The OP also apparently considers this evidence of the Fascismizing(is that even a word?) of the UK.

Chimpy, that's why my daily online newspaper is The Indie (and The Guardian). I usually want to kill the people that comment at The Telegraph :)

Well, with the information given it just seems that the soldiers had an understandable problem with providing medical aid to someone who just tried to kill them. Soldiers may be obligated to provide first aid to downed enemies but I think it's comprehensible that following this rule may be a serious psychological strain - and I think you wouldn't be so outraged if say lots of people supported a regular citizen who was tried for murder because he fatally wounded a mugger or rapist in self-defense and did not provide first aid to him.

Of course it's a great thing that soldiers are obligated to provide first aid to downed enemies, it's also a great thing that for once they actually have to answer for themselves in court for not following this rule, but it's up to the court to determine whether the soldiers were in a mental state that kept them from providing aid or whether they simply were behaving unethically. Before that's settled I'm absolutely okay with many British citizens expressing their loyalty towards these men.

And well, most of the comments from their supporters I've read were derived from the confusion how someone can be expected to help the person who just tried to kill him/her - that's to be expected from civilians who identify themselves with the soldiers as human beings, not the military as an institution. Few comments I read were actually powered by hatred or racism aimed at the Afghans. As long as that's the case I think it's silly to accuse the initative (much less the whole nation) of being fascist, militaristic, evil or whatever.

There is a difference between the political ambitions of a government and the ideological mindset of a soldier.

Likewise, there is a difference between supporting individuals placed in harms way and supporting the bureaucrats that put them there.

Regardless, we are governed by laws, not opinion, and the accused face court marshal.

That's a problem everywhere. Soldiers are paid to kill sometimes for more noble, sometimes for less noble missions. And if they make a big mistake they kind of face punishment as everybody else would, although probably with much less probability. Also some of them do such mistakes deliberately. You have to somehow sort out the not so nice guys. All that you have to think about when supporting the army.

But it's a problem of every army in the world. That such news are published in the media in Britain is probably a good sign of an open and fair discussion, not a sign that it happens more often within the British army which I don't believe.

Probably the best definition of military success is how many Civilians (Soldiers also) lifes are saved (now and in the future) which is always very difficult to estimate. But every mistake or every foul played by the own team gives you less success and that's why you have to constantly persecutes and correct these things.

Fascistization (I looked it up)

I think that what's worse about the OP is that far more people actually vote for "winner" on multiple "reality" shows, than ever vote (in recent history, anyway) for who is allowed to gain power in government.....it's utterly pathetic.
TV over the last two decades has been seriously dumbed-down to their level of "Contestant X looks better than the others, vote for HIR!"
or
"Contestant D sounds better than the rest, so vote for HIR!"
And that's the way the government here seem to want it..."If they're too busy being dulled by that, they won't be in the streets looking for our blood when we take everything away from them!"

British governments have become increasingly filled with a sub-section of society that is educated in 1 university, picking from 1-3 of degree courses (political science, law, economics). In the whole 1,500 body of the Commons and the Lords chambers, there's maybe 3 people with an education in science. Anything else? ROFL! Get outta here! Not one of them since 1997 has lived in the real world, with real-world issues on money, hunger, travel, employment....totally insulated by wealth, ideology, birthright and ignorance...

Most British people I've seen online and talked to IRL do support the Armed Forces, but absolutely abhor the illegal wars Bliar started to crony up to Dubya. Most want the troops home, if only to stop the constant bleeding out of their lives to insurgents, "friendlies" and American "misidentification of enemy troops".

Couple of weeks ago, 2 female police officers were murdered, and the press-agitated uproar about "unarmed police getting killed!!!!11" was out of this world. Literally. The police themselves don't want to be armed - it'd change the whole dynamic we've had for nearly 2 centuries of "policed by consent" into something far more dangerous...most of them said "Look, if you insist on arming us, a lot of us will simply quit the job."

It was almost the total opposite in the summer with the Olympics, though. Press-agitation whipped up anti-military furore over the dozen or so missile batteries protecting the games in the unlikely, but possible, hijacking and forced-crashing of planes, and using troops to supplement the idiotic and corrupt G4S security when they failed to provide sufficient numbers of trained civilians, for which they got paid an exorbitant amount of public monies!

The level of facepalmery in Britain since John Major (late 90s) has steadily risen, and this Heathite Traitor lot we have in office now aren't making it any lower...I truly despair for humanity.

Military representatives in the US, Russia and Israel are laughing at you right now.

I know, that's why I said another definition of soldier is paid killer. I guess this is more true to reality than most other definitions. But I feel that what the public in democratic countries should want and should demand from their leaders, the lowest number of civilian (and militaric) casualties.

It is disturbing and shouldn't be allowed, but probably not subject to Geneva convention. Insurgent usually means not in uniform, dressed like local population. By the Geneva Convention, it probably means they aren't in an army, and don't automatically qualify for POW status. This was to prevent people from hiding behind civilians, attacking in populated areas, etc.

The Geneva Convention isn't a human-rights-for-all document, people. It's been applied a lot more broadly than its writers ever intended, which is a good thing all around, but if the legal case against these guys is depending on it than the legal case has problems.

This is correct. The Geneva Convention is a two way road. You can loose its protection if you behave in contrast to basic rules of engagement.

While the "not wearing a uniform" isn't the issue for insurgents (IF they are nationals of an invaded country), most are already out of the protection for being mercenaries and using civilians and red crosses as cover.

Wait, why were they using missiles to defend the Olympics? That does sound more than a tad bit excessive, to be honest.

surface to air missiles incase someone wanted to fly a plane into the i think was the reason

Ah, I didn't know about the nationals-of-country exception for the uniform requirement. Makes sense. I've seen reports saying a lot of insurgents in the area are actually imported from madrassas other countries, so that may or may not apply here.