FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Fingers crossed for Sgt Blackman

Fingers crossed for Sgt Blackman

By *atcouple OP Couple over a year ago

Suffolk - East Anglia

A fine soldier who has been through hell. It's reported that the prosecutors have now accepted mental difficulties in a terrifying situation, so now we're cautiously optimistic ............

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Fingers crossed.

I've known some really messed up service me. Damaged by what they've seen and done

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Hopefully he will be a free man very soon and rightly so.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

he was hung out to dry. You can't train people to be ruthless killing machines, then expect them to cope with the stresses, when the same supervising mechanism, fails them. Easy to point simple fingers, total political bullshit. I hope he is released and vindicated.

He's a hero in my opinion.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

(soooo in the minority...)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ilary and DonaldCouple over a year ago

chingford

I'm not sure I can support the killing of an unarmed injured person.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *arnaclebillMan over a year ago

Robin Hood County

"A fine soldier who has been through hell. It's reported that the prosecutors have now accepted mental difficulties in a terrifying situation, so now we're cautiously optimistic ............"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'm not sure I can support the killing of an unarmed injured person. "

That had been hit by an apache and would have died anyway and had already been named as a target to destroy, hence the helicopter firing at him in the first place.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

[Removed by poster at 09/02/17 15:14:55]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"I'm not sure I can support the killing of an unarmed injured person.

That had been hit by an apache and would have died anyway and had already been named as a target to destroy, hence the helicopter firing at him in the first place.

That's ok then

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ilary and DonaldCouple over a year ago

chingford

"I'm not sure I can support the killing of an unarmed injured person.

That had been hit by an apache and would have died anyway and had already been named as a target to destroy, hence the helicopter firing at him in the first place.

So it was an act of compassion?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"I'm not sure I can support the killing of an unarmed injured person.

That had been hit by an apache and would have died anyway and had already been named as a target to destroy, hence the helicopter firing at him in the first place.

So it was an act of compassion? "

I think his words at the time disprove that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

(soooo in the minority...)"

I'm in the minority with you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'm not sure I can support the killing of an unarmed injured person.

That had been hit by an apache and would have died anyway and had already been named as a target to destroy, hence the helicopter firing at him in the first place.

So it was an act of compassion?

I think his words at the time disprove that."

He shouldn't have said what he said but we can't imagine the stuff they see. If someone had been shooting at me and then they were all fucked up walking through a field, I'd give him one on his way down, he was half dead anyway.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 09/02/17 15:29:07]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

He killed a taliban fighter and gets 8years ,, fucked up system for sure .. hey no worries pal you go out their fight a questionable war for the UK government .. kill the targets and we fuck you over at the last hurdle to make an example out of you .. political posturing is all ..

Disgraceful he even got charges to start with for destroying the enemy .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"He killed a taliban fighter and gets 8years ,, fucked up system for sure .. hey no worries pal you go out their fight a questionable war for the UK government .. kill the targets and we fuck you over at the last hurdle to make an example out of you .. political posturing is all ..

Disgraceful he even got charges to start with for destroying the enemy .

How people can use phrases like 'destroying the enemy' when referring to other human beings, I will never understand.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

it was an act of irrelevance.

They were on a twice daily patrol, in n area where they'd lost upwards of 40 men (mixture of wounded & fatalities) in preceding 6 month period. They often found body parts of comrades (booby trapped as the insurgents knew they'd always look for the body remains) so in that context, living in 50 degree heat, in a poorly equipped compound, under that death zone pressure, 24/7 for 6 months, without respite, see how you cope with it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atcouple OP Couple over a year ago

Suffolk - East Anglia

"I'm not sure I can support the killing of an unarmed injured person.

That had been hit by an apache and would have died anyway and had already been named as a target to destroy, hence the helicopter firing at him in the first place.

So it was an act of compassion?

I think his words at the time disprove that.

Exactly. So many keyboard heroes think that they would have done differently. A hostile, dangerous and terrifying situation where things happen that bear no relation to ordinary life here in the safety of our civilised society. He was fighting an enemy who hadn't the courage to fight without the cover of innocent civilians including children.

