Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem
Yes a conviction has happened and the argument is now about whether there are mitigating circumstances which I believe there are.
|
In this case I don't think there is that much. The only mitigating circumstance is that he is at war but if that was used as a valid migration that it is carte blanche for all members of the armed forces in the battle field. This specific case seems to be quite clear cut, it was recorded, the guy was evidently no threat anymore, the shooter vocalised sentiments that he knew he was breaking the law and that there would be consequences if he was caught.
If such a clear case of executing a wounded enemy still merits an exemption then where would the line actually be?
Quote:
As for comparing troops with terrorists, certainly one 'member' did and yesterday, and in a comment (removed before I had time to respond to it) you made a comment (in response to one of my posts) which, in the brief time it was visible to me, gave me the distinct impression that, given what had happened, you felt our forces could be classed as little better than terrorists. Maybe had you not deleted that post I'd have had the time to form a different, more accurate, impression of what you wrote or maybe not... 
|
I said that we were not as we have such rules. The important thing is to abide by them because they're what separate us from the terrorists. If he still start abiding by their rules (
"There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us.") then we've lost something important.