6 Soldiers Killed today RIP

[throdgrain]

Yeah it's terrible, Afghan "troops" go renegade and shoot our armed forces and we say nothing, an allied soldier does exactly the same thing and it's tyhe end of the world.

 

[Uncle Sick]

US soldier kills guns ten civilians to death, wounds 5 others.

But he's had a "nervous breakdown" so that's OK then...

Aljazeera has a different take on the story, reporting "at least" 17 civilians killed, but the quote about the soldiers mental state is:

Who said "it's ok then?". Nothing in the article indicated that it was ok.
Just your anti America shit as per usual.

 

[Scouse]

Yeah it's terrible, Afghan "troops" go renegade and shoot our armed forces and we say nothing, an allied soldier does exactly the same thing and it's tyhe end of the world.

Lol! Afghan "troops"

They're not troops. They're the enemy. They've infiltrated the army we're making for the puppet government we've put in place and are fighting back.

It's as legitimate a tactic as us tooling all the way from England and the US with thousands of soldiers and the world's best weaponry to invade their country.

We've invaded. They're fighting back by killing our soldiers and military personnel by any means available - we'd do the same if the French invaded.


It's quite obviously not the same thing as one of our boys leaving his barracks and murdering civilians.

Who said "it's ok then?". Nothing in the article indicated that it was ok. Just your anti America shit as per usual

The part of the article I was referring to was using the language of appeasement. He's had a "mental breakdown" - so we can sympathise that he's gone batshit and murdered unarmed civilians in their beds rather than sympathise with the families that he shot and burned.

It's not anti-American. I don't give a fuck if he's American, British or French. He's a fucking murderer. He's part of an invading army that went out and murdered civilians whilst they slept.

It's anti-cunt.

 

[throdgrain]

Christ Scouse you're such a twat sometimes

 

[Scouse]

You're the one who doesn't seem to care that one of our soldiers went out and murdered a load of civilians...

 

[Turamber]

Yeah it's terrible, Afghan "troops" go renegade and shoot our armed forces and we say nothing, an allied soldier does exactly the same thing and it's tyhe end of the world.

Executing nine children with a bullet each to the head is not the same as killing soldiers. Any suggestion otherwise is patently ridiculous.

 

[caLLous]

I don't know how Scouse's post was twatish, I thought he was bang on tbh. A rogue (infiltrated, whatever) afghan troop killing 6 soldiers != murdering families in their sleep and torching their bodies afterwards.

 

[throdgrain]

You dont know what they are, "rogue" or just "changed thier mind" or indeed, just "went mental", like this bloke did. Scouse you just see the bad side of everything, it's somehow always "we are terrible", "poor old insurgents" or whatever they are. Natives? I dunno, whatever. You're posts are just screaming out sixth form lefties all the time, it's just depressing lately.

Executing nine children with a bullet each to the head is not the same as killing soldiers. Any suggestion otherwise is patently ridiculous

The difference is what exactly, age? The Afghans who have turned sides have murdered unarmed men, shot while sleeping, thats about all. Neither is right, obviously, in fact both are very well bloody wrong, however they are very much the same.

In fact, if you want to take up an arguement that the Afghans have deliberately infitrated the training schemes, then they were working under orders to murder servicemen, therefore in an act of war, whereas this soldier obviously wasnt acting under orders, obviously went mental or something, therefore his crime is just a crime, rather than an act of war. Which is better, which is worse?

 

[Scouse]

Aw throd, I think you are much better than your posting on this belies

The difference is what exactly?

The difference is obvious:

1. Killing military targets. Soldiers. People who have signed up to the "Live by the sword" charter...
2. Killing civilians and their children in their houses

You sign up to be a soldier, then you're saying "I will kill people when told, and I am fine with being put at risk of being killed as it's part of the job".

You don't sign up - you're one of joe public. Regardless of your feelings on the subject of war you haven't signed up to be either a target or a targeter. When war comes to your front door, kills your wife and kids, it's a fucking disgrace and a tragedy.

Much more so than someone who signed up to it as part of their job. Unarmed or not, playing football with the hun in no mans land or strafing the vietnamese. If you're a soldier you're fair game.

