Marine A appeals against his conviction

Scroll to see replies

My point is that the Taliban soldiers wouldn't think twice about killing our guys. To be fair, we shouldn't even be there in the first place.

We should. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are a despicable duo both of whom need to be eradicated. We can not, under any circumstance, allow the Taliban to seize control of Afghanistan. It would be an epic humanitarian disaster.

Reply 21

uktotalgamer

Original post by pol pot noodles

They may need to be eradicated, but we need to follow the rules!

Reply 22

pol pot noodles

Original post by uktotalgamer

They may need to be eradicated, but we need to follow the rules!

What rules?!

Reply 23

the mezzil

Original post by Al-Mudaari

lol @ petition, I hope MI5's got them on surveillance.

How about we send him to Afghanistan to be tried under a Taliban court, seeing as the murder was done on their land and against their representative. That would be much fairer than the joke of a sentence he got in the UK, which isn't going to deter any soldier from replicating those hideous crimes.

The Taliban don't rule Afghanistan, so it is not really their land. All thanks to the British Army, Allah gave them their victory. I don't think Allah is on the Taliban side, he sees them for the infidels they are. He is on the side of the righteous and just. If the Taliban are righteous, Allah would make them win and give them victory, which they are not doing.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 24

uktotalgamer

Original post by pol pot noodles

What rules?!

The Geneva Convention; which while absolutely brilliantly (and I wholeheartedly agree with) protects the human rights of those who deserve them, and those that need them; detestably protects the human rights of people who will never consider the human rights of others in a bizarre twist of events!

Reply 25

Stiff Little Fingers

Original post by Fizzel

I highly doubt he will succeed on either front. The crime was cut and dry, and the sentence was already lenient.

I can't believe I'm having to say this twice on the first page - it wasn't lenient, a life sentence is the harshest punishment available in this case.

Original post by uktotalgamer

So it's alright to the Taliban to massacre as many as they want because they have no rules, but we must abide by ours? Yeah, ok bro.

You miss the point somewhat - while we are at war with them, we have codes of war to follow which includes not murdering civilians who pose no threat. The Taliban, not being signed to them, do not have to follow these codes. These codes don't contain footnotes giving exclusions.

Compare it to a crime in this country - what you are suggesting is akin to suggesting it's alright to rob a known burglar because he'd do the same to us. An eye for an eye has never, and will never, be a sensible basis for actions.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 26

Xabier

Original post by uktotalgamer

So it's alright to the Taliban to massacre as many as they want because they have no rules, but we must abide by ours? Yeah, ok bro.

Are you being serious?

Reply 27

uktotalgamer

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

I can't believe I'm having to say this twice on the first page - it wasn't lenient, a life sentence is the harshest punishment available in this case.

You miss the point somewhat - while we are at war with them, we have codes of war to follow which includes not murdering civilians who pose no threat. The Taliban, not being signed to them, do not have to follow these codes. These codes don't contain footnotes giving exclusions.

Compare it to a crime in this country - what you are suggesting is akin to suggesting it's alright to rob a known burglar because he'd do the same to us. An eye for an eye has never, and will never, be a sensible basis for actions.

So in which case, why train our soldiers to kill?

Reply 28

pol pot noodles

Original post by uktotalgamer

Ah right yeah I thought you were refering to something else there. As an ex-forces my own take on it is I support the Convention on moral principle, but sometimes when you capture a guy who's been trying to kill you and has possibly killed your best mates, it's really, really hard and takes a lot of self-discipline to not go '**** it' and simply just slot the bastard.

Reply 29

uktotalgamer

Original post by pol pot noodles

Ah right yeah I thought you were refering to something else there. As an ex-forces my own take on it is I support the Convention on moral principle, but sometimes when you capture a guy who's been trying to kill you and has possibly killed your best mates, it's really, really hard not to go '**** it' and simply just slot the bastard.

I completely agree. The convention rightly protects the human rights of those that need them, but I just cannot understand how we can happily give human rights to those that have no respect for our human rights; just so we can say that we don't stoop to their level. If the situation were reversed, do you think the Taliban would have sentenced their soldier to life imprisonment...

Reply 30

Stiff Little Fingers

Original post by uktotalgamer

So in which case, why train our soldiers to kill?

Because war inevitably involves killing people - however there is a distinction to be made between killing people as part of battle, and killing an injured man in cold blood.

Reply 31

uktotalgamer

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

Because war inevitably involves killing people - however there is a distinction to be made between killing people as part of battle, and killing an injured man in cold blood.

Have the Taliban not killed in cold blood?

Reply 32

lucaf

Original post by uktotalgamer

but as you say, why stoop to their level? all doing so achieves is remove our moral high ground. the fight against the taliban is to a large degree an ideological one, if we sacrifice our ideals to fight them then what is the point?

that whole point of human rights is that they are universal. once you start deciding who they do or do not apply to the whole concept becomes void.

Reply 33

Habsburg

Original post by Algorithm69

MI5 has you under surveillance.

In all seriousness, they actually might.

Reply 34

uktotalgamer

Can see I'm fighting a losing battle here. I'm out.

Reply 35

Algorithm69

Original post by Habsburg

In all seriousness, they actually might.

I actually have no doubt they do. Home-grown terrorism is a big concern, especially amongst radicalised students. This website seems like a good place to keep on eye on Islamic psychos.

Reply 36

Habsburg

Original post by Algorithm69

I actually have no doubt they do. Home-grown terrorism is a big concern, especially amongst radicalised students. This website seems like a good place to keep on eye on Islamic psychos.

Yeah, I imagine they look out for the occasional crazies with usernames like 'WhitesAwaken' that seem to turn up on here, too.

Reply 37

thunder_chunky

Original post by uktotalgamer

So it's alright to the Taliban to massacre as many as they want because they have no rules, but we must abide by ours? Yeah, ok bro.

I clearly did not say or imply that the practices of the Taliban is alright or is acceptable by any means. Whether they abide by the rules or not is one thing, however that doesn't mean we shouldn't abide by the rules. This is all common sense but if you're still not getting it take a moment and think about it. I'll just wait here until the penny drops.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 38

username1315644

Original post by Stiff Little Fingers

I can't believe I'm having to say this twice on the first page - it wasn't lenient, a life sentence is the harshest punishment available in this case.

Yes and that life sentence has a minimum terms which was set at 10 years rather than the maximum 30. The life sentence isn't the harshest available its the only one available, he faced a mandatory life sentence with a variable minimum term. I read your post and it was wrong.