He is a decent man who should be allowed to quietly get his life back together with his wife and family.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

Would just like to refer people to a previous post on the subject from someone who was there...

"By executing a non combatant (as defined by the Geneva convention; anyone who is no longer able to actively take part in combat). Sgt Blackman brought shame on his regiment and his country. He did it knowingly and willingly and boasted about it. He sunk to the same level as those he went to fight. Whether the militant he killed would have survived is inconsequential, Sgt Blackman took a life, outside of his country's rules of engagement and outside the principles of a convention that his country had signed up to. He killed a man (fighting for what he believed in; rightly or wrongly) in an act of revenge, there was no tactical reason to take that life and no immediate threat posed by that life.

Sgt Blackman committed a war crime; the same crimes are committed every day by insurgents and militants, the difference being that those that represent this country when overseas are supposed to uphold the values that the Geneva convention extols, that this country holds dear; if we are to send people overseas to fight the "good fight" then the good fight they must fight.

Pauly90 - Kabul, 2006-2008.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

\thread

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orwegian BlueMan over a year ago

Iceland, but Aldi is closer..

People will always have opposing opinions on such an emotive subject, the idea of pointing a weapon at another person with intent to kill is abhorrent to most, even those serving in the armed forces.

This guy was definitely let down but likewise, in difficult circumstances it's going to be hard to locate those that are suffering mental anguish..

I know fighting is not a solution, it is however the only way to negotiate with someone who's only form of democracy is terror and murder...

We seem to get bogged down by the random and indiscriminate actions of an individual who was clearly unwell, let it taint the rest of our armed forces and make us forgot the atrocities carried out by the criminal groups they were sent to fight in the first place..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

(soooo in the minority...)

I'm in the minority with you."

And me

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ilary and DonaldCouple over a year ago

chingford

"I'm not sure I can support the killing of an unarmed injured person.

That had been hit by an apache and would have died anyway and had already been named as a target to destroy, hence the helicopter firing at him in the first place.

So it was an act of compassion?

I think his words at the time disprove that.

He is a decent man who should be allowed to quietly get his life back together with his wife and family."

Interesting that you called us civilised.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'm not sure I can support the killing of an unarmed injured person.

That had been hit by an apache and would have died anyway and had already been named as a target to destroy, hence the helicopter firing at him in the first place.

So it was an act of compassion?

I think his words at the time disprove that.

He is a decent man who should be allowed to quietly get his life back together with his wife and family."

I like to think that in the same situation, I would at least uphold the Geneva Convention, rather than mock it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

(soooo in the minority...)

I'm in the minority with you.

And me

Yep, ex-Army and with you in the (growing) minority.

As above, there are rules (that are drummed in), which he knew.

The British Army is supposed to be better than the opposition on all levels. Including discipline and obeying the rule of law (it's sort of why we were there).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I am not disregarding such comment. When the whole story surfaced several years ago, my first thought was, who or why, would anyone retain the footage on helmet or body cameras - no, I don't know the process, of that, in the Marines, or any armed forces.

Equally, I'm not convinced that faced with that degree of stress,, however well trained you are, we all snap. Sgt Blackman, has and is, well supported by many serving or former soldiers.

Do I condemn him for his actions?

No, I don't. My own opinion of course.

But thanks for posting the comment.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I am not disregarding such comment. When the whole story surfaced several years ago, my first thought was, who or why, would anyone retain the footage on helmet or body cameras - no, I don't know the process, of that, in the Marines, or any armed forces.

Equally, I'm not convinced that faced with that degree of stress,, however well trained you are, we all snap. Sgt Blackman, has and is, well supported by many serving or former soldiers.

Do I condemn him for his actions?

No, I don't. My own opinion of course.

But thanks for posting the comment."

Plenty of people 'snap' and do things they regret.

I'm sure that if he is found to have an underlying mental health condition then he will be treated as anyone else with an underlying mental health condition is.

