because you did something.
Your duty is to shoot whatever brown person your corporate sponsors tell you to do, but you also have a set amount of laws to adhere to. I don't give a fuck about what you think is right or what you think is logical. You have a wounded man, knowledge, time and manpower you fucking apply it - plain and simple, end of discussion.
Saying no medic no problem is absolutely fucking sociopathic.
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=SKEEA;38232280]
The military doesn't tell me to kill anyone. They give me an objective, and I am to accomplish it.[/QUOTE]
lol sure whatever you say.
Must be cosy in that fantasy world of yours.
anyone who tries to act like the military is about anything more than killing is delusional
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
lol your whole 'i feel nothing for people trying to kill me' kind of IS empathizing with the 'insurgents' considering the only reason you're over there is to kill them, odds are they feel nothing for you either
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38232307]You see, you're creating this horrible and fucked up logic to defend this.
First of all, with the medical knowledge you say you have you have enough time to stabilise a man until medics arrive - at the VERY least you tried and would not be held accountable because you did something.
Your duty is to shoot whatever brown person your corporate sponsors tell you to do, but you also have a set amount of laws to adhere to. I don't give a fuck about what you think is right or what you think is logical. You have a wounded man, knowledge, time and manpower you fucking apply it - plain and simple, end of discussion.
Saying no medic no problem is absolutely fucking sociopathic.
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
lol sure whatever you say.
Must be cosy in that fantasy world of yours.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe it is that you don't know how the military actually thinks and operates. You will never understand the how or why behind what we do. Ever. Sorry, but I just don't have the capacity to feel for people that are trying to kill me. They have no capacity to feel for me in return. We are both trying to kill each other, it is a mutual thing, and something that you must accept out here. The military doesn't go "hurr durr kill these people because they are brown" like you love to think. Instead the military sets out a mission. For example: Provide security for the withdrawal of forces from COPs and FOBs, or Train the local forces. What happens in the execution of those missions is up to the individual unit commanders and soldiers.
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
I need to go to work, so I am leaving here for about 12 hours.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;38232280]The military doesn't tell me to kill anyone. They give me an objective, and I am to accomplish it.[/QUOTE]
Didn't you spend a couple of pages early on in this thread detailing how your job does indeed involve killing people? If killing dudes is, as you said, "just a part of the job", then yeah, I'd say that the military [I]does[/I] tell you to kill people. Trying to separate the killing and the objective (the objective basically being killing) is simply delusional.
[QUOTE=Cone;38233849]Didn't you spend a couple of pages early on in this thread detailing how your job does indeed involve killing people? If killing dudes is, as you said, "just a part of the job", then yeah, I'd say that the military [I]does[/I] tell you to kill people. Trying to separate the killing and the objective (the objective basically being killing) is simply delusional.[/QUOTE]
Not really, seeing as how you don't know the missions we are assigned. The missions we are assigned range from "Set up a new AO out at grid coordinate 12345678" to "Recon this area" to "Dig the latrine". Now, if we are attacked during any of those, the Army's current ROE say that I have a right to self defense. If no one attacks, then happy days, no one dies. If someone attacks, they are going to get shot. Like I said, the Army doesn't tell me "Go kill these people", it tells me "If anyone attacks you, light them up".
[QUOTE=thisispain;38226565]wait you mean rockets aren't shaped like penises on purpose !??[/QUOTE]
Well a rocket shaped like a vagina wouldn't work very well
[QUOTE=SKEEA;38233936]Not really, seeing as how you don't know the missions we are assigned. The missions we are assigned range from "Set up a new AO out at grid coordinate 12345678" to "Recon this area" to "Dig the latrine". Now, if we are attacked during any of those, the Army's current ROE say that I have a right to self defense. If no one attacks, then happy days, no one dies. If someone attacks, they are going to get shot. Like I said, the Army doesn't tell me "Go kill these people", it tells me "If anyone attacks you, light them up".[/QUOTE]
So you're saying if they tell you to load a hellfire missile or what have you onto a helicopter, the assumption is that it will only be used in self-defense? That's not just implausible, that's absolutely ridiculous.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;38232362]Or maybe it is that you don't know how the military actually thinks and operates. You will never understand the how or why behind what we do. Ever.[/QUOTE]
Really ramping up the condescending arrogance as well. Nice.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;38232280]The military doesn't tell me to kill anyone. They give me an objective, and I am to accomplish it. If people shoot at me in the course of accomplishing the mission, I shoot back with prejudice. If no one shoots at you, you still go on to accomplish the mission, just bloodless that time around. Empathy just means that you can feel what others are going through. I feel nothing for people that are trying to kill me, only annoyance and recoil. I am empathetic with everyone else that is not an insurgent trying to kill me or my buddies, or an innocent civilian.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and obviously every insurgent is out to kill you and your comrades because they hate America for no reason and want you and your family dead. Or rather, that's what would have to be the case to justify this kind of response.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;38227922]terrorist lol
People like you make that term meaningless.[/QUOTE]
War is war, people die get over yourself
[QUOTE=Shadow Core;38235760]War is war, people die get over yourself[/QUOTE]
That is not even relevant to you wasting the term ~terrorist~
[QUOTE=Megafan;38235462]So you're saying if they tell you to load a hellfire missile or what have you onto a helicopter, the assumption is that it will only be used in self-defense? That's not just implausible, that's absolutely ridiculous.
