Shit On By The Country He Served

[scothunter 12,609]

So he would be happy to control europe and britain sitting pretty with its empire. If you knew your history you would know that type of co existence would not have worked. It would have been war.

 

And as i said he signed pacts and agreements which he broke time after time.

He even contradicts himself in mein kampf. Tbh its utter nonsense that book.

 

hitler was not a good leader and an even worse tactician. One of the main reasons he ended up he did

 

If he had listened to erich manstein (imo the best military taction ever) and rommel instead of thinking he knew better things would have been very much different.

[Bryan 1,362]

It was just after a firefight so they wouldn't be " just sitting around "

 

 

Do you know anything at all about what happened Socks?

 

There was no firefight. The place was attacked by helicopter and they were checking for damage. There's no firefight in the clip.

He was court marshalled by his military peers. They didn't find his behaviour acceptable, not me, not the public.

 

They felt that the video would increase the risk of attacks of servicemen and women.

Some craic coming on here commenting on a case you know nothing about?

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/royal-marines-court-martial-audio-2685674

 

 

He told the court martial in Bulford, Wiltshire, its issue could be used as propaganda by terror groups.

He added: “More importantly to release it would increase the threat of harm to British service personnel.”

Judge Blackett permitted the issue of 11 stills from the video, captured on the camera worn by Marine B.

They show the backs of the Marines but do not feature their alleged victim.

The video footage, which has been shown to a panel of seven serving servicemen, shows the Royal Marine patrol standing outside a field of tall crops, with an Apache helicopter audible overhead.

They can be heard swearing and complaining about their task of carrying out a battle damage assessment after the Apache attack.

During the trial, the court martial heard the insurgent had been shot at with 139 30mm anti-tank rounds but was still alive, albeit seriously injured, when discovered by the patrol.

[General lee 979]

Who cares he's a Taliban shoot the lot of them don't keep messing about with them scummy little basrtds

[DogFox123 1,379]

So he would be happy to control europe and britain sitting pretty with its empire. If you knew your history you would know that type of co existence would not have worked. It would have been war.

 

And as i said he signed pacts and agreements which he broke time after time.

He even contradicts himself in mein kampf. Tbh its utter nonsense that book.

 

hitler was not a good leader and an even worse tactician. One of the main reasons he ended up he did

 

If he had listened to erich manstein (imo the best military taction ever) and rommel instead of thinking he knew better things would have been very much different.

Last I heard he only invaded France after the Frogs and us declared war on Germany.

 

Are you surprised what he did after the strangulation of his nation by the Treaty of Versailles?

 

Of course he was a bad tactician, his main intentions were to create Lebensraum in the east and that's where he should have struck fast and hard against the Russians as they were unprepared for war. I doubt Britain and France would have done much about it. Although they did declare war on Germany after it's invasion of Poland they basically did fcuk all about it, I think we would have let Hitler get on with it in the east if left alone.

 

I see this is way off topic as usual hahaha.

Edited November 1, 2016 by DogFox123

[socks 32,253]

 

It was just after a firefight so they wouldn't be " just sitting around "

 

 

Do you know anything at all about what happened Socks?

 

There was no firefight. The place was attacked by helicopter and they were checking for damage. There's no firefight in the clip.

He was court marshalled by his military peers. They didn't find his behaviour acceptable, not me, not the public.

 

They felt that the video would increase the risk of attacks of servicemen and women.

Some craic coming on here commenting on a case you know nothing about?

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/royal-marines-court-martial-audio-2685674

 

 

He told the court martial in Bulford, Wiltshire, its issue could be used as propaganda by terror groups.

He added: “More importantly to release it would increase the threat of harm to British service personnel.”

Judge Blackett permitted the issue of 11 stills from the video, captured on the camera worn by Marine B.

They show the backs of the Marines but do not feature their alleged victim.

The video footage, which has been shown to a panel of seven serving servicemen, shows the Royal Marine patrol standing outside a field of tall crops, with an Apache helicopter audible overhead.

They can be heard swearing and complaining about their task of carrying out a battle damage assessment after the Apache attack.

During the trial, the court martial heard the insurgent had been shot at with 139 30mm anti-tank rounds but was still alive, albeit seriously injured, when discovered by the patrol.[/size]

Apache assault helicopter ... mortars ... warrior section ... small arms fire ... it makes no difference the follow up is very similar they certainly ain't sitting about doing nothing as you say ... obviously none of the 30mm HE rounds had hit him or there would be nothing left of him ... the footage wasn't out there for the public to see so how could it be used for any propoganda ... have you served ? Been in a similar situation??? ......

[Qbgrey 3,990]

dont make no sense to me, shoot to kill,but if one gets injured you have to administer first aid.

[gnasher16 29,752]

dont make no sense to me, shoot to kill,but if one gets injured you have to administer first aid.

My thoughts exactly shoot him again or dont shoot him in the first place.....ridiculous.

[tb25 4,626]

Hitler would of took over us all if he could have..a great man with a very sick brain...

[riohog 5,652]

shit happens , it wasnt a smart move to vid the job .but its done now . . the lads will have to be a bit more carefull in future what they say and do .......

[DogFox123 1,379]

The flip side to it is what about POW? Should we shoot those that have surrendered???

[riohog 5,652]

The flip side to it is what about POW? Should we shoot those that have surrendered???

it would be cheaper than feeding them

[scothunter 12,609]

Morally no, but it happened during the war. I guess it depends on the individual soldiers.If they can live with there actions after.A lot of SS camp guards who surrendered were just summary executed.

I actually cant fault them in a way. The sights they saw when they liberated those camps were bound to offer out quick justice.

 

However for a winning side to walk over a battlefield shooting the injured. No that would be wrong.

[mackay 3,067]

Isis and other terrorist related enemies aside, the whole idea of treating your prisoners wounded or not with due respect and consideration was in the likliehood the enemy would in turn reciprocate the gesture.

You could argue this wouldn't be the case in this instance or for that matter this conflict, so why afford them what they quite clearly wouldn't afford you.

[Born Hunter 17,645]

The flip side to it is what about POW? Should we shoot those that have surrendered???

 

Personally, If terms of surrender are agreed then they should be honored. Likewise if the Laws of War are generally being honored then so be it, wounded and captured should get PoW status. But if not and if you decide to stand and fight and get overwhelmed then you made your bed and will lie in it, you're in the hands of your enemy at that point.

 

In WWII SS were executed by the Allies on the battlefield and Commandos got the same treatment by the Nazis. It wasn't Butlins for conventional troops but they got more respectful treatment as wounded or captured by the enemy.

[DogFox123 1,379]

Morally no, but it happened during the war. I guess it depends on the individual soldiers.If they can live with there actions after.A lot of SS camp guards who surrendered were just summary executed.

I actually cant fault them in a way. The sights they saw when they liberated those camps were bound to offer out quick justice.

 

However for a winning side to walk over a battlefield shooting the injured. No that would be wrong.

You're only the winning side once you've won. It's not down to the individual soldiers though, if rules are there then they must be followed.