But at the moment he committed a crime that required trial in court. We can't let people off just because they are under stress.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atcouple OP Couple over a year ago

Suffolk - East Anglia

"I'm not sure I can support the killing of an unarmed injured person.

That had been hit by an apache and would have died anyway and had already been named as a target to destroy, hence the helicopter firing at him in the first place.

So it was an act of compassion?

I think his words at the time disprove that.

He is a decent man who should be allowed to quietly get his life back together with his wife and family.

I like to think that in the same situation, I would at least uphold the Geneva Convention, rather than mock it."

Riiiiight, of course

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I like to think that in the same situation, I would at least uphold the Geneva Convention, rather than mock it.

Riiiiight, of course"

The thing is, that I have friends who are soldiers. And I lived on base for several years. And I know that each one of my friends are decent people who would never do what Blackman did.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atcouple OP Couple over a year ago

Suffolk - East Anglia

Equally, I'm not convinced that faced with that degree of stress,, however well trained you are, we all snap. Sgt Blackman, has and is, well supported by many serving or former soldiers.

Do I condemn him for his actions?

No, I don't. My own opinion of course.

But thanks for posting the comment.

Plenty of people 'snap' and do things they regret.

I'm sure that if he is found to have an underlying mental health condition then he will be treated as anyone else with an underlying mental health condition is.

But at the moment he committed a crime that required trial in court. We can't let people off just because they are under stress."

But they can appreciate the amount of stress; I mean we are talking a seriously deadly situation here where his colleagues were hung up dead on trees,

this is not getting a shopping list wrong at Tesco

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

A soldier has a couple of beers, has a blazing row with his wife, someone jostles him at the bar.

He glasses them.

I guess he would also be innocent? You know mitigating circumstances, stress etc?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

But ISIS, Boko harem, Taliban, haqqani, Hezbollah or any other terrorist network are they governed by the same rules and regulations, are they fuck. Do you think they would not fire at one of out soldiers just because he was injured and no longer a threat? Hmmm, hmmm would they, no they wouldn't.

You can't fight a war when only one side abides by the rules.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Playing devil's advocate, if this was the other side doing the same thing, would people's opinion be the same?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

"Playing devil's advocate, if this was the other side doing the same thing, would people's opinion be the same?"

They do the same, which is why we should never.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Playing devil's advocate, if this was the other side doing the same thing, would people's opinion be the same?"

If we were fighting a country that had signed up to the Geneva Convention, I would expect them to follow the rules that it sets down.

And I would expect them to treat someone caught breaking those rules in the same way.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

There are no rules on the battlefield

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

You can't fight a war when only one side abides by the rules. "

So what do you suggest? Shoot people who aren't shooting back? Cause terror in their cities? Kidnap and rape women?

Where does your line draw? Is violence more acceptable than sexual crimes to you?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atcouple OP Couple over a year ago

Suffolk - East Anglia

"Playing devil's advocate, if this was the other side doing the same thing, would people's opinion be the same?

If we were fighting a country that had signed up to the Geneva Convention, I would expect them to follow the rules that it sets down.

And I would expect them to treat someone caught breaking those rules in the same way."

And have the Taliban signed up to the Geneva convention?????

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

"There are no rules on the battlefield"

There are, and there have been versions of rules on the battlefield for centuries.

Mostly around the protection of injured and surrendered combatants. As ultimately neither side wants their own treated badly.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Do all soldiers know the geneva convention off by heart? Should they consult the geneva handbook when hand to hand fighting or when a land mine blows their leg off

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orwegian BlueMan over a year ago

Iceland, but Aldi is closer..

Disgraceful he even got charges to start with for destroying the enemy .

How people can use phrases like 'destroying the enemy' when referring to other human beings, I will never understand."

Destroying, killing, obliterating...

Don't matter what term you use for killing whether it's the political term or that used by squaddies, it still means the same thing...

But look on the flip side, those that our soldiers are fighting want to do the same to you and your family..

They ain't interested in just fighting the armed, they want to murder the innocent..

Obliterate our society, destroy our freedom, inflict fear and suffering...