If you're a civilian you're NOT.

 

[throdgrain]

I'm sure you only read what you want to read. People who have signed up to live by the sword, who then train people to help thier own country, then get shot, while asleep or unarmed, while thier "swords" are locked up. But regardless of that even, like I said but you surely ignored, this soldier has committed a crime, he's gone mad and killed people, he wasnt under orders to do that. It's a crime.

 

[Scouse]

People who have signed up to live by the sword, who then train people to help thier own country, then get shot, while asleep or unarmed, while thier "swords" are locked up.

Who gives a fuck?

If you've got the chance of shelling the unarmed and sleeping NME to death, thereby winning the war, do you shell them or do you go "aaaw, we're gonna have to wait until they wake up and pick up their guns before they're fair game".

Fucklol.

this soldier has committed a crime, he's gone mad and killed people, he wasnt under orders to do that. It's a crime.

Yep. It's a crime and a disgrace. He's part of the armed forces and that fact makes it much worse than when it's Raul Moat shooting a police officer in the face.

As much as you'd like to distance them from it - a soldier murdering civilians reflects badly on the armed forces. And rightly so.

 

[throdgrain]

Who gives a fuck?

If you've got the chance of shelling the unarmed and sleeping NME to death, thereby winning the war, do you shell them or do you go "aaaw, we're gonna have to wait until they wake up and pick up their guns before they're fair game".

Fucklol.



Yep. It's a crime and a disgrace. He's part of the armed forces and that fact makes it much worse than when it's Raul Moat shooting a police officer in the face.

As much as you'd like to distance them from it - a soldier murdering civilians reflects badly on the armed forces. And rightly so.

a) I give a fuck.

b) The only difference is the amount of people. To use your previous analogy, soldiers have been murdering civilians and unarmed soliders for centuries, I wouldnt ever condone it, you however would it seems.

c) You just want to have a dig at what you see as "the establishment" every chance you get, which is why you go on these crusades (sic) every chance you get.

edit

d) You are the leader of the sixth form debating society

 

[Scouse]

That's a massive sack of bull right there throdlar

 

[Scouse]

It's pretty fucking terrible tbh; he killed 15*, including 9 children*. In one house he killed 11*, doused all the bodies with a chemical* and burned them*.

*apparently

Not "apparently" any more. Apart from the number was 16 murdered and another 6 attempted. He's admitted his guilt...

And no "insanity" plea either:

just "went mental", like this bloke did

He was just a nasty piece of shit who went out and murdered a load of innocents then bragged about it, then went back out to do it some more*.

After 10 years he'll be eligable for parole. Top job, eh?





*Why his squad mate didn't stop him or report him doesn't even figure...

 

[soze]

The two are not equal in my head. The Afgan troop is no different to us sending the SAS behind enemy lines and killing people. It is dirty war but it is still war.

Murdering the civilians is murder. Neither are nice but the murder is worse in my eyes.

 

[rynnor]

War is a crazy situation which places unimaginable stresses on people - that's why you get this kind of stuff happening.

Only the self deluded think you can have a 'just war' or a war of 'liberation' without piles of bodies everywhere.

Edit - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

It's a US example but it goes for all armies everywhere tbh.

 

[Scouse]

Only the self deluded think you can have a 'just war' or a war of 'liberation' without piles of bodies everywhere

Agree 100%.

Our politicians know this very well too. But they still go in. The guy who chopped that soldiers head off was correct in that our political leaders do not give a shit about the people. They never have.

 

[Dukat]

The two are not equal in my head. The Afgan troop is no different to us sending the SAS behind enemy lines and killing people. It is dirty war but it is still war.

Actually the example you used is wrong - The Afghan soldier who shoots people in the back as they sit down to scoff is killing indiscriminately - he doesn't care if he hits civilian contractors, chefs, locals, or anyone else. He doesn't care if anyone attempts to surrender and he isn't going to offer medical support to people he incapacitates to the point of being unable to fight. He isn't even going to aim at a specific target - just any old bod will do.

That is against the ICRC's Laws of Armed Conflict. The 'daring SAS raid behind enemy lines' you watch on TV is, in reality, a world away from that. The Law of Armed Conflict still applies - there is nothing indiscriminate about it - targets are identified and if need be killed according to detailed intelligence.

