RIP!!

As rightly mentioned only after a full enquiry we will know or hopefully know the reason why. The first thing to think about ( and I may be wrong ) is that a soldier is trained to kill, so straight away you are conditioning their brain to think of doing something they might not naturaly want to do in normal life. I would have thought that just having to be on guard and suspicious of everything and everybody was enough to tax most peoples minds without even firing a shot.

Sitting a few miles away unleashing a barrage of firepower will obviously be different to fighting at close quarters and seeing your victim fall. At the time with the adrenaline rush you would not have time to think of your actions, only after when you are alone you will have time to reflect on what you did and what you saw. I would imagine that there are a fair few soldiers that had it hard in civvy life to start with, they may have come from a broken home and no job, they see no way out but to perhaps join up. To start with they may unknown to themselves be mentally on edge.

Dont get me wrong as it obviously does some of them good having to learn new skills to communicate and work as part of a team, however given the number of soldiers out there from all countries every now and again you are going to get an inccident like this one. At the moment it is just the circumstances surrounding it which we have trouble understanding. To some I would imagine the army life is all they know, they eat breath and sleep it. So if someone is diagnosed with post traumatic syndrome or whatever it is called, are they dismissed from their line of duty, helped to recover and given a desk job :shrug: Or given help to sort it all out and then put back on duty again? Does anybody have any experience of the process used to determine a soldiers state of mind in between each tour of duty then?
 
u8myufo said:
Does anybody have any experience of the process used to determine a soldiers state of mind in between each tour of duty then?
Click to expand...

For 2 weeks after your tour you are made to talk about experiences you have had (which is where most cases of post traumatic stress comes from) and made to be brought back to civilian life, same again when you are going on another tour plus a number of medical checks including a psychiatrist. Not sure if that is for U.S ARMY but it is what my cousin has been through a fair few times.
 
simon44 said:
That is the biggest pile of bull**** i have seen in a long time.
Click to expand...

how so, if you are going to make an half assed comment, at least give a reason to back it up. The british soldiers are all trying to provide security and confidence in the locals and using hearts and minds to win them over. The americans see this war as a flag waving competition and "america ****** yeah!" so yes this is going to make it harder
 
archamedes said:
how so, if you are going to make an half assed comment, at least give a reason to back it up. The british soldiers are all trying to provide security and confidence in the locals and using hearts and minds to win them over. The americans see this war as a flag waving competition and "america ****** yeah!" so yes this is going to make it harder
Click to expand...

I agree a lot of IEDS are found due to locals telling the soldiers. Why would they help them out now if this is what happens. for our troops coming out in 2014 I think that's an impossible dream now that we have a lot of work to do to correct what an individual has done in one night.
 
simon44 said:
quid quo pro

Did you go to the link? I asked for a definition of execution from you because your comment was so far left field it confused me.
Click to expand...

And the link you provided has no mention of these poor civilians murdered by that soldier, which is clearly what neil was referring to
 
Hi Paul,

My point is that there are innocent people dying in Afghanistan every day and it stemmed from archamedes comment of "hearts and minds". With that many deaths i can't for the life of me see how they are capturing hearts and minds.

While I'm at it, there are over 1 million displaced civilians in Iraq due to the conflict there. Is that winning hearts and minds?

Iran will be next, as soon as the USA give Israel the nod.
 
The fact of the matter is the war in afghanistan isnt a clear cut black and white case of kill the enemy. In world war 2 the enemy were clearly identified as nazi soldiers wearing a uniform. The taliban do not wear a uniform, they wear the same clothes as the civilians, and they walk around in clear sight posing as civilians.

By winning over the trust and help of the civilians by providing security, claiming back their property that had been stolen by taliban to use as strongholds, The hearts and minds is supposed to work so the civilians then give back valuable intel on taliban wherabouts, movements and IED placements. Without the help of the civilians nor with their understanding that we are there for them, then the fight cannot work. The americans of late have been caught in the press urinating on dead taliban, posing in pictures with them on leads like they are dogs and generally making a mockery of the operation. Not all the americans are to blame for this, but a select few. The problem is that this select few are the ones that get blown up on the news and the taliban use this for properganda reasons to then posion the minds of the undecided civilian population. If our coalition forces are to be seen no different than the taliban, then all this hard work and trust building will be lost and never earn't again.

Secondly, the families of those killed civilians are not going to buy nor accept the statement that a rogue soldier gone bats*** is going to ease his suffering or make him feel good to our troops.
 
archamedes said:
The fact of the matter is the war in afghanistan isnt a clear cut black and white case of kill the enemy. In world war 2 the enemy were clearly identified as nazi soldiers wearing a uniform. The taliban do not wear a uniform, they wear the same clothes as the civilians, and they walk around in clear sight posing as civilians.