Like many, I have served and witnessed the atrocities inflicted on the innocent.. Dead women and children left at the roadside, women shot and murdered in front of me by hidden snipers.

What one human can do to another sickens me and those willing to put their own life on the line, willing to stand up and say no, I'm not willing to stand by and watch people suffer; they should be supported.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atcouple OP Couple over a year ago

Suffolk - East Anglia

[Removed by poster at 09/02/17 15:54:19]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ilary and DonaldCouple over a year ago

chingford

"But ISIS, Boko harem, Taliban, haqqani, Hezbollah or any other terrorist network are they governed by the same rules and regulations, are they fuck. Do you think they would not fire at one of out soldiers just because he was injured and no longer a threat? Hmmm, hmmm would they, no they wouldn't.

You can't fight a war when only one side abides by the rules. "

So to fight them we should become like them ?

Then what is it we'll be fighting against ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *atcouple OP Couple over a year ago

Suffolk - East Anglia

Disgraceful he even got charges to start with for destroying the enemy .

How people can use phrases like 'destroying the enemy' when referring to other human beings, I will never understand.

Destroying, killing, obliterating...

Don't matter what term you use for killing whether it's the political term or that used by squaddies, it still means the same thing...

But look on the flip side, those that our soldiers are fighting want to do the same to you and your family..

They ain't interested in just fighting the armed, they want to murder the innocent..

Obliterate our society, destroy our freedom, inflict fear and suffering...

Like many, I have served and witnessed the atrocities inflicted on the innocent.. Dead women and children left at the roadside, women shot and murdered in front of me by hidden snipers.

Thank you

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

"Do all soldiers know the geneva convention off by heart? Should they consult the geneva handbook when hand to hand fighting or when a land mine blows their leg off "

You are taught the essential elements of it pretty much from day one. So yes, and issued little cards that remind you.

So though I can sympathise with him (to a degree), I can't condone his behaviour.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Do all soldiers know the geneva convention off by heart? Should they consult the geneva handbook when hand to hand fighting or when a land mine blows their leg off

You are taught the essential elements of it pretty much from day one. So yes, and issued little cards that remind you.

So though I can sympathise with him (to a degree), I can't condone his behaviour."

Fair point

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ilary and DonaldCouple over a year ago

chingford

"Do all soldiers know the geneva convention off by heart? Should they consult the geneva handbook when hand to hand fighting or when a land mine blows their leg off "

I think the bit about shooting unarmed injured people shouldn't take a lot of remembering.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"I'm not sure I can support the killing of an unarmed injured person.

That had been hit by an apache and would have died anyway and had already been named as a target to destroy, hence the helicopter firing at him in the first place.

Precisely

Now his village will claim what a nice boy he was, popular with everyone. Apart from the ones he was killing

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Playing devil's advocate, if this was the other side doing the same thing, would people's opinion be the same?

They do the same, which is why we should never."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ilary and DonaldCouple over a year ago

chingford

"I'm not sure I can support the killing of an unarmed injured person.

That had been hit by an apache and would have died anyway and had already been named as a target to destroy, hence the helicopter firing at him in the first place.

Precisely

Now his village will claim what a nice boy he was, popular with everyone. Apart from the ones he was killing"

Exactly the same as they are saying about Blackman but it's spread wider than his village.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *harpDressed ManMan over a year ago

Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else

"Playing devil's advocate, if this was the other side doing the same thing, would people's opinion be the same?

If we were fighting a country that had signed up to the Geneva Convention, I would expect them to follow the rules that it sets down.

And I would expect them to treat someone caught breaking those rules in the same way.

And have the Taliban signed up to the Geneva convention?????"

It doesn't matter. We have. And the convention *explicitly* still applies when only one 'side' has ratified it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"I'm not sure I can support the killing of an unarmed injured person.

That had been hit by an apache and would have died anyway and had already been named as a target to destroy, hence the helicopter firing at him in the first place.

