It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Military court releases audio of moment marine sergeant shot Afghan

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   


A shocking audio recording of the moment an injured Afghan insurgent is shot by a Royal Marine sergeant has been released by a military court.

The pistol shot to the helpless man's chest can be clearly heard – followed by the marine telling the man: "Shuffle off this mortal coil, you #," and instructing his fellow marines: "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere, fellas … I've just broken the Geneva convention".

Three marines – who can be identified only as A, B and C – are accused of murdering the man, who had been badly wounded in a helicopter attack, in Helmand in September 2011.

Military court releases audio of moment marine sergeant shot Afghan

Absolutely disgusting.

Sure the Afghan individual was an insurgent, but to murder the man and then suggest to his fellow Marines that the incident should be covered up, is just wrong.

I actually wonder why they do any of this stuff when they are wearing recorders and video cameras. It seems quite stupid to be honest...

You can find the audio clips in the link. The court ruled that the video will not be released due to terrorism concerns...

Daas.




posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 



I actually wonder why they do any of this stuff when they are wearing recorders and video cameras. It seems quite stupid to be honest...


It could be they've seen one too many dead children from terrorist hits, IED's and other nasty tactics of using the civilians as bait, like cheese in a trap ..or worse to get international sympathy and media coverage.

It could be that....or maybe this guy just saw a few too many of his own friends killed with less mercy than this went down.

It doesn't make it right. Not by any stretch..... It doesn't make parading the guy across the world press for everyone to judge far far from the sounds of battle and the field it's fought on right, either. (Not your OP.. The media's extremely selective coverage of the wrongs of one side to the near exclusion of even mentioning the evils of the other)

Just my two cents.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Mmmm, we are constantly told that the Marines are the best and highly trained. If this is the result of their training then it seriously needs to be looked at. However, I am sure it isn't and it is simply the a result of an adrenaline rush after the heat of combat. No excuse of course because they should have taken the insurgent into custody as undoubtedly he would have important intelligence on the insurgents whereabouts and future plans.

If the situation was reversed, I am certain they would have taken the soldier as a prize before filming his execution. Again, no excuses for the Marine's behaviour, but we do not fully appreciate the conditions soldiers face in Afghanistan.

There are going to be a lot of soldiers returning from Afghanistan who have witnessed atrocities and our mental health services are going to be stretched to the limit over the next 5-10 years.

The U.S experienced this with Vietnam and the U.K Government needs to start making preparations for this, I only hope they are.
edit on 7/11/13 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   
War is Hell, those who have not experienced the horror have ZERO room to pass judgment on those who made it out. After all the reports of Afghan security forces turning on NATO forces they are lucky that its not more common place. However if everyone just let those regions destroy themselves we wouldn't have to deal with stories like this now would we? How many thousands of years have these people lived like this and not changed?



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by StratosFear
 


War is hell, yeah, but we put ourselves there. They volunteered to be part of the "world police force". They have zero excuses for war crimes. You can't claim to be moral police of the world, then go around committing war crimes.

The middle east went to hell in a handbasket when superpowers started messing around there. It hasn't been like that for no thousands of years.....
edit on Thu, 07 Nov 2013 07:50:53 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by StratosFear
 



How many thousands of years have these people lived like this and not changed?


I'm just wrapping up this semester in world history for the gen ed requirement. It covered the Persian Empire, Alexander the Great and more ..quite a bit more, going to a few thousand B.C.E..

You really want an answer to that question? (smirk)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Never have understood the Geneva Convention thing. The guy they shot was the enemy and was trying to kill them. He got injured instead so while he is injured they kill him. What is the difference in killing him with the first shot and killing him after he is injured with another shot? Doesn't make any sense to me...they are all at war...in war, if you are a soldier, you know you may die....this one happened to die.

Not sure why this is so shocking or upsetting to anyone....all involved were soldiers/insurgents. It isn't like this guy was some innocent villager they injured on accident then shot him to cover it up. He was trying to kill them too....he obviously did not succeed.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


It's about attempting to have a moral high ground. It really does seem like a bit of a joke, when you see us shooting hellfires at funeral processions and other places filled with civilians. That is somehow acceptable..... Yet killing an injured "enemy" is not. Moral high ground in war is a ridiculous concept really....



