 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Have noticed a fair bit of inconsistency over the weekend among friends (both real and facebook!) about a couple of recent news stories.
Have found that the same people who 2 weeks ago were yelling for Mark Bridger to be mutilated and/or killed, have a different attitude to the marines accused of killing a guy in Afghanistan. Their attitude to that is along the lines of "how dare anyone accuse our brave boys of such a thing".
Its making my head hurt as they can't see that the two things are the same. Mind you, the reaction will probably be the same on here.
Discuss..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The marines were doing their job, shooting a known insurgent that shot at them first, thus killing the shit. This is what they are trained to do, and this is why they are over there in the first place.
Mark Bridger is a sick person , (mentally) what he did, he did so out of pure twisted pleasure and needs to be judged by the law accordingly.
Two very different circumstances in my eyes, and very different. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have noticed a fair bit of inconsistency over the weekend among friends (both real and facebook!) about a couple of recent news stories.
Have found that the same people who 2 weeks ago were yelling for Mark Bridger to be mutilated and/or killed, have a different attitude to the marines accused of killing a guy in Afghanistan. Their attitude to that is along the lines of "how dare anyone accuse our brave boys of such a thing".
Its making my head hurt as they can't see that the two things are the same. Mind you, the reaction will probably be the same on here.
Discuss....."
I totally agree with you on this |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
They shot someone outside the rules of engagement is what the news says. And had it on video.
So you can't say they were doing their jobs. Otherwise they wouldn't be charged with murder. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They shot someone outside the rules of engagement is what the news says. And had it on video.
So you can't say they were doing their jobs. Otherwise they wouldn't be charged with murder. "
From what Ive read thats correct apart from they didnt have the murder on video they had a dicussion on video of them deciding whether to administer medical aid (which they are required to do) or not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Oh right, I couldn't find out too much about it. Assumed the MOD was keeping details out of the media as it'd be embarrassing."
Soldiers in theatre owe a duty of care to their combatants and have to act in a humane way even in the madness of war. If these guys acted outside the rules of engagement then they will face the rules of military justice. The rules of engagement separate the heros in a British Uniform (and others) to those who would shoot a 14 year old girl for wanting to go to school.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
How is a pedofile murdering and doing who knows what to a child the same as a soldier doing his job? You can't possibly compare either of them. Perhaps if you read the whole article on the marines you might see its not as clear cut as the press making out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Mark Bridger is a sick person , (mentally) what he did, he did so out of pure twisted pleasure and needs to be judged by the law accordingly."
As opposed to being found guilty before he's had a trial eh?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If you read the story regarding the Royal Marines you'll see that it pertains to video footage found on a squaddies laptop that feature the five men charged with murder discussing what to do with a captured, wounded Taliban fighter. If they have been charged with his murder then obviously the guy must have died AFTER he was captured. What hasn't been made public is whether the guy died of the wounds he received during the gun battle that led to his capture or if the wounds that killed him were inflicted after his capture, in which case the rules of engagement have not been followed and a court martial is the required correct procedure.
The Law is the Law, either civil or military, and we stand or fall by it being upheld regardless of who is accused of what.
If Mark Bridger is found guilty of murdering April Jones then let the Law determine his guilt and set his punishment. Likewise, if these five Marines murdered a wounded man in cold blood then let the Law prove it and then both verdicts can be upheld as the Law doing what it is entasked with doing, in a proper and correct manner, on behalf of all of us who believe and live by it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They shot someone outside the rules of engagement is what the news says. And had it on video.
So you can't say they were doing their jobs. Otherwise they wouldn't be charged with murder. "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They shot someone outside the rules of engagement is what the news says. And had it on video.
"
No, they did NOT have the murder on video. They had the five of them discussing what to do with the man, on video. If inaccurate reporting is easily retransmitted as bad rumour, is it any surprise how quickly a lynch mob can form.
Sometimes I despair of the freedom of the press to say what it likes with complete impunity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"They shot someone outside the rules of engagement is what the news says. And had it on video.