Who gives a fuck?

If you've got the chance of shelling the unarmed and sleeping NME to death, thereby winning the war, do you shell them or do you go "aaaw, we're gonna have to wait until they wake up and pick up their guns before they're fair game".

As much as I agree with some of the things you say about killing civilians being different to killing soldiers, you are wrong with what you've typed here. The so called 'fair game' you talk about is part of international laws of armed conflict that we are drilled in extensively and following it is not optional.

Rules of Engagement is not a subject open to discussion for me, however I just wanted to point out that killing sleeping / unarmed enemy is not an act committed except in extreme circumstances and with extensive oversight from above.

Your impression on the way we do business seems to have been gathered from a mixture of left-wing media and action movies. At times I honestly wonder whether you believe any of this or if you write half of it as a provocation, Scouse. We are not half as bad as you seem to make us out to be.

I honestly do understand alot of the strong feelings towards the situation in Afghanistan, however I genuinely believe that life has improved for the average bod over there. As I've said before, it probably has a long way to go before it can be considered 'good enough', but atleast we're doing our level best to achieve that.

 

[soze]

Actually the example you used is wrong - The Afghan soldier who shoots people in the back as they sit down to scoff is killing indiscriminately - he doesn't care if he hits civilian contractors, chefs, locals, or anyone else. He doesn't care if anyone attempts to surrender and he isn't going to offer medical support to people he incapacitates to the point of being unable to fight. He isn't even going to aim at a specific target - just any old bod will do.

That is against the ICRC's Laws of Armed Conflict. The 'daring SAS raid behind enemy lines' you watch on TV is, in reality, a world away from that. The Law of Armed Conflict still applies - there is nothing indiscriminate about it - targets are identified and if need be killed according to detailed intelligence.

It is still a far cry away from murdering Civilians. The raid to get Bin Lada is a good example the other males there were not all categorized a a specific threat and killed because of who they were. They were guarding him so they were killed. This Afgan soldier had the aim of killing as many Foreign soldiers as he could. Like I said yes it is dirty war and horrible for the soldiers. But they can not fight us in a fair war so things like this are to be expected.

 

[Dukat]

It is still a far cry away from murdering Civilians. The raid to get Bin Lada is a good example the other males there were not all categorized a a specific threat and killed because of who they were. They were guarding him so they were killed. This Afgan soldier had the aim of killing as many Foreign soldiers as he could. Like I said yes it is dirty war and horrible for the soldiers. But they can not fight us in a fair war so things like this are to be expected.

The raid in Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden is probably the worst example, to be fair. It wasn't by UK forces. It wasn't even in Afghanistan. I would also raise doubt as to whether or not these people who were there are guards were asleep, unarmed or even 'innocent' in the slightest.

They may well not have been a specific threat but once someone points a weapon in your direction they become a specific threat. If any of them tried to surrender then they should have been treated as detainees. If they weren't then that is a war crime under our laws. The fact that we have these laws in the first place points to a difference in our ways of operating.

I do see what you're saying, I'm just not sure I totally agree.

The point I'm trying to get across is that we aren't every bit as bad as them. The laws we abide by protect civilians and even insurgents who no longer wish to continue the fight. The way we work means that we attempt our best to bring peace to the area and make the every-day Afghan civilian have a better standard of life.

 

[DaGaffer]

...I just wanted to point out that killing sleeping / unarmed enemy is not an act committed except in extreme circumstances and with extensive oversight from above.

Except of course when you drop a bomb on them.

 

[soze]

The raid in Pakistan to kill Osama Bin Laden is probably the worst example, to be fair. It wasn't by UK forces. It wasn't even in Afghanistan. I would also raise doubt as to whether or not these people who were there are guards were asleep, unarmed or even 'innocent' in the slightest.

They may well not have been a specific threat but once someone points a weapon in your direction they become a specific threat. If any of them tried to surrender then they should have been treated as detainees. If they weren't then that is a war crime under our laws. The fact that we have these laws in the first place points to a difference in our ways of operating.

