[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Livia

Says a man who has never been in a war zone, let alone on active service, but is insisting on a code of conduct from our troops, which they can never lapse from, despite circumstances and who are serving in an active war zone. You see a couple of mates with their legs blown off you're not going to be that concerned about shooting a terrorist in the head. A terrorist. Not a bystander.

There is nothing more dangerous than a wounded enemy.

Neither have you from what I know so does that mean we should discount what you have to say as well? It's a silly and lazy argument that's designed to discount opinions that someone can't argue against.

TS has the right of it, it doesn't matter who the killed party was. All that matters is that they were apprehended. Killing someone in combat situations is fine but executing them without due course when they've been detained is not and the court obviously agrees.

You can't have soldiers that act out like that, order must be maintained within the troops or it all falls apart, you don't need battlefield experience to understand that.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Neither have you from what I know so does that mean we should discount what you have to say as well? It's a silly and lazy argument that's designed to discount opinions that someone can't argue against.

TS has the right of it, it doesn't matter who the killed party was. All that matters is that they were apprehended. Killing someone in combat situations is fine but executing them without due course when they've been detained is not and the court obviously agrees.

You can't have soldiers that act out like that, order must be maintained within the troops or it all falls apart, you don't need battlefield experience to understand that.

for all you know the perp could have been about to get up and attack and so the soldier terminated him before he could do that, that is what he is trained to do - to see potential threat before joe public does

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

for all you know the perp could have been about to get up and attack and so the soldier terminated him before he could do that, that is what he is trained to do - to see potential threat before joe public does

Except that the court, who had all the facts, threw that idea out. You can't justify actions with events that didn't happen. Imagination doesn't overcome facts, no matter how hard you try LT.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

for all you know the perp could have been about to get up and attack and so the soldier terminated him before he could do that, that is what he is trained to do - to see potential threat before joe public does

That would work uf he hadnt spent the last 15 mins in the back of an ambulance with his injured partner before walking out and calmly handing his helmet to another soldier before cocking his gun taking aim and firing...you would think some of the ten plus soldiers milling around feet from the assailant would have made sure all was neutrelized...surely!!

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

for all you know the perp could have been about to get up and attack and so the soldier terminated him before he could do that, that is what he is trained to do - to see potential threat before joe public does

The video is pretty unambiguous. As usual, you already know that though.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The video is pretty unambiguous. As usual, you already know that though.

where is the video of the shooting I can only find news report ones?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Neither have you from what I know so does that mean we should discount what you have to say as well? It's a silly and lazy argument that's designed to discount opinions that someone can't argue against.

TS has the right of it, it doesn't matter who the killed party was. All that matters is that they were apprehended. Killing someone in combat situations is fine but executing them without due course when they've been detained is not and the court obviously agrees.

You can't have soldiers that act out like that, order must be maintained within the troops or it all falls apart, you don't need battlefield experience to understand that.

Actually, I have been in several war zones, although I was fully protected by armed guards. And I'm a military widow and that gives me some insight into it. I've worked in Israel, I've been to Palestine several times, I'vbe been to Iraq and Syria and the refugee camps in Jordan.

No one's saying people don'y have the right to say whatever they want. But I also have the right to say what I said, from a stronger, more informed position.

And as for not needing battlefield experience to understand that order must be maintained... Well, battlefield experience will teach you that soldiers are human beings with human reactions and emotions. Putting on a uniform and doing basic training doesn't make you into a robot.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Actually, I have been in several war zones, although I was fully protected by armed guards. And I'm a military widow and that gives me some insight into it. I've worked in Israel, I've been to Palestine several times, I'vbe been to Iraq and Syria and the refugee camps in Jordan.

No one's saying people don'y have the right to say whatever they want. But I also have the right to say what I said, from a stronger, more informed position.

And as for not needing battlefield experience to understand that order must be maintained... Well, battlefield experience will teach you that soldiers are human beings with human reactions and emotions. Putting on a uniform and doing basic training doesn't make you into a robot.

