Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Up_In_Arms, Mar 1, 2004.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
If these people were giving it the ubiquitous "Iraqi Unload" and were carrying wepons openly in the street after being told not to, then the patrol had every right to regard them as hostile.
Personally I questions the motives of the lawers acting on behalf of these families... I'm sure they only have the victims best interests in mind
Good point, money grabbing twats really - but then again maybe its the soldiers fault; should have made sure s/he killed instead of wounded
"Shoot first, ask questions later"
"Shoot first, then if anyone asks questions, shoot them as well"
Works for me
OK - didn't want to get too far down the rules of engagement argument per se. More a question of responsibility and whether responsibilty and more importantly liability is being pushed further down the chain these days to the lads on the ground - in general - not just such an incident.
The troops on the gound should abide by the current rules of engagement to the letter. If not, then that is their responsibility. If those ROE are dodgy in the first place, then it's not their fault but that of their commanders.
My problem is with these fcuking bottom feeding lawers who are pushing these sorts of cases.
Pesonally I wouldn't like to see a situation where individual soldiers felt that they had to have some sort of insurance cover for this sort of thing. As a member of HMF you are acting on behalf of The Queen and her appointed representatives. If they send you to Iraq, where you kill someone whilst observing the ROE in force for that theatre, then HM Government, not you should have to deal with any claims made for compensation as they are the ones who sent you there in the first place.
yes but HMG is new labour hope everyone's got good insurance.
Separate names with a comma.