Precisely

Now his village will claim what a nice boy he was, popular with everyone. Apart from the ones he was killing

Exactly the same as they are saying about Blackman but it's spread wider than his village. "

I know which side I am on

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

"Playing devil's advocate, if this was the other side doing the same thing, would people's opinion be the same?

They do the same, which is why we should never.

otherwise the argument would run. Well they kill civilians, chop off hands, rape women, let the British Army do the same.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As some posting here, have respected military backgrounds, they have quite diverse differing perspectives, and others,simply have their own opinions (mine included).

I can't condemn the man, for acting as he did. He was, acting for a country, I reside in. Doing a job, I have never done. I know quite a few Royal Marines, and a few Para's from the Falklands & Ireland. They've all served in vicious vile conflicts, with stories that will never see the light of day.

War is not polite or nice. Geneva Convention or not.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Playing devil's advocate, if this was the other side doing the same thing, would people's opinion be the same?

They do the same, which is why we should never.

otherwise the argument would run. Well they kill civilians, chop off hands, rape women, let the British Army do the same."

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

We haven't even got an army we've got a security force.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm just glad that no one on here is carrying a gun. Works so well in America too

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"We haven't even got an army we've got a security force. "

you could always close the roof !!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

"Playing devil's advocate, if this was the other side doing the same thing, would people's opinion be the same?

They do the same, which is why we should never.

otherwise the argument would run. Well they kill civilians, chop off hands, rape women, let the British Army do the same.

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists. "

Do you honestly believe that? With rigid rules and strong discipline bad things happen.

What do you suppose would happen without those? I am pretty certain of the outcome.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

"We haven't even got an army we've got a security force. "

Lol

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *thwalescplCouple over a year ago

brecon

A number of soldiers were shot at in Afghan,(2 died) and the rest returned fire, hitting the terrorist.

Once he was subdued, the remaining soldiers gave him (the terrorist) first aid, and saved his life.

(This is an actual event that happened).

I'm willing to bet that all of the soldiers involved wanted to kill the terrorist, but training and discipline mean they did the right thing.

These are the acts of British soldiers.

Whilst I think the sentence handed out to him was too harsh, I do believe he was wrong to do what he did.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Either it's alright to murder injured, unarmed people or it's not.

You suggested that it's wrong that those 'we' are fighting murder people. But then you suggest that we should support our own troops for murdering people.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If we're going out there to stop the mirderers, then we can't be murderers in return.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists. "

Are you sure?

Are you sure that there are people in the army who wouldn't want to rape women?

Entirely sure?

I don't think that bring British automatically makes you the kind of person that wouldn't want to rape women. In fact from the way that I've seen many soldiers behave out on the pull, I'd suggest that many of them, in fact, have absolutely no idea how to behave towards women. And have very little control.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists.

Are you sure?

Are you sure that there are people in the army who wouldn't want to rape women?

Entirely sure?

Case in point - I was on an interview panel once and amongst the stock questions was "Can you think of a situation at work that didn't go as well as it might have and how would you have done things differently?"

And one applicant said:

"I was out on patrol with my platoon and there was a woman who came screaming at us as she came out of a hut. So we shot her dead. In retrospect I would not have shot her."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iamondjoeMan over a year ago

Glastonbury

Butterfingers

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists.

Are you sure?

Are you sure that there are people in the army who wouldn't want to rape women?

Entirely sure?

Yes, in my experience there was a much higher ratio of nasty, violent people in the Army than in civilian life. Then you train them to be a bit more aggressive and more effective with the violence...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists.

Are you sure?

Are you sure that there are people in the army who wouldn't want to rape women?

Entirely sure?

Yes, in my experience there was a much higher ratio of nasty, violent people in the Army than in civilian life. Then you train them to be a bit more aggressive and more effective with the violence..."

Yep; like Fusilier Lee Rigby

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Comes full circle to an earlier posting.

"You can't train people to be ruthless killing machines, then expect them to cope with the stresses, when the same supervising mechanism, fails them."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ilary and DonaldCouple over a year ago

chingford

"Playing devil's advocate, if this was the other side doing the same thing, would people's opinion be the same?