[B]Actually, yes. Current ROE dictates that unless you are getting shot at actively, or someone is actively shooting at friendly forces or civilians, you are not to fire. A further limitation is added in that the pilots can't even shoot back in self defense if the person shooting at you is in or on a building, as there is no way to get 100% PID on things in the building[/B]
Really ramping up the condescending arrogance as well. Nice.
[B]Problem is, it is true. You can never understand unless you are a part of the military yourself. You can't truly know what it is like unless you have "been there" in regards to the military.[/B]
Yes, and obviously every insurgent is out to kill you and your comrades because they hate America for no reason and want you and your family dead. Or rather, that's what would have to be the case to justify this kind of response.
[B]Let's just stop at "Every insurgent is out to kill me and my comrades" because that is truly the only thing that matters. They shoot at us, they get shot back at (ROE allowing), simple as that. I can't feel any kind of compassion for those that are trying to kill me, nor do they give me any compassion back. It is only to be expected.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
It's weird how they're being charged for murder, I mean they shot him whilst in the firefight right? I mean they definitely broke the law by refusing to treat him but I wouldn't say it's murder.
[QUOTE=pvt.jenkins;38236006]It's weird how they're being charged for murder, I mean they shot him whilst in the firefight right? I mean they definitely broke the law by refusing to treat him but I wouldn't say it's murder.[/QUOTE]
The thing that is under debate here is the failure to act while the insurgent was bleeding out. As they have been released back to their units, I am not sure much else is going to happen on this front.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;38236039]The thing that is under debate here is the failure to act while the insurgent was bleeding out. As they have been released back to their units, I am not sure much else is going to happen on this front.[/QUOTE]
I thought what was being debated was if it was justified or not to not treat the insurgent. Also it's kinda odd how almost the entire section is being charged.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;38236003]Actually, yes. Current ROE dictates that unless you are getting shot at actively, or someone is actively shooting at friendly forces or civilians, you are not to fire. A further limitation is added in that the pilots can't even shoot back in self defense if the person shooting at you is in or on a building, as there is no way to get 100% PID on things in the building[/QUOTE]
Well a citation would be nice, but that's not implausible.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;38236003]Problem is, it is true. You can never understand unless you are a part of the military yourself. You can't truly know what it is like unless you have "been there" in regards to the military.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, a lot of people say similar things about war, among other situations. "You can't understand if you don't live here", or "you can't understand if you haven't seen it", and the like. I'm afraid none of these constitute proper justification for what you're saying, and essentially amount to saying "no really, I'm telling you it is".
[QUOTE=SKEEA;38236003]Let's just stop at "Every insurgent is out to kill me and my comrades" because that is truly the only thing that matters. They shoot at us, they get shot back at (ROE allowing), simple as that. I can't feel any kind of compassion for those that are trying to kill me, nor do they give me any compassion back. It is only to be expected.[/QUOTE]
Have you seriously never considered why the insurgency persists at all? If a foreign military force were currently in your country (the US) in the name of what they claimed to be stabilization and peace, I'm willing to bet a number of people would form a resistance against them, and no doubt you'd be singing a very different tone, because then I suppose, some of those foreign soldiers might end up killing you or one of your family members. As others have said, your remark about people trying to kill you rings somewhat hollow when you voluntarily chose to participate in the conflict.