No, they did NOT have the murder on video. They had the five of them discussing what to do with the man, on video. If inaccurate reporting is easily retransmitted as bad rumour, is it any surprise how quickly a lynch mob can form.
Sometimes I despair of the freedom of the press to say what it likes with complete impunity. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"If you read the story regarding the Royal Marines you'll see that it pertains to video footage found on a squaddies laptop that feature the five men charged with murder discussing what to do with a captured, wounded Taliban fighter. If they have been charged with his murder then obviously the guy must have died AFTER he was captured. What hasn't been made public is whether the guy died of the wounds he received during the gun battle that led to his capture or if the wounds that killed him were inflicted after his capture, in which case the rules of engagement have not been followed and a court martial is the required correct procedure.
The Law is the Law, either civil or military, and we stand or fall by it being upheld regardless of who is accused of what.
If Mark Bridger is found guilty of murdering April Jones then let the Law determine his guilt and set his punishment. Likewise, if these five Marines murdered a wounded man in cold blood then let the Law prove it and then both verdicts can be upheld as the Law doing what it is entasked with doing, in a proper and correct manner, on behalf of all of us who believe and live by it."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The marines were doing their job, shooting a known insurgent that shot at them first, thus killing the shit. This is what they are trained to do, and this is why they are over there in the first place.
Mark Bridger is a sick person , (mentally) what he did, he did so out of pure twisted pleasure and needs to be judged by the law accordingly.
Two very different circumstances in my eyes, and very different."
How do you know he is mentally sick and that he acts out of pure twisted pleasure? Do you know him personally? Has he confessed to you?
I didnt think he had stood trial yet.
Either way, murder is murder  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you read the story regarding the Royal Marines you'll see that it pertains to video footage found on a squaddies laptop that feature the five men charged with murder discussing what to do with a captured, wounded Taliban fighter. If they have been charged with his murder then obviously the guy must have died AFTER he was captured. What hasn't been made public is whether the guy died of the wounds he received during the gun battle that led to his capture or if the wounds that killed him were inflicted after his capture, in which case the rules of engagement have not been followed and a court martial is the required correct procedure.
The Law is the Law, either civil or military, and we stand or fall by it being upheld regardless of who is accused of what.
If Mark Bridger is found guilty of murdering April Jones then let the Law determine his guilt and set his punishment. Likewise, if these five Marines murdered a wounded man in cold blood then let the Law prove it and then both verdicts can be upheld as the Law doing what it is entasked with doing, in a proper and correct manner, on behalf of all of us who believe and live by it."
Hold on, this is the fab forum, a well thought out reasonable response is not appropriate. You must have them all hung before trial!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you read the story regarding the Royal Marines you'll see that it pertains to video footage found on a squaddies laptop that feature the five men charged with murder discussing what to do with a captured, wounded Taliban fighter. If they have been charged with his murder then obviously the guy must have died AFTER he was captured. What hasn't been made public is whether the guy died of the wounds he received during the gun battle that led to his capture or if the wounds that killed him were inflicted after his capture, in which case the rules of engagement have not been followed and a court martial is the required correct procedure.
The Law is the Law, either civil or military, and we stand or fall by it being upheld regardless of who is accused of what.
If Mark Bridger is found guilty of murdering April Jones then let the Law determine his guilt and set his punishment. Likewise, if these five Marines murdered a wounded man in cold blood then let the Law prove it and then both verdicts can be upheld as the Law doing what it is entasked with doing, in a proper and correct manner, on behalf of all of us who believe and live by it.
"
Totally agree with this viewpoint |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago
(She/ her) in Sensualityland |
"If you read the story regarding the Royal Marines you'll see that it pertains to video footage found on a squaddies laptop that feature the five men charged with murder discussing what to do with a captured, wounded Taliban fighter. If they have been charged with his murder then obviously the guy must have died AFTER he was captured. What hasn't been made public is whether the guy died of the wounds he received during the gun battle that led to his capture or if the wounds that killed him were inflicted after his capture, in which case the rules of engagement have not been followed and a court martial is the required correct procedure.