They do the same, which is why we should never.

otherwise the argument would run. Well they kill civilians, chop off hands, rape women, let the British Army do the same.

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists. "

In total, over 200 sexual abuse allegations by colleagues have been filed by military personnel over the last three years: 75 claims of rape and 150 of sexual assaults, according to figures released by the MoD in March.

And this is just against "Their own".

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

"Playing devil's advocate, if this was the other side doing the same thing, would people's opinion be the same?

They do the same, which is why we should never.

otherwise the argument would run. Well they kill civilians, chop off hands, rape women, let the British Army do the same.

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists.

And this is just against "Their own". "

...and don't even get onto the GBH that happens every night in the NAAFI bar.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Playing devil's advocate, if this was the other side doing the same thing, would people's opinion be the same?

They do the same, which is why we should never.

otherwise the argument would run. Well they kill civilians, chop off hands, rape women, let the British Army do the same.

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists.

And this is just against "Their own". "

And how do these compare to the statistics released by the Taliban MoD, against their own or for that matter, against anyone

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists.

Are you sure?

Are you sure that there are people in the army who wouldn't want to rape women?

Entirely sure?

Yes, in my experience there was a much higher ratio of nasty, violent people in the Army than in civilian life. Then you train them to be a bit more aggressive and more effective with the violence...

Yep; like Fusilier Lee Rigby"

I'm struggling to get your point.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists.

Are you sure?

Are you sure that there are people in the army who wouldn't want to rape women?

Entirely sure?

Yes, in my experience there was a much higher ratio of nasty, violent people in the Army than in civilian life. Then you train them to be a bit more aggressive and more effective with the violence...

Yep; like Fusilier Lee Rigby

I'm struggling to get your point."

It is quite simple, really

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ilary and DonaldCouple over a year ago

chingford

"Playing devil's advocate, if this was the other side doing the same thing, would people's opinion be the same?

They do the same, which is why we should never.

otherwise the argument would run. Well they kill civilians, chop off hands, rape women, let the British Army do the same.

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists.

And this is just against "Their own".

And how do these compare to the statistics released by the Taliban MoD, against their own or for that matter, against anyone"

I have absolutely no idea. It's not a competition.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

After reading this thread, I'm guessing you mean the guy that shot a dying man in the back and then had the whit to say, whilst on camera "I've just broken the Geneva convention, keep this quiet boys"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists.

Are you sure?

Are you sure that there are people in the army who wouldn't want to rape women?

Entirely sure?

Yes, in my experience there was a much higher ratio of nasty, violent people in the Army than in civilian life. Then you train them to be a bit more aggressive and more effective with the violence...

Yep; like Fusilier Lee Rigby

I'm struggling to get your point.

It is quite simple, really"

Apparently not, because I have no idea what you are trying to get across.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rMrs CumalotCouple over a year ago

East Mids

[Removed by poster at 09/02/17 17:31:49]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists.

Are you sure?

Are you sure that there are people in the army who wouldn't want to rape women?

Entirely sure?

Yes, in my experience there was a much higher ratio of nasty, violent people in the Army than in civilian life. Then you train them to be a bit more aggressive and more effective with the violence...

Yep; like Fusilier Lee Rigby"

How is he in any way related to the posts you are replying too?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Playing devil's advocate, if this was the other side doing the same thing, would people's opinion be the same?

They do the same, which is why we should never.

otherwise the argument would run. Well they kill civilians, chop off hands, rape women, let the British Army do the same.

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists.

And this is just against "Their own".

And how do these compare to the statistics released by the Taliban MoD, against their own or for that matter, against anyone

I have absolutely no idea. It's not a competition. "

No, it is not a competition but it does highlight the fact that we have checks and balances whilst they don't have any

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rMrs CumalotCouple over a year ago

East Mids

Question

What would your opinion be if he did it to an unarmed man in the uk ?

He knew what he was doing!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

"Playing devil's advocate, if this was the other side doing the same thing, would people's opinion be the same?

