Hedgehog Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 Allow me to sum up the situation.....Our guys (Our very own 12 Alpha Included) are using 105mm arty pieces, airstrikes and the humble rifle, to sort these zealots out, and HM Govt & the MoD are sacking a RM Sgt for hitting a Taliban (a confirmed IED man no less) with a f**king Welly? (Gum Boot)What the hell is this mickey mouse shit???!!Anyway some bods have setup a petition, I think anyone can sign this.PM for details. News story:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8622171.stmFacebook:http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=110083419024071&ref=search&sid=285000838.2588035313..1#!/group.php?gid=110083419024071&v=info&ref=searchIs it against the forum rules to post petition links here? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell_Hound Posted April 19, 2010 Share Posted April 19, 2010 I have no problem with the bomb maker getting his guts stomped out.However, that kind of thing going public causes 'hearts and minds' damage for some bloody reason. Sergeants are supposed to understand that 'mission before team before self' stuff.I'm pretty surprised they discharged him that way; had I been in his chain I would have tacitly condoned the assault by getting him some kind of PTSD diagnosis and a medical discharge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted April 20, 2010 Members Share Posted April 20, 2010 Is it against the forum rules to post petition links here?Well, it certainly has the potential to spark political debate, and it sets a precedent. Next time someone posts a petition to support our valiant jihadis in Guantanamo, or "pro-life" bomb planters, we'd be in a pickle to allow this but not others. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quagmire Posted April 22, 2010 Share Posted April 22, 2010 Un-f***ing-believable!!!Our politically-correct government strikes again! :frown:I don't know what my country is coming to, I really don't! :confused:Right now there are a lot of stories in the press about the MOD trying to limit the amount of compensation soldier's receive for injuries - then this next story comes along - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1266069/Now-single-mother-sort-childcare-demands-1-1m--seven-times-Army-offered-hero-lost-legs.htmlAnother unbelievable moment! :frown: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacbat Posted April 22, 2010 Share Posted April 22, 2010 I'm sure press like this is doing wonders for recruiting... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 its pure BS,look at what they re trying to do to those SEALS for punching a terrorist in the gut.so far one has gotten off,the other trials start in may.Signed it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ssnake Posted April 23, 2010 Members Share Posted April 23, 2010 its pure BS,look at what they re trying to do to those SEALS for punching a terrorist in the gut.so far one has gotten off,the other trials start in may.Signed it.Allegedly they punched a captive, and the first was acquitted by court martial for lack of evidence - both forensic, and consistent eye witness reports. That's not just semantics here, it's an entirely different meaning... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpow66m Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 semantics or not,whether they did or not,its a farce to even try someone for that.both cases are a joke. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogwa Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 (edited) Allegedly they punched a captive, and the first was acquitted by court martial for lack of evidence - both forensic, and consistent eye witness reports. That's not just semantics here, it's an entirely different meaning...2 of the 3 SEALs charged have been found not guilty. Neither allegedly punched the terrorist. They were charged with failing to protect the terrorist while in custody. Each was offered non judicial punishment, which they wisely declined in lieu of a court martial. This resulted in a fair trial and a not guilty verdict. The 3rd SEAL is actually charged with striking the terrorist. For reasons Im not sure of, his trial will be in Norfolk,Va not in Baghdad.* Im not sure thats good for him. Norfolk is a lot closer to the "head shed" for the navy. He should be found not guilty also. Most guilty people will not demand court martial when offered a more lenient form of justice (non judicial punishment)Since the alleged event did not occur, it is little wonder to me there was no evidence of it. That the accounts of a terrorist and an E-4 that initially denied any assault took place, then was bullied into testifying by the guys up at corporate, didn't match up is no surprise either. Mog Edited April 24, 2010 by Mogwa *Edit: The 3rd SEALs trial is in Norfolk, Va because he declined to assert his legal right to face his terrorist accuser. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogwa Posted May 6, 2010 Share Posted May 6, 2010 Just an update on the SEAL thing. The third SEAL has been found not guilty on all charges. Mog 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 Not referring to the specific cases mentioned here, some of you guys are saying it's ok to beat prisoners? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacbat Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 I think "beat" may be to general a term. "Tactical questioning" isn't as extreme as water-boarding for example. (Don't want to open this particular can of worms) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 So it would be ok for the enemy to do the same thing to our soldiers/citizens when they are captured? How can we expect them not to do that when we are doing it ourselves? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankHunter Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 So it would be ok for the enemy to do the same thing to our soldiers/citizens when they are captured? How can we expect them not to do that when we are doing it ourselves?Just give it a euphemism for when we do it. Then we can have our cake and eat it too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogwa Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 Just give it a euphemism for when we do it. Then we can have our cake and eat it too.Sort of like calling stealing software, "downloading torrents". That just doesnt work. Mog 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell_Hound Posted May 7, 2010 Share Posted May 7, 2010 Not referring to the specific cases mentioned here, some of you guys are saying it's ok to beat prisoners?It's not a good idea to beat prisoners, for the obvious reason you point out. However, there are some humans for whom I have no compassion whatsoever and if I imagine them being beaten there's no emotional response at all.I guess that simplifies to "I'm ok with certain prisoners being beaten, but there are compelling reasons not to beat them". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaplain Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 Maybe it is better to separate whether or not it is ever OK to beat POWs, and whether or not it is always appropriate to cashier or even imprison soldiers who beat POWs. I do not believe one's answer to the second question necessarily prejudices his the answer to the first question.My opinions:POWs should never be beaten for acts committed before capture, though they may be punished for certain acts committed after capture.If a soldier "beats" a POW, he should be punished, but a commander should take into account the circumstances surrounding the soldier's actions before determining said punishment. Punishment could be anything from a verbal rebuke to imprisonment, depending on those circumstances. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankHunter Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 Sort of like calling stealing software, "downloading torrents". That just doesnt work. MogOr torturing a mentally unstable and medicated 17 year old. Oh, by the way, what is the euphemism for that? I seem to have forgotten it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GH_Lieste Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 Or torturing a mentally unstable and medicated 17 year old. Oh, by the way, what is the euphemism for that? I seem to have forgotten it.Dating? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogwa Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 Or torturing a mentally unstable and medicated 17 year old. Oh, by the way, what is the euphemism for that? I seem to have forgotten it.We thought you were twenty-something ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RENEGADE-623 Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Actually, they have already done it without our doing it. So it would be ok for the enemy to do the same thing to our soldiers/citizens when they are captured? How can we expect them not to do that when we are doing it ourselves? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Posted May 10, 2010 Share Posted May 10, 2010 Yes, I know and now we can no longer point our finger at them and say how wrong they are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.