More court martials?

[B.O.B DOLE]

are we >? some of you might be some of us are no better i know this for a fact most of the squaddies over there dont want to be doing this cr*p

Kinda in the wrong job then, eh Slogger? People join the armed forces of their own free will, and no-one is in any doubt about what it is there for. You join the armed forces to fight for your country, and when countries fight, people die. It isn't nice, but it happens. And soldiers accept that, otherwise they wouldn't have joined up.

let get back to basics with the scum of the world and annialate them it would show we dont tellerate anyone messing with us no more kissy kissy how about GRRRRRRR we have the teeth we should use them

I suggest you read a book on the Treaty of Versaille and it's contribution towards the starting of WW2... I'm sure they do it in large print with plenty of pictures...

you are not over there if i lost one of my own in this i would take revenge this is what is happening the lads lose m8s and want some form of retribution

You are right, I'm not over there... and neither are you.

It is terrible when people are killed, but that doesn't mean we must make vengeance killings for each of our lost soldiers. Retribution? The guy they killed was a hotel receptionist.

the human being is an aggressive animal at heart if you think differently then history will prove you wrong

On that, I agree with you.

not many men would be lost with total anniallation ( bombardments day and night) no need to put men on the ground till all that remains is rubble and then some .What would you rather do risk our own troops ( sons fathers daughters ) if you have the courage to answer me then fire away

Slogger, why did we get into this war? To free the Iraqi people from Hussein's rule. Why in the name of freakin' leapin' leprechauns would we have achieved if we had just killed everyone in the whole country with total anhilation?! NOTHING! It would have been a waste of resources.

As to courage to answer you, typing on an internet forum requires no courage. I could be a 10-year old girl and would still be telling you what for. I'm not telling you this because I am courageous, I'm telling you it because this is what I think!

You obviously have NO idea about war, the history of war, the process of war, the reason for this war, the morality of war, despite your idea (singular) to the contrary. You might know some people out there, big deal. Who doesn't?

Why in the name of freakin' leapin' leprechauns would we have achieved if we had just killed everyone in the whole country with total anhilation?! NOTHING! It would have been a waste of resources.
b.o.b....... b.ll sh.t Mr adamw they have only gone for the oil nothing else and stop stealing MY quote interragation. is ant it funny the price of petrol has sky rocketed since the war people where complaining about the price before the war and look at it now and those scum bag farmers they are traitors we need a public exacustion with the guilotine all the do gooders
and politicians and farmers.

 

[Slogger]

fear

 

[B.O.B DOLE]

fear

come to think of it all terorist should be televised and made to walk up the steps of the gulotine and stick a couple of pork chops in the basket just in case he is feeling a bit peckish and i think this would make great tv entertainment rather than the b.ll sh.t they put on starting with saddam whats the point of prison its only a hotel anyway they are not frightened of that

 

[jasy]

Good to see that they can't get away with it anymore.

Here we go then prat boy. You ever been so scared and feared for your life that you have had to do what you thought was the right thing and then find out that you were wrong 2 years later!! what a load of sh*t

 

[AdamW]

as for not being there i have a son serving in the forces he has to work to moronic rules of engagement i say if they have a gun shoot them

Oh, I agree with that bit. Remember on the news when they had the footage of the US soldier shooting that Iraqi soldier who was crying for help? I cheered. He took up arms, he should be prepared for the consequences. I'm not sure that you even have to take someone as a PoW if they surrender, I have a feeling you can shoot them on the spot if you feel it would be dangerous to take them with you. And seeing as Iraqis are known to surrender and then open fire on the soldiers accepting the surrender, that is perhaps the safest option.

However, this man was not killed in combat, and he was not a soldier. This is what the court martial is about! I doubt anyone has ever been court-martialled for shooting an enemy soldier in the theatre.

Retribution in fact violates the Geneva Conventions. Protocol I, article 51, paragraph 6 states:

Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

 

[AdamW]

Here we go then prat boy. You ever been so scared and feared for your life that you have had to do what you thought was the right thing and then find out that you were wrong 2 years later!! what a load of sh*t

Killing enemy combatants is one thing, but beating a civilian up and throwing him in the canal is wrong. If they thought he was a spy or some other illegal combatant, they should have placed him under arrest and forwarded him up the ladder to glean information from him.

Not kick his head in and throw him in a canal. Presumably it is manslaughter rather than murder, but it is still the wrong thing to do!