They do the same, which is why we should never.

otherwise the argument would run. Well they kill civilians, chop off hands, rape women, let the British Army do the same.

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists.

And this is just against "Their own".

And how do these compare to the statistics released by the Taliban MoD, against their own or for that matter, against anyone

I have absolutely no idea. It's not a competition.

No, it is not a competition but it does highlight the fact that we have checks and balances whilst they don't have any"

Which is a good thing, isn't it? We are not terrorists.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists.

Are you sure?

Are you sure that there are people in the army who wouldn't want to rape women?

Entirely sure?

Yes, in my experience there was a much higher ratio of nasty, violent people in the Army than in civilian life. Then you train them to be a bit more aggressive and more effective with the violence...

Yep; like Fusilier Lee Rigby

I'm struggling to get your point.

It is quite simple, really

Apparently not, because I have no idea what you are trying to get across."

You claimed that "in my experience there was a much higher ratio of nasty, violent people in the Army than in civilian life"; which one was in the Army and which one the civilian?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Question

What would your opinion be if he did it to an unarmed man in the uk ?

He knew what he was doing!"

An unarmed man?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ubSirVient-DefinitionCouple over a year ago

dukinfield

Disgraceful he even got charges to start with for destroying the enemy .

How people can use phrases like 'destroying the enemy' when referring to other human beings, I will never understand."

Tell you what hun. You go over there and behave no differently that the freedom you enjoy over here and see a, how hospitable they will be towards you and b, how long you last before you're stoned to death for being a liberal woman.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists.

Are you sure?

Are you sure that there are people in the army who wouldn't want to rape women?

Entirely sure?

Yes, in my experience there was a much higher ratio of nasty, violent people in the Army than in civilian life. Then you train them to be a bit more aggressive and more effective with the violence...

Yep; like Fusilier Lee Rigby

I'm struggling to get your point.

It is quite simple, really

Apparently not, because I have no idea what you are trying to get across.

You claimed that "in my experience there was a much higher ratio of nasty, violent people in the Army than in civilian life"; which one was in the Army and which one the civilian?"

Um, yes, but I never said everyone in the Army was a brutal killer, or that every civilian was an angel.

Just commented on the ratios and therefore the likely outcome should the rule of law be lifted from the Army.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It should never have come to this. Unfortunately the stench of political correctness has infected the courtroom.

Marines and Paras in the Falklands did the same and it was accepted as battle. With the additional fact that more Falkands hero/veterans have died at their own hands since than died in combat.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Playing devil's advocate, if this was the other side doing the same thing, would people's opinion be the same?

They do the same, which is why we should never.

otherwise the argument would run. Well they kill civilians, chop off hands, rape women, let the British Army do the same.

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists.

And this is just against "Their own".

And how do these compare to the statistics released by the Taliban MoD, against their own or for that matter, against anyone

I have absolutely no idea. It's not a competition.

No, it is not a competition but it does highlight the fact that we have checks and balances whilst they don't have any"

Are you saying what's good for them is good for us? That our forces should be as lawless as the Taliban and IS and not have to answer to the law?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eavenscentitCouple over a year ago

barnstaple

If it was the other way round people here would be outraged.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It should never have come to this. Unfortunately the stench of political correctness has infected the courtroom.

Marines and Paras in the Falklands did the same and it was accepted as battle. With the additional fact that more Falkands hero/veterans have died at their own hands since than died in combat. "

It is wrong to murder people. Even in a war zone.

It is also wrong that our government does not take mental health seriously.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"It should never have come to this. Unfortunately the stench of political correctness has infected the courtroom.

Marines and Paras in the Falklands did the same and it was accepted as battle. With the additional fact that more Falkands hero/veterans have died at their own hands since than died in combat. "

Breaching the Geneva convention and doing so on film is linked to political correctness how exactly?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If it was the other way round people here would be outraged. "

Exactly.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

"It should never have come to this. Unfortunately the stench of political correctness has infected the courtroom.

Marines and Paras in the Falklands did the same and it was accepted as battle. With the additional fact that more Falkands hero/veterans have died at their own hands since than died in combat. "

Political correctness?! No, it's the law, the same one that applies to you or I.

