War Crime?

[AdamW]

I will kill your mates but when i have had enough i will ask for your help because i am hurt and expect it because the TV is here and you will help me..............yeh right.

There is the principle that if you injure an enemy soldier, you take three people out of the game as two other enemy soldiers carry him off or look after him. So if you apply that here, and the allied troops were to sit there and give a wounded enemy a nice cup of tea and a plaster then that is two less troops available to the operation, possibly jeapordising the lives of others.

I think they did the right thing. When an animal is bleeding to death, the vet puts it to sleep out of humanity. An allied troop is showing more mercy with a quick bullet to the head of that animal than they have shown to our boys. When I saw it on the news I thought it was conveyed in a light-hearted manner. Certainly not in a humourous fashion, but with little or no emotion.

However, those images are going to live with the soldiers for the rest of their lives, you can't kill someone, even an enemy soldier in war, without it affecting you in some way.

let the soldiers shoot the lot of the camel nobbers whether theyre armed or not!

If by "camel nobber" you mean "enemy combatants", then I agree. Obviously it is nicer to take PoWs from a human rights point of view, but this isn't always feasible.

However if by "camel nobber" you mean Iraqi in a general sense, I would have to say that this would be a rather inappropriate course of action!

 

[AdamW]

Just thinking about this though, Gulf War I, where it was the proper Iraqi army vs. UK and US, they surrendered without too much hassle. Yes, it was still a war and people still died, but they frequently came out with their hands up.

Yet this time arround, they are fighting more of a guerilla war and with what appears to be a no-surrender policy (unless you've grazed your knee or run out of bullets).

Why is this? What has caused the step change in tactics and aggression from GWI to GWII?

 

[pipme]

Diehards ..... not general Iraqi troops.
I guess this is the frightener tactics to wrong foot the general Iraqi citizen who really just wants to get on with his / her life .... Fear is the key for everyone it would seem.
I suppose the media is sore because they appear to lack power to sway general opinion ... Whatever GW is, one must admire his resolution ... Potential enemies are surely reappraising how far he can be pushed .. not much it would seem.
I wonder if it is the Maggie effect ... ref Falklands ... start, then finish the job I wonder how history will see this ?

P

 

[jasy]

I will kill your mates but when i have had enough i will ask for your help because i am hurt and expect it because the TV is here and you will help me..............yeh right.

There is the principle that if you injure an enemy soldier, you take three people out of the game as two other enemy soldiers carry him off or look after him.

The Principal only applies to your forces. Apparently it takes out 3 when your mate is wounded, 2 to tend him. That would only apply after an action. If you are busy attacking you keep going. As for the enemy they will get looked at after or when it is safe to do so. One of the principals of First Aid in the army is make sure there is no further danger before treating someone. Really easy to do when injured insurgents are blowing themselves up when you get near to them

 

[jasy]

Just thinking about this though, Gulf War I, where it was the proper Iraqi army vs. UK and US, they surrendered without too much hassle. Yes, it was still a war and people still died, but they frequently came out with their hands up.

Yet this time arround, they are fighting more of a guerilla war and with what appears to be a no-surrender policy (unless you've grazed your knee or run out of bullets).

Why is this? What has caused the step change in tactics and aggression from GWI to GWII?

The majority are not even Iraqis but other maniacs who are using this war as a vehicle to have their own battle

 

[AdamW]

The Principal only applies to your forces.

Yes, that is my point:

If you are trying to take a city, you need every man you have. You can't spare 2 of them to go tending to an enemy. At the same time, you can't just leave the enemy there to warn his friends who head past a few minutes later. So, the only choice is to shoot him. Which is what the allied forces did.

 

[kevplumb]

you dont tend the enemy you do exactly what was done
they dont take pows why the h*ll should we
yes i know geneva convention etc
rules are ok if both sides are playing by them

 

[jasy]

The Principal only applies to your forces.

Yes, that is my point:

If you are trying to take a city, you need every man you have. You can't spare 2 of them to go tending to an enemy. At the same time, you can't just leave the enemy there to warn his friends who head past a few minutes later. So, the only choice is to shoot him. Which is what the allied forces did.

Sorry mate i think i confused you. We do not just drop 2 blokes off to treat anyone until we have completed what we are doing and it is safe to do so.

 

[Thermo]

when i was in the army we had a standard tactic of laying on top of them and rolling them, while youre mate stood at the right angle ready to shoot him if there was anything he didnt like, ie a grenade in his hand under him. Having said that we accepted the view that if we fighting ivan all the way back to berlin, it would probably be a bullet in the head to save the hassle.

 

[Damocles]

The reason for being nice to enemy soldiers is to demonstrate that we are better than them. That is the principle dear President Bush is trying to get across, that the American way is better than theirs. That was what he said, wasn't it?

Then again, if all the world sees pictures of surrendered soldiers being shot, perhaps some more of those enemy might start thinking it is a better plan to fight to the death than to surrender. Not much incentive to surrender.

Why are these guys fighting? That's obvious. They are fighting for the right to run their country the way they want to. Sadam's lot were fighting for the right to run it the way HE wanted to, and they were not very enthusiastic about it. This lot see a real chance of finally getting their own country, and are damn well going to fight for it. Wouldn't you do the same?

 

[jasy]

when i was in the army we had a standard tactic of laying on top of them and rolling them, while youre mate stood at the right angle ready to shoot him if there was anything he didnt like, ie a grenade in his hand under him. Having said that we accepted the view that if we fighting ivan all the way back to berlin, it would probably be a bullet in the head to save the hassle.

Agreed, jump on them roll them over with your mate covering.....We are talking about the yanks and they adopt the "lets take all risks out of the equation and just shoot them policy". Which is a good one

 

[AdamW]

"lets take all risks out of the equation and just shoot them policy".

British servicemen must seem rather risky to the yanks then...

 

[kevplumb]

beat me to it

 

[Thermo]

no not really, becuase at the same time your mate was shooting him, you were rolling him back down hard onto the device and moving damn quick. Tried and tested

 

[jasy]

Agreed. It is the best way. Not always the safest but that is why we are the best in the world...............we do it right