[QUOTE=pvt.jenkins;38236059]I thought what was being debated was if it was justified or not to not treat the insurgent. Also it's kinda odd how almost the entire section is being charged.[/QUOTE]
Beats me. We can only know more as this thing progresses. I think we should hold out for some more information.
[QUOTE=pvt.jenkins;38236006]It's weird how they're being charged for murder, I mean they shot him whilst in the firefight right? I mean they definitely broke the law by refusing to treat him but I wouldn't say it's murder.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, man. It was definitely done with malicious aforethought, and a dude definitely died directly because of them. At the very least they're guilty of voluntary manslaughter, which, for example, would apply if a man killed another man in a bar fight stemming from proof of his wife's infidelity.
Now, I don't know about you, but it sounds a lot like a single piece of evidence could push this right over into second-degree murder.
[QUOTE=Megafan;38236066]Well a citation would be nice, but that's not implausible.
[B]I can't release the specific wording of our task force ROE because it is classified secret. Sorry, you are just going to have to take my professional and completely honest word on this one. Integrity is an Army value, I take it seriously. I am telling the complete truth here.[/B]
Yeah, a lot of people say similar things about war, among other situations. "You can't understand if you don't live here", or "you can't understand if you haven't seen it", and the like. I'm afraid none of these constitute proper justification for what you're saying, and essentially amount to saying "no really, I'm telling you it is".
[B]Well, continue to say ignorant opinions then. I am telling you like it is here. If you aren't in the military, you can't understand the mentality that we have. Simple as that.[/B]
Have you seriously never considered why the insurgency persists at all? If a foreign military force were currently in your country (the US) in the name of what they claimed to be stabilization and peace, I'm willing to bet a number of people would form a resistance against them, and no doubt you'd be singing a very different tone, because then I suppose, some of those foreign soldiers might end up killing you or one of your family members. As others have said, your remark about people trying to kill you rings somewhat hollow when you voluntarily chose to participate in the conflict.
[B]I don't understand what is ringing hollow here. They shoot at me, I shoot at them. I don't see what volunteering has to do with anything. I consider death an acceptable job risk. The rocket or bullet either has your name on it, or it doesn't. Now, we are briefed and given training on what the populace thinks about us. Yes, we know that they have no clue what 9/11 was. Do we take that into account with our policies and doctrine? Yes. Do I have time to sit down and contemplate this while taking fire? No. You shoot back. Also, the mentality of the populace is very different in this country when it comes to us killing armed personnel. The mentality is "fair game". If we kill someone while they are actively engaging us, the family considers it "fair game." That is why this war is so different. It is because the people here think way differently than anyone else in the world. Personally, if I do my part to make sure that all of my battles come home, then I have done my job well. Leave the "hearts and minds" to the officers.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
I have no problem with them being charged.
Should have helped the man.
I really can't understand all the non-military types in here going off at SKEEA for doing his job.
Where and when and why to use violence is up to lawmakers and officers. The job of a soldier is to kill the enemy on command, not provide aid to incapacitated enemy combatants or weigh the deep sociopolitical background behind the person trying to kill them. This isn't unique to Americans, it's the same for all militaries- you do the job and kill the other guy before he kills you first. Any war account will tell you the exact same thing.
Expecting a soldier to really sympathize with enemy combatants, especially ruthless motherfuckers like the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, is ridiculous. Expecting them to actually render medical assistance to someone they just shot is even sillier. Medics are more of a special exception than anything else, for the grunt the #1 priority is making the enemy dead. That may not be perfectly ethical, or humane, or civilized, but that's war and war is shit.
[QUOTE=catbarf;38237182]I really can't understand all the non-military types in here going off at SKEEA for doing his job.
Where and when and why to use violence is up to lawmakers and officers. The job of a soldier is to kill the enemy on command, not provide aid to incapacitated enemy combatants or weigh the deep sociopolitical background behind the person trying to kill them. This isn't unique to Americans, it's the same for all militaries- you do the job and kill the other guy before he kills you first. Any war account will tell you the exact same thing.
Expecting a soldier to really sympathize with enemy combatants, especially ruthless motherfuckers like the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, is ridiculous. Expecting them to actually render medical assistance to someone they just shot is even sillier. Medics are more of a special exception than anything else, for the grunt the #1 priority is making the enemy dead. That may not be perfectly ethical, or humane, or civilized, but that's war and war is shit.[/QUOTE]
It's like you read the thread's title and posted the first thing that came to your mind.