 

[Slogger]

we dont know the truth he might have been involved in all sorts of crap but torturing him to talk would have been better

as for no squaddies being court marshalled for shooting people dead it has happend in the past do you google searches

the army? who would want to join up now when you cant fire at someone standing looking at you with a shooter in his hand ? they have moved the goal posts to pander to wimpy politicians

getting back to the basics how many of our lads would it be ok to take 1 million of these out

none

 

[AdamW]

Slogger, you're missing the whole point: the guy didn't have a gun in his hand!

Only very disillusioned people would punish a soldier for shooting the enemy in battle, after all that is what a battle is about. To put it simply, a battle is a meeting where soldiers fight other soldiers until either one side is all dead and/or injured, or until one side decides to surrender.

But it is unacceptable, not to mention illegal by the RoE, the Army Act (1955) and the Geneva Conventions, for a British soldier to kill civilians.

 

[kendor]

Good to see that they can't get away with it anymore.

Here we go then prat boy. You ever been so scared and feared for your life that you have had to do what you thought was the right thing and then find out that you were wrong 2 years later!! what a load of sh*t

good to see you are using all those brain cells to come up with nothing but insults again.
Anyone in authority should be dealt with severly if they overstep the mark, you are trying to justify their wrongdoings because they are british servicemen, would you take such a stand if they were French or Italian or .....?Oh and go easy on those brain cells you might get a haemmorrage

 

[jasy]

use your brain cells. All you do is slag of the guys that are doing and have done a job that you will never ever do because you never ever had the ba*ls to do it. Define a criminal act in a war zone?? Put yourself in a situation where you are threatened or more importantly your mates are threatened and see how you would react. The only ones who should be on trial are the people that have put them there and are now turning their backs on them!

 

[kendor]

If you want my honest opinion Jasy, I think you have to have a screw loose to want to join an armed force and take up a weapon in the hope of killing someone, Legal Murder do me a favour!

 

[AdamW]

Define a criminal act in a war zone??

I will use 2 points of fact:

1) The Army Act: Army Act means that even if Iraq has no law due to the turmoil, a soldier is still subject to the laws of the UK.

2) The Geneva Conventions: see my earlier link. When in the theatre of war, every British soldier is bound by the GC. Killing civilians is not regarded as legal warfare.

When a British soldier steps outside the boundaries of the GC, he is still covered by the Army Act.

Therefore, the killing of a civilian is a criminal act. If it can be proved that it was not wilful (e.g. a stray bullet, or he was waving a gun about) then one would hope the charges will be quashed. However, in the case of an unarmed, restrained man, outside the heat of battle, they don't have a leg to stand on.

It's moider, I says.

 

[Slogger]

If you want my honest opinion Jasy, I think you have to have a screw loose to want to join an armed force and take up a weapon in the hope of killing someone, Legal Murder do me a favour!

coward

 

[Slogger]

Define a criminal act in a war zone??

I will use 2 points of fact:

1) The Army Act: Army Act means that even if Iraq has no law due to the turmoil, a soldier is still subject to the laws of the UK.

2) The Geneva Conventions: see my earlier link. When in the theatre of war, every British soldier is bound by the GC. Killing civilians is not regarded as legal warfare.

When a British soldier steps outside the boundaries of the GC, he is still covered by the Army Act.

Therefore, the killing of a civilian is a criminal act. If it can be proved that it was not wilful (e.g. a stray bullet, or he was waving a gun about) then one would hope the charges will be quashed. However, in the case of an unarmed, restrained man, outside the heat of battle, they don't have a leg to stand on.

It's moider, I says.

traitor

 

[jasy]

Define a criminal act in a war zone??

I will use 2 points of fact:

1) The Army Act: Army Act means that even if Iraq has no law due to the turmoil, a soldier is still subject to the laws of the UK.

2) The Geneva Conventions: see my earlier link. When in the theatre of war, every British soldier is bound by the GC. Killing civilians is not regarded as legal warfare.

When a British soldier steps outside the boundaries of the GC, he is still covered by the Army Act.

Therefore, the killing of a civilian is a criminal act. If it can be proved that it was not wilful (e.g. a stray bullet, or he was waving a gun about) then one would hope the charges will be quashed. However, in the case of an unarmed, restrained man, outside the heat of battle, they don't have a leg to stand on.

It's moider, I says.

rubbish. there are rules of engagement for each area of conflict that uk laws do not even cover