I think this one being an ex sergeant has undergone a bit more than "basic training"

[Livia]

Originally Posted by parmnion

I think this one being an ex sergeant has undergone a bit more than "basic training"

Yes. He will have seen the regular attrocities carried out daily by Palestinians that are never reported.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Yes. He will have seen the regular attrocities carried out daily by Palestinians that are never reported.

And he will have been trained in how to deal with that, which is why he has been tried and convicted for his crime. Maybe also the reason it was manslaughter and not the murder it should have been.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by parmnion

And he will have been trained in how to deal with that, which is why he has been tried and convicted for his crime. Maybe also the reason it was manslaughter and not the murder it should have been.

Pointless discussing this with someone who imagines they have all the answers.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Pointless discussing this with someone who imagines they have all the answers.

What i do know is you dont judge a man on the actions of others.

You are the one excusing his actions because of past events like they are all the answers..so we will leave it there eh..

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Actually, I have been in several war zones, although I was fully protected by armed guards. And I'm a military widow and that gives me some insight into it. I've worked in Israel, I've been to Palestine several times, I'vbe been to Iraq and Syria and the refugee camps in Jordan.

No one's saying people don'y have the right to say whatever they want. But I also have the right to say what I said, from a stronger, more informed position.

And as for not needing battlefield experience to understand that order must be maintained... Well, battlefield experience will teach you that soldiers are human beings with human reactions and emotions. Putting on a uniform and doing basic training doesn't make you into a robot.

Nor does a uniform make you infallible or above the law, recently there has been media attention on soldiers and their part in torture and killings deemed unlawful.
Personally I don't agree with that as I don't believe their actions were not ordered, they would be nothing but scapegoats if there were any repercussions.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Nor does a uniform make you infallible or above the law, recently there has been media attention on soldiers and their part in torture and killings deemed unlawful.
Personally I don't agree with that as I don't believe their actions were not ordered, they would be nothing but scapegoats if there were any repercussions.

yeah, well... I'm sure like everything else, you think you're right.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

And as for not needing battlefield experience to understand that order must be maintained... Well, battlefield experience will teach you that soldiers are human beings with human reactions and emotions. Putting on a uniform and doing basic training doesn't make you into a robot.

I genuinely don't understand your position at all... no, they are not robots, people snap but it can't simply be brushed under the carpet without consequence without essentially abandoning discipline and order, allowing soldiers to do whatever the **** they want in a war zone, and going down a path which will definitely result in those very same soldiers being at increased risk... because they're surrounded by loose cannons who are not following the rules or their orders.

How is any of this in any way positive?

Modern militaries are highly structured, highly organised, and have a very clear chain of command. For a REASON. Because it is effective, efficient, and helps to keep people, both civilians and soldiers, safer.

But yeah why not. Let's just arm them to the teeth and let them go at it like Rambo, because they're only human after all, and because terrorism. It'll be fine.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I genuinely don't understand your position at all... no, they are not robots, people snap but it can't simply be brushed under the carpet without consequence without essentially abandoning discipline and order, allowing soldiers to do whatever the **** they want in a war zone, and going down a path which will definitely result in those very same soldiers being at increased risk... because they're surrounded by loose cannons who are not following the rules or their orders.

How is any of this in any way positive?

Modern militaries are highly structured, highly organised, and have a very clear chain of command. For a REASON. Because it is effective, efficient, and helps to keep people, both civilians and soldiers, safer.

But yeah why not. Let's just arm them to the teeth and let them go at it like Rambo, because they're only human after all, and because terrorism. It'll be fine.

No, you clearly don't.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Livia

Actually, I have been in several war zones, although I was fully protected by armed guards. And I'm a military widow and that gives me some insight into it. I've worked in Israel, I've been to Palestine several times, I'vbe been to Iraq and Syria and the refugee camps in Jordan.

No one's saying people don'y have the right to say whatever they want. But I also have the right to say what I said, from a stronger, more informed position.