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Vasa Croe
Never have understood the Geneva Convention thing. The guy they shot was the enemy and was trying to kill them. He got injured instead so while he is injured they kill him. What is the difference in killing him with the first shot and killing him after he is injured with another shot? Doesn't make any sense to me...they are all at war...in war, if you are a soldier, you know you may die....this one happened to die.

Not sure why this is so shocking or upsetting to anyone....all involved were soldiers/insurgents. It isn't like this guy was some innocent villager they injured on accident then shot him to cover it up. He was trying to kill them too....he obviously did not succeed.


Are you serious?

Even war does not mean kill all enemies soldiers, but incapacitate them and prevent them from any further harm. This solider was not by any means treat to them at the time they killed him.

This is just clear example what kind of thugs wear uniforms today, and tomorrow criminals like this might be your first neighbor. (or already are)

There is no excuse and for all of those telling they might seen bad part of war, their friends die, what would you say then for killed Afghan, who is more likely too have lost friends, family members and what not after we invaded THEIR country?! Don't get me wrong, revenge is NOT way to live life and it is utopia to think that killing will just stop...


reply to post by TKDRL
 

There is no moral ground in drone attacks that apparently kill more civilians then enemy combatants. Last week family hit by one of those drone attacks (one of members was killed by it) about year ago was presented in capitol hill, but only 5 congressmen showed up. More about this you can find in this article. I congratulate those attending hearing for their humanity and willingness to see what our policies are doing to rest of the world.



edit on 7-11-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
You don't condemn the life of one by the actions of many.

Acts like this are not acceptable by anyone, you just don't kill surrendered combatants or those who are incapable of combat. Accidents happen fair enough but this kind of action wasn't acceptable in WW2 against the Japanese or the Germans, Vietnam or any other war the US has been in.

You don't use wars before the Geneva convention as justification.

You don't use times before 1776 as justification.

You don't use actions of your enemy as justification.

And you certainly don't use "you don't know man, you weren't there" as justification.

War is hell yeah, but don't use it as justification to be a devil. Otherwise you become no better than the "evil" you are trying to conquer. You would not accept this on your own soldiers would you?



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


It is sick, I feel horrible for people living in those area. They did not choose to be born there anymore than I chose to be born here. You live in an area declared a warzone by outside forces, there is not a damn thing you can do. Try to flee? To where? Everyone looks at you like a potential enemy....

War is disgusting, appalling. It is a nasty symptom of a diseased mindset, and somehow these mentally deficient people keep getting themselves into power positions all over the world...... It's a madhouse.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 



This is just clear example what kind of thugs wear uniforms today, and tomorrow criminals like this might be your first neighbor. (or already are)


In all fairness and honesty, where does your knowledge of flesh and blood members of the armed forces come from? Have you served and/or been deployed? I haven't, personally, to throw that out, as I'm asking it myself. My base of reference comes from some of those closest to me having served in more than one of America's wars of the past few decades.

Just curious, given your hard opinions and what sounds like must come from personal and direct experience to form them so definitively?



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Wrabbit2000
 

In all fairness and honesty, where does your knowledge of flesh and blood members of the armed forces come from? Have you served and/or been deployed? I haven't, personally, to throw that out, as I'm asking it myself. My base of reference comes from some of those closest to me having served in more than one of America's wars of the past few decades.

Just curious, given your hard opinions and what sounds like must come from personal and direct experience to form them so definitively?


I was victim of war crime more then once in past 20-some years. Does that count?

And I never said whole army is criminal, just that there are criminals, as those who cold blooded killed this man, inside military, thanks to lower requirements to join military.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Vasa Croe
Never have understood the Geneva Convention thing. The guy they shot was the enemy and was trying to kill them. He got injured instead so while he is injured they kill him. What is the difference in killing him with the first shot and killing him after he is injured with another shot? Doesn't make any sense to me...they are all at war...in war, if you are a soldier, you know you may die....this one happened to die.

Not sure why this is so shocking or upsetting to anyone....all involved were soldiers/insurgents. It isn't like this guy was some innocent villager they injured on accident then shot him to cover it up. He was trying to kill them too....he obviously did not succeed.


Tough one this. The US and the UK are a few nations that actually try to follow the Convention to the letter.

Technically (although it really won't matter it will be treated as a violation of the rules of war anyway), they were legally justified in summary execution of the prisoner because the insurgents are violating the rules in not being uniformed personnel. One reason why partisans in France wore distinguishing armbands was then they fulfilled the "uniformed combatant" clause of the convention and for this reason the execution of partisans was one of the charges brought up against the Nazis. You can execute "saboteurs" or "brigands" but not uniformed troops.