[QUOTE=catbarf;38237182]I really can't understand all the non-military types in here going off at SKEEA for doing his job.
Where and when and why to use violence is up to lawmakers and officers. The job of a soldier is to kill the enemy on command, not provide aid to incapacitated enemy combatants or weigh the deep sociopolitical background behind the person trying to kill them. This isn't unique to Americans, it's the same for all militaries- you do the job and kill the other guy before he kills you first. Any war account will tell you the exact same thing.
Expecting a soldier to really sympathize with enemy combatants, especially ruthless motherfuckers like the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, is ridiculous. Expecting them to actually render medical assistance to someone they just shot is even sillier. Medics are more of a special exception than anything else, for the grunt the #1 priority is making the enemy dead. That may not be perfectly ethical, or humane, or civilized, but that's war and war is shit.[/QUOTE]
except the uk is a modern country that should be able to uphold some standard of decency even in war. you don't just kill, you win hearts and minds. being compassionate is part of that process. the enemy was already incapacitated, so there was no reason not to at least stabilize him.
war may be shit, but it has rules, too.
Everyone in here acts like this is the most abhorrent thing to happen in the last decade of war. The thing is folks this is war, this is what happens in war. Do you think this is the first time something like this has happened? Do you think this is the only case right now? These things happen all the time, and while they're not pretty or ethical neither is war. Beating someones head in with a rock isn't what I'd call ethical, but when you're fighting you could give two shits what is and what isn't. Everyone here is talking from a high horse, expecting everything and everyone to act like they feel it should.
When you're in a combat zone things are quite a bit different than here at home, and spending months on end in the desert being shot at and watching your friends die changes your concept of whats right or wrong. By in no means do most men turn into savages, but when you go into a firefight you think a lot differently on what matters and what doesn't.
While what was done wasn't good, in the eyes of war it wasn't bad. War is war, war is hell, and unless you've been to war everything you know about it is from a second hand source. While I don't necessarily agree with it, I wouldn't put it past myself to have done it. Call me evil, call me whatever, but until you go to war don't start chiming on how horrible it is. It is horrible, but by no means do you truly understand how horrible it really is.
[QUOTE=Stopper;38237850]It's like you read the thread's title and posted the first thing that came to your mind.[/QUOTE]
Why? I don't think that footsoldiers trained to kill the enemy should be charged with murder for killing the enemy, directly or indirectly.
A soldier is not trained to subdue, or incapacitate, or render harmless. He is trained to kill. That's his job. Moralizing and sympathizing are decisions made above his pay grade and treating wounded enemy combatants is outside his job description. This kind of thing happens all the time. If that's a paradigm they want to change, fine, but that should start with how soldiers are trained, not prosecuting the soldiers who act in line with their training.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;38238720]Everyone in here acts like this is the most abhorrent thing to happen in the last decade of war. [/QUOTE]
Who has exactly?
[editline]29th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=catbarf;38240488]A soldier is not trained to subdue, or incapacitate, or render harmless. He is trained to kill. That's his job. Moralizing and sympathizing are decisions made above his pay grade and treating wounded enemy combatants is outside his job description. This kind of thing happens all the time. If that's a paradigm they want to change, fine, but that should start with how soldiers are trained, not prosecuting the soldiers who act in line with their training.[/QUOTE]
But they are trained to do what they should have...
I'm quoting the Geneva Convention. (While technically one could argue that this relates only to official, uniformed soldiers, this is what it actually says)
[code]CHAPTER I
WOUNDED AND SICK
Article 1. Officers and soldiers and other persons officially attached to the armed forces who are wounded or sick shall be respected and protected in all circumstances; they shall be treated with humanity and cared for medically, without distinction of nationality, by the belligerent in whose power they may be.
Nevertheless, the belligerent who is compelled to abandon wounded or sick to the enemy, shall, as far as military exigencies permit, leave with them a portion of his medical personnel and material to help with their treatment.
Art. 2. Except as regards the treatment to be provided for them in virtue of the preceding Article, the wounded and sick of an army who fall into the hands of the enemy shall be prisoners of war, and the general provisions of international law concerning prisoners of war shall be applicable to them.
Belligerents shall, however, be free to prescribe, for the benefit of wounded or sick prisoners such arrangements as they may think fit beyond the limits of the existing obligations.[/code]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.