I do see what you're saying, I'm just not sure I totally agree.

The point I'm trying to get across is that we aren't every bit as bad as them. The laws we abide by protect civilians and even insurgents who no longer wish to continue the fight. The way we work means that we attempt our best to bring peace to the area and make the every-day Afghan civilian have a better standard of life.

Emotionally I do not agree with me but logically I can't see the difference. Bin Laden was killed with a AK meters away hanging on the wall. His son was shot as he look over a banister and was not even dressed let alone carrying a weapon. The whole raid verges on murder as it seems the Seals were given a green light to kill any combat aged men on sight.

There are also a hell of a lot of reports and the SAS doing similar with terrorists in the embassy siege.

So like I said I do not like it either but I can't bring my self to not see it as a valid tactic.

 

[fettoken]

Personally. I have seen enough of shit from America to have the opinion the world would be better without "them". Government get away with too much. A few nukes spread here and there, throw them back a couple of decades back in time would be preferred.

Nah, but to be serious. The county in itself, America, has no real "history". What it stands for, it is an insult to mankind.

 

[Dukat]

Except of course when you drop a bomb on them.

No, not "except of course when you drop a bomb on them".

Unless I wasn't paying attention while they told us "oh yea guys, and remember - if you use a really really big bomb then no one cares about ROE."

 

[Dukat]

Personally. I have seen enough of shit from America to have the opinion the world would be better without "them". Government get away with too much. A few nukes spread here and there, throw them back a couple of decades back in time would be preferred.

Nah, but to be serious. The county in itself, America, has no real "history". What it stands for, it is an insult to mankind.

Honestly, what are you on about?

An insult to mankind? What?

What do you think it 'stands for' then?

 

[DaGaffer]

No, not "except of course when you drop a bomb on them".

Unless I wasn't paying attention while they told us "oh yea guys, and remember - if you use a really really big bomb then no one cares about ROE."

Sorry but the RoE are clearly broken then, because bombs and hellfires land on unarmed and unsuspecting people all the time, usually fired by someone drinking coffee in a portakabin in Nevada. A Hellfire doesn't discriminate between the guy firing an AK in the air at a wedding, and women and kids all around him. Or are you saying that kind of shit doesn't really happen?

 

[rynnor]

It's clear the rules of engagement for drones allow the killing of civilians if a wanted target is present.

 

[Dukat]

bombs and hellfires land on unarmed and unsuspecting people all the time,

Unsuspecting perhaps, but rarely, if ever unarmed. To say it happens 'all the time' is, to the best of my knowledge, wrong.

A Hellfire doesn't discriminate between the guy firing an AK in the air at a wedding, and women and kids all around him. Or are you saying that kind of shit doesn't really happen?

I'm saying that kind of shit doesn't really happen. A guy firing an AK in the air at a wedding, surrounded by women and children, should not ever (as far as I am aware) be the target of an airstrike. If he is, I would suggest it would be an isolated and extremely bad accident.

Such a thing, if it has happened (I'm assuming it has, since you've been so specific) would be more a combination of not knowing of civilians being present and having the honest belief that the person firing the AK was intending it as an act of aggression.

It's clear the rules of engagement for drones allow the killing of civilians if a wanted target is present.

Source?

 

[Scouse]

Unsuspecting perhaps, but rarely, if ever unarmed. To say it happens 'all the time' is, to the best of my knowledge, wrong.

Funny, the Brookings Institution, a non-partisan US think-tank, ranked as "the most influential think tank in the world", produced a report saying that for every "militant" killed by drone strikes ten civilians are killed.

Don't kid yourself Dukat. "Rules of Engagement" are there to make the public think war is all fluffy. But politicians favour expediency, not fairness...

 

[soze]

Re Drone Strikes. I would like to believe that they are always well thought out but I do think the term collateral damage is applicable. If the Americans see a known bomb maker who has been responsible for killing 100s of soldiers via road side bombs enter a house they will blow it up 9 out of 10 times. If it is a house in the middle of nowhere not near a school or hospital then they will blow it up without second thought for how many women and children might be inside. I do not think they go out aiming to kill civilians with these weapons but I also do not think they are overly concerned when they see the target as important.