By winning over the trust and help of the civilians by providing security, claiming back their property that had been stolen by taliban to use as strongholds, The hearts and minds is supposed to work so the civilians then give back valuable intel on taliban wherabouts, movements and IED placements. Without the help of the civilians nor with their understanding that we are there for them, then the fight cannot work. The americans of late have been caught in the press urinating on dead taliban, posing in pictures with them on leads like they are dogs and generally making a mockery of the operation. Not all the americans are to blame for this, but a select few. The problem is that this select few are the ones that get blown up on the news and the taliban use this for properganda reasons to then posion the minds of the undecided civilian population. If our coalition forces are to be seen no different than the taliban, then all this hard work and trust building will be lost and never earn't again.

Secondly, the families of those killed civilians are not going to buy nor accept the statement that a rogue soldier gone bats*** is going to ease his suffering or make him feel good to our troops.
Click to expand...

Tell me Dave and this is a serious question. What kind of war are we actually fighting nowadays? To me it seems far more political :cautious: than anything else we have seen, heard or read about throughout history. And if I were to be honest this has gone on for such a length of time now I have forgotten why the hell it is we are out there for :shrug:
 
While I appreciate the fact that this man clearly suffered a mental breakdown (behaviour that is well-documented in soldiers), it doesn't excuse this chain of events. Considering it seems that people saw him leaving the camp at 3am, why did no-one stop him? It seems from some of the reports that he'd suffered a breakdown before leaving the camp - so why did nobody intervene? How could he manage to go from house to house, shooting people, without anyone stopping him?

This, along with the ridiculous "accidental" (yeah right) burning of the Qurans the other day really paints the US troops in a bad light, and deservedly so, in my book. War is full of horror for all those involved, but the US really has a disgraceful record when it comes to their troops and locals - My Lai, anyone?

No doubt this incident will just get swept under the carpet at some point.
 
u8myufo said:
Tell me Dave and this is a serious question. What kind of war are we actually fighting nowadays? To me it seems far more political :cautious: than anything else we have seen, heard or read about throughout history. And if I were to be honest this has gone on for such a length of time now I have forgotten why the hell it is we are out there for :shrug:
Click to expand...

Well the point of it is to create a stable country that can be handed over to the afghan government, but I really don't see it happening. The Taliban have been fighting for hundreds of years it's in their blood handed down the generations. they aren't going to stop now just because we are now involved. Personally I think our boys need to be brought home, this war in desert has nothing to do with defending our national security. A bunch of Taliban with AK47's and RPGs thousands of miles away don't put us at risk. They need to concentrate more on the sleeper cells and radical clerics living in our housing estates trying to preach hate and recruit good Muslim people into following them. These are the real threat. But as usual we go where America goes. And i do wonder how many more years and millions of tax payers money needs to be spent before they realise they are nowhere near ending these terrorists than when we first started fighting them. and after the oil investigation team in Syria finish their report we will then get sent to Syria too. I'm joking about that obviously.
 
Last edited:
archamedes said:
Well the point of it is to create a stable country that can be handed over to the afghan government, but I really don't see it happening. The Taliban have been fighting for hundreds of years it's in their blood handed down the generations. they aren't going to stop now just because we are now involved. Personally I think our boys need to be brought home, this war in desert has nothing to do with defending our national security. A bunch of Taliban with AK47's and RPGs thousands of miles away don't put us at risk. They need to concentrate more on the sleeper cells and radical clerics living in our housing estates trying to preach hate and recruit good Muslim people into following them. These are the real threat. But as usual we go where America goes. And i do wonder how many more years and millions of tax payers money needs to be spent before they realise they are nowhere near ending these terrorists than when we first started fighting them. and after the oil investigation team in Syria finish their report we will then get sent to Syria too. I'm joking about that obviously.
Click to expand...

That is exactly how I see it Dave, now the hard part ;) What exactly was it that sparked the terrorist thing in this country in the first place? Again it has been that long I have lost track, was it purely because we were involved with our troups going over there? If that is the case then there is an old saying. " You poke a Hornets nest then expect to get stung " Hopefully this can be discussed in a civil manner if anyone wants to add their views without stepping over the TP political line ;)
 
Weren't the Taliban armed by the Americans when they were fighting the Russians? one mans meat is another mans poison, depending what year it is.