The Law is the Law, either civil or military, and we stand or fall by it being upheld regardless of who is accused of what.
If Mark Bridger is found guilty of murdering April Jones then let the Law determine his guilt and set his punishment. Likewise, if these five Marines murdered a wounded man in cold blood then let the Law prove it and then both verdicts can be upheld as the Law doing what it is entasked with doing, in a proper and correct manner, on behalf of all of us who believe and live by it."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Can't see how you can compare guys under combat conditions in Afghanistan, with all the enormous stress that must bring, seeing their mates blown up week in week out for Six or Seven months at a time....
With a bloke who (allegedly) snatched a five year old disabled girl off the street and (allegedly) murders her, after doing god knows what with her beforehand... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If you read the story regarding the Royal Marines you'll see that it pertains to video footage found on a squaddies laptop that feature the five men charged with murder discussing what to do with a captured, wounded Taliban fighter. If they have been charged with his murder then obviously the guy must have died AFTER he was captured. What hasn't been made public is whether the guy died of the wounds he received during the gun battle that led to his capture or if the wounds that killed him were inflicted after his capture, in which case the rules of engagement have not been followed and a court martial is the required correct procedure.
The Law is the Law, either civil or military, and we stand or fall by it being upheld regardless of who is accused of what.
If Mark Bridger is found guilty of murdering April Jones then let the Law determine his guilt and set his punishment. Likewise, if these five Marines murdered a wounded man in cold blood then let the Law prove it and then both verdicts can be upheld as the Law doing what it is entasked with doing, in a proper and correct manner, on behalf of all of us who believe and live by it.
Hold on, this is the fab forum, a well thought out reasonable response is not appropriate. You must have them all hung before trial!!! "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Can't see how you can compare guys under combat conditions in Afghanistan, with all the enormous stress that must bring, seeing their mates blown up week in week out for Six or Seven months at a time....
With a bloke who (allegedly) snatched a five year old disabled girl off the street and (allegedly) murders her, after doing god knows what with her beforehand..."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *emmefataleWoman
over a year ago
dirtybigbadsgirlville |
"Can't see how you can compare guys under combat conditions in Afghanistan, with all the enormous stress that must bring, seeing their mates blown up week in week out for Six or Seven months at a time....
With a bloke who (allegedly) snatched a five year old disabled girl off the street and (allegedly) murders her, after doing god knows what with her beforehand..."
I have just sat here thinking the same, nowt so queer as folk.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Can't see how you can compare guys under combat conditions in Afghanistan, with all the enormous stress that must bring, seeing their mates blown up week in week out for Six or Seven months at a time....
With a bloke who (allegedly) snatched a five year old disabled girl off the street and (allegedly) murders her, after doing god knows what with her beforehand..."
Both involve murder. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Can't see how you can compare guys under combat conditions in Afghanistan, with all the enormous stress that must bring, seeing their mates blown up week in week out for Six or Seven months at a time....
With a bloke who (allegedly) snatched a five year old disabled girl off the street and (allegedly) murders her, after doing god knows what with her beforehand...
Both involve murder."
. Quite correct both do involve killing but at total ends of the scale. A soldier is doing his or her job to protect us and the country we live in putting themselfs a risk for us to have a better life. I really don't think they can possibly be compared to a person who abducts a child for sexual gratification then murders them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can't see how you can compare guys under combat conditions in Afghanistan, with all the enormous stress that must bring, seeing their mates blown up week in week out for Six or Seven months at a time....
With a bloke who (allegedly) snatched a five year old disabled girl off the street and (allegedly) murders her, after doing god knows what with her beforehand...
Both involve murder."
But I think it's quite obvious that the Five year old child wasn't trying to kill the monster that snatched her from the street Wishy.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