And as for not needing battlefield experience to understand that order must be maintained... Well, battlefield experience will teach you that soldiers are human beings with human reactions and emotions. Putting on a uniform and doing basic training doesn't make you into a robot.

You don't need experience to understand that it's wrong to kill anyone that's been detained without due course. You can focus on the Palestinian all you want but that's not going to change the facts of the case or that the soldier was in the wrong for killing a captured enemy. The identity of the enemy doesn't change a thing.

People make mistakes but choosing to execute someone isn't a mistake, it's a decision. He chose to defy orders and protocol in an environment that doing so could get himself and others killed. There are plenty of Israeli soldiers and soldiers in other armies across the world that deal with terrible situations yet are capable of of following the rules of engagement and protocols when it comes to dealing with captured enemies, they too are human so I disagree with your argument since downplaying this soldier's actions is disrespectful to other soldiers who act appropriately. All soldiers are human and it's not an excuse for choosing to execute a captured enemy because most soldiers would not do that.

Soldiers that act rashly and defy orders are a danger to everyone and they should not be blindly defended just 'cus.

I do suspect that if the facts of the case were the same yet the roles were reversed, you'd be calling for the blood of the Palestinian soldier for executing an Israeli prisoner.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You don't need experience to understand that it's wrong to kill anyone that's been detained without due course. You can focus on the Palestinian all you want but that's not going to change the facts of the case or that the soldier was in the wrong for killing a captured enemy. The identity of the enemy doesn't change a thing.

People make mistakes but choosing to execute someone isn't a mistake, it's a decision. He chose to defy orders and protocol in an environment that doing so could get himself and others killed. There are plenty of Israeli soldiers and soldiers in other armies across the world that deal with terrible situations yet are capable of of following the rules of engagement and protocols when it comes to dealing with captured enemies, they too are human so I disagree with your argument since downplaying this soldier's actions is disrespectful to other soldiers who act appropriately. All soldiers are human and it's not an excuse for choosing to execute a captured enemy because most soldiers would not do that.

Soldiers that act rashly and defy orders are a danger to everyone and they should not be blindly defended just 'cus.

I do suspect that if the facts of the case were the same yet the roles were reversed, you'd be calling for the blood of the Palestinian soldier for executing an Israeli prisoner.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You don't need experience to understand that it's wrong to kill anyone that's been detained without due course. You can focus on the Palestinian all you want but that's not going to change the facts of the case or that the soldier was in the wrong for killing a captured enemy. The identity of the enemy doesn't change a thing.

People make mistakes but choosing to execute someone isn't a mistake, it's a decision. He chose to defy orders and protocol in an environment that doing so could get himself and others killed. There are plenty of Israeli soldiers and soldiers in other armies across the world that deal with terrible situations yet are capable of of following the rules of engagement and protocols when it comes to dealing with captured enemies, they too are human so I disagree with your argument since downplaying this soldier's actions is disrespectful to other soldiers who act appropriately. All soldiers are human and it's not an excuse for choosing to execute a captured enemy because most soldiers would not do that.

Soldiers that act rashly and defy orders are a danger to everyone and they should not be blindly defended just 'cus.

I do suspect that if the facts of the case were the same yet the roles were reversed, you'd be calling for the blood of the Palestinian soldier for executing an Israeli prisoner.

and you think jailing a 19 year old boy for 20 years solves the problem how?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

and you think jailing a 19 year old boy for 20 years solves the problem how?

He killed someone unlawfully, he committed a crime. There's not much else to say on the matter, also not sure how you can solve a problem of a dead prisoner unless you have the cure for death. Good luck with that?

His age has no bearing on anything, he had the same training as everyone else yet they aren't killing prisoners. He did not make a mistake during an engagement, he CHOSE to kill a captured enemy when they posed no threat to him. Like I said before, this was not a mistake, it was a decision.

Mentioning his age is just another desperate attempt to take focus of the facts of the case. It's pretty open and shut in all honesty.