The American led UN force will is leaving in 2014 and where will that leave Afghanistan? It will leave a lot of angry people that will tow the extremist line. Instead of positive moves like more womens rights and less backward thinking, so the Afghan population can make change for themselves. Well at the moment it's being bombed back into the stone age.
 
archamedes said:
Well the point of it is to create a stable country that can be handed over to the afghan government, but I really don't see it happening. The Taliban have been fighting for hundreds of years it's in their blood handed down the generations. they aren't going to stop now just because we are now involved. Personally I think our boys need to be brought home, this war in desert has nothing to do with defending our national security. A bunch of Taliban with AK47's and RPGs thousands of miles away don't put us at risk. They need to concentrate more on the sleeper cells and radical clerics living in our housing estates trying to preach hate and recruit good Muslim people into following them. These are the real threat. But as usual we go where America goes. And i do wonder how many more years and millions of tax payers money needs to be spent before they realise they are nowhere near ending these terrorists than when we first started fighting them. and after the oil investigation team in Syria finish their report we will then get sent to Syria too. I'm joking about that obviously.
Click to expand...

u8myufo said:
That is exactly how I see it Dave, now the hard part ;) What exactly was it that sparked the terrorist thing in this country in the first place? Again it has been that long I have lost track, was it purely because we were involved with our troups going over there? If that is the case then there is an old saying. " You poke a Hornets nest then expect to get stung " Hopefully this can be discussed in a civil manner if anyone wants to add their views without stepping over the TP political line ;)
Click to expand...

simon44 said:
Weren't the Taliban armed by the Americans when they were fighting the Russians? one mans meat is another mans poison, depending what year it is.

The American led UN force will is leaving in 2014 and where will that leave Afghanistan? It will leave a lot of angry people that will tow the extremist line. Instead of positive moves like more womens rights and less backward thinking, so the Afghan population can make change for themselves. Well at the moment it's being bombed back into the stone age.
Click to expand...

As I see it you are all close to the point - to sway away from the OP.

You will, however, stray into the political arena and probably have the thread closed as well as upset a number of well meaning posters if you pursue it.

2012/2013/2014........2030 - in my opinion this situation will never really change. It has been going on for years. Do the politicians really believe it can be ended. Naive surely.
 
cyclamens said:
You will, however, stray into the political arena and probably have the thread closed as well as upset a number of well meaning posters if you pursue it.
Click to expand...

Indeed on both counts. ;)
Please just lets all have a healthy debate,
keep it civil and non political. Thanks (y)
 
I don't want to be told off :D but is this more about ethics than politics?
 
simon44 said:
I don't want to be told off :D but is this more about ethics than politics?
Click to expand...

Make note in black book <trouble maker> :D

I agree that it is, but it was a polite reminder not to stray that way,
as these things seem to have a habit of doing ;)
 
**Mod edit**
I am glad to see that common sense prevailed.


;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
well mod as i had already deleted my own post within 30 secnds having changed my mind your comment was completely unnecessary....... geez too much power..........
 
simon44 said:
Weren't the Taliban armed by the Americans when they were fighting the Russians? one mans meat is another mans poison, depending what year it is.
Click to expand...

Sort of. The Taliban didn't exist as such during the Russian invasion, but emerged from the various mujahideen groups in the early 90s. Al Qaeda has similar origins. The US (CIA) certainly armed them but, then again, they supported Saddam Hussein during his war against Iran too. Unintended, but not completely unforeseeable, consequences.
 
Yes the taliban were just freedom fighters at the time, they were trained and armed by the americans (That one back fired.) To fight against the russians.

There are a whole bunch of rusty aging russian tanks still in the afghan desert. Also at the end of Rambo 3 in the closing credits there is a message from the makers saying this film is dedicated to the active freedom fighters of afghanistan. because the 3rd rambo film was made around the time of the russian invasion and obviously for anyone thats seen it, rambo was fighting alongside them and killing the russian invaders
 
Last edited:
archamedes said:
Yes the taliban were just freedom fighters at the time, they were trained and armed by the americans (That one back fired.) To fight against the russians.

There are a whole bunch of rusty aging russian tanks still in the afghan desert. Also at the end of Rambo 3 in the closing credits there is a message from the makers saying this film is dedicated to the active freedom fighters of afghanistan. because the 3rd rambo film was made around the time of the russian invasion and obviously for anyone thats seen it, rambo was fighting alongside them and killing the russian invaders
Click to expand...

From the most bs comment I have seen you have now made the most potty.
 
matthewb said:
well mod as i had already deleted my own post within 30 secnds having changed my mind your comment was completely unnecessary....... geez too much power..........
Click to expand...