It was not accepted as battle, it was covered up and hidden. A few cases did make it to court.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Playing devil's advocate, if this was the other side doing the same thing, would people's opinion be the same?

They do the same, which is why we should never.

otherwise the argument would run. Well they kill civilians, chop off hands, rape women, let the British Army do the same.

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists.

And this is just against "Their own".

And how do these compare to the statistics released by the Taliban MoD, against their own or for that matter, against anyone

I have absolutely no idea. It's not a competition.

No, it is not a competition but it does highlight the fact that we have checks and balances whilst they don't have any

Are you saying what's good for them is good for us? That our forces should be as lawless as the Taliban and IS and not have to answer to the law?

What they do at Boko Haram is that they only shoot the African resistance and not the Western Special forces because they can only fire at them if they shoot first. Such weakness is getting people killed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

But the British army wouldn't want to rape women or chop off hands. They'd just kill terrorists.

Are you sure?

Are you sure that there are people in the army who wouldn't want to rape women?

Entirely sure?

Yes, in my experience there was a much higher ratio of nasty, violent people in the Army than in civilian life. Then you train them to be a bit more aggressive and more effective with the violence...

Yep; like Fusilier Lee Rigby

I'm struggling to get your point.

It is quite simple, really

Apparently not, because I have no idea what you are trying to get across.

You claimed that "in my experience there was a much higher ratio of nasty, violent people in the Army than in civilian life"; which one was in the Army and which one the civilian?

Um, yes, but I never said everyone in the Army was a brutal killer, or that every civilian was an angel.

Just commented on the ratios and therefore the likely outcome should the rule of law be lifted from the Army."

You took it out of context

Here was a solider who was in combat. In front of him was an injured terrorist who we tried to, but unfortunately did not kill; instead only injured him

This was not happening in the comfort of army barracks, but on a battlefield where they are our enemy

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

And one applicant said:

"I was out on patrol with my platoon and there was a woman who came screaming at us as she came out of a hut. So we shot her dead. In retrospect I would not have shot her."

Sitting behind your desk you of course knew straight away that she wasn't a suicide bomber. Didn't you?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rMrs CumalotCouple over a year ago

East Mids

"Question

What would your opinion be if he did it to an unarmed man in the uk ?

He knew what he was doing!

An unarmed man?"

He was injured and had no weapon system (unarmed)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Disgraceful he even got charges to start with for destroying the enemy .

How people can use phrases like 'destroying the enemy' when referring to other human beings, I will never understand.

I do not follow your logic. Hun.

- I do not want British soldiers to murder people.

- Therefore I should go to another country and be stoned to death?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

And one applicant said:

"I was out on patrol with my platoon and there was a woman who came screaming at us as she came out of a hut. So we shot her dead. In retrospect I would not have shot her."

Sitting behind your desk you of course knew straight away that she wasn't a suicide bomber. Didn't you?"

I have read that line somewhere else on the internet

It is used for training as part of interview techniques

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Question

What would your opinion be if he did it to an unarmed man in the uk ?

He knew what he was doing!

An unarmed man?

He was injured and had no weapon system (unarmed)"

Really; so what was he fighting with? A catapult?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *al01Man over a year ago

solihull

"A fine soldier who has been through hell. It's reported that the prosecutors have now accepted mental difficulties in a terrifying situation, so now we're cautiously optimistic ............"

Fingers crossed for him.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

"It should never have come to this. Unfortunately the stench of political correctness has infected the courtroom.

Marines and Paras in the Falklands did the same and it was accepted as battle. With the additional fact that more Falkands hero/veterans have died at their own hands since than died in combat. "

Bollocks..

its nothing to do with 'pc' its to do with the rule of law that as members of the British military is something that is drummed into those who have served and are serving..

we used to have the yellow card in NI and it was stressed time and time again what the rules of engagement where, no doubts were left..

with Blackman it should never have come out but when it did then there were not many options left..

the ptsd, mental health issues point you make is a