Secondly, if one combatant violates the convention (IE torturing and executing prisoners) then the other combatant has justification to do the same. The idea is to keep that behavior in check by having the threat that if one side does it, then the other side gets to. Since the Taliban has always tortured and executed prisoners, they don't have a legal leg to stand on for objection.

Now, I AM NOT AGREEING WITH THIS, just pointing out that this being a Convention violation is not so cut and dry that many would believe.
edit on 7-11-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   

SuperFrog

Wrabbit2000
 

In all fairness and honesty, where does your knowledge of flesh and blood members of the armed forces come from? Have you served and/or been deployed? I haven't, personally, to throw that out, as I'm asking it myself. My base of reference comes from some of those closest to me having served in more than one of America's wars of the past few decades.

Just curious, given your hard opinions and what sounds like must come from personal and direct experience to form them so definitively?


I was victim of war crime more then once in past 20-some years. Does that count?

And I never said whole army is criminal, just that there are criminals, as those who cold blooded killed this man, inside military, thanks to lower requirements to join military.


You were? Really? In what context. I have to hear details. One does not simply throw something like that out and back it up. If true, it could make some news, both national and international.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   

SuperFrog

Wrabbit2000
 

In all fairness and honesty, where does your knowledge of flesh and blood members of the armed forces come from? Have you served and/or been deployed? I haven't, personally, to throw that out, as I'm asking it myself. My base of reference comes from some of those closest to me having served in more than one of America's wars of the past few decades.

Just curious, given your hard opinions and what sounds like must come from personal and direct experience to form them so definitively?


I was victim of war crime more then once in past 20-some years. Does that count?

And I never said whole army is criminal, just that there are criminals, as those who cold blooded killed this man, inside military, thanks to lower requirements to join military.


I am sorry you have gone through what you have gone through.

I have to ask how this is clod blooded killing in your eyes? I don't know the amount of time between the initial injury and the kill shot, but what amount of time between injury and death is considered cold blooded killing?

This was NOT some innocent civilian asking for help....this was a soldier on the opposite side that was moments before trying to kill them. The whole idea of leaving an enemy alive to get better and come back to kill you another day is lunacy to me. I don't know how this can be considered cold blooded killing when BOTH sides knew war means death....they aren't playing with NERF guns here.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by daaskapital
 



I actually wonder why they do any of this stuff when they are wearing recorders and video cameras. It seems quite stupid to be honest...

It could be they've seen one too many dead children from terrorist hits, IED's and other nasty tactics of using the civilians as bait, like cheese in a trap ..or worse to get international sympathy and media coverage.

It could be that....or maybe this guy just saw a few too many of his own friends killed with less mercy than this went down.

It doesn't make it right. Not by any stretch..... It doesn't make parading the guy across the world press for everyone to judge far far from the sounds of battle and the field it's fought on right, either. (Not your OP.. The media's extremely selective coverage of the wrongs of one side to the near exclusion of even mentioning the evils of the other)

Just my two cents.

well, ain't that the definition of blowback....?
say wasn't 911 if you beleive the OS, supposedly blowback?



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Working now.
edit on 7-11-2013 by brace22 because: PLayers are working now



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 



I was victim of war crime more then once in past 20-some years. Does that count?


Yes, that counts and explains your feelings as well as passion, entirely. I really appreciate the response.

I can't agree with the actions of one being taken to judge the many (especially when we're learning about this because the guy is standing for his actions in a court...as it should be, to determine the truth), but as you don't have my life experiences? I sure don't have yours.

I have no idea how my feelings and opinions would be different if I had been the victim of or watched others be the victim of atrocities and/or war crimes. I imagine I might well feel as you do. So, it's with a bit more respect I disagree. (and with more understanding)
edit on 7-11-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: Minor edit



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


What is that old truism about war?

"War is Hell"

War is an insane game that humans make other humans play. If those that cause and make you play that game (both physically and emotionally) sends you off to do it and then gives you a medal if you come back, intact or not, why pick on the antics of any one of those sent doing his "duty" to survive? The root of war these days almost always comes from some safe haven directed down to those common referred to as "cannon fodder."

If the noble idea of a "warrior's integrity" was ripped from lexicon of war, the process would be better understood.
Again, "War is Hell."




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join