I was actually complimenting you on your use of common sense.

Please accept my apologies if you are offended by compliments.
 
archamedes said:
Yes the taliban were just freedom fighters at the time, they were trained and armed by the americans (That one back fired.) To fight against the russians.
Click to expand...

The Taliban didn't exist until after the Soviet withdrawal. Probably about 3-4 years after at best estimates, in terms of an armed power faction.
 
simon44 said:
From the most bs comment I have seen you have now made the most potty.
Click to expand...

and this is the 2nd time in this thread you have made a half assed statement without a reason to back it up. I'm still waiting for your first answer that you still haven't given yet. you did reply with a few words that hardly made up a sentence, but still, unless you don't agree with me just for the sake of not agreeing then thats not good enough.
 
It's pretty plain what i disagreed with you about on your first post.

The last post was you citing a rambo film. I mean ffs a rambo film to qualify your argument.

I could go on but I can't be bothered.
 
simon44 said:
It's pretty plain what i disagreed with you about on your first post.

The last post was you citing a rambo film. I mean ffs a rambo film to qualify your argument.

I could go on but I can't be bothered.
Click to expand...

As I read it the rambo comment was no more than an anecdotal snippet that was relevant, not used as a justification to any argument.

If you're going to provoke a discussion at least see it through and not just say you can't be bothered when someone presents an opposing point of view. After all, that's a large part of what this forum is about :)
 
Obviously more will unfold as time goes on http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/16/world/asia/afghanistan-shooting-soldier/?hpt=hp_c1 But does anybody know if American soldiers are subjected to questioning about their mental health on return of duty? If so then they have failed to recognise any issues this guy had, and imo if his request of not wanting to go there was true then it should have been honoured, certainly no disgrace in that.
 
I wonder what happens in the trial of a case like this. If the crime had happened in reverse you can bet that the US would fight for extradition so that they could process the crime and implement the sentence themselves. Similarly, they fight for the extradition of a Brit because he did something on the Internet which they think fell foul of their laws. Will they be handing the soldier over to be dealt with by officials of the country where he committed the crimes? No. But is it different because he's a soldier...I don't know :shrug:

I don't really know either way; it just stinks of hypocrisy to me.
 
TriggerHappy said:
I wonder what happens in the trial of a case like this. If the crime had happened in reverse you can bet that the US would fight for extradition so that they could process the crime and implement the sentence themselves. Similarly, they fight for the extradition of a Brit because he did something on the Internet which they think fell foul of their laws. Will they be handing the soldier over to be dealt with by officials of the country where he committed the crimes? No. But is it different because he's a soldier...I don't know :shrug:

I don't really know either way; it just stinks of hypocrisy to me.
Click to expand...

It is different as he'll be tried under US military law where they have juristriction. He's already in a high security military jail in Kansas. It would be the same if he were a uk soldier.

Also, the Afgan judiciary system is somewhat lacking to say the very least.
 
odd jim said:
It is different as he'll be tried under US military law where they have juristriction. He's already in a high security military jail in Kansas. It would be the same if he were a uk soldier.

Also, the Afgan judiciary system is somewhat lacking to say the very least.
Click to expand...

That's what I wondered, thanks :)

Mind you, I'd say the American justice system is somewhat lacking too!
 
TriggerHappy said:
That's what I wondered, thanks :)

Mind you, I'd say the American justice system is somewhat lacking too!
Click to expand...

Indeed, and so is the British! Not sure any country has a perfect judiciary system but in Afghanistan he'd have been tried, convicted and executed already.
 
TriggerHappy said:
Will they be handing the soldier over to be dealt with by officials of the country where he committed the crimes? No. But is it different because he's a soldier...I don't know :shrug:
Click to expand...

It's one of the major reasons that the Americans are not participants in the ICC, so that their military can't be tried for war crimes outside of the US.

FWIW, I have a feeling that a couple of the ANA/ANPF who turned rogue were tried in country.
 
TriggerHappy said:
That's what I wondered, thanks :)

Mind you, I'd say the American justice system is somewhat lacking too!
Click to expand...

I don't know, because from what I have seen The american civilian courts are much harsher than ours. I mean over here you can get something like 6 months to 14 months for a minor fraud conviction. But over there its like 10 years, no tag, no early release and no softly softly open prisons. But if you are talking about the legal protocal that the lawyers use in order to get criminals off on technicalities and the fact the crime never happened unless it has CCTV evidence regardless of victim statements then yes it really is a lawyers game of chess & deal making mostly battled within a confrence room with other lawyers, prosecutors and a judge before anything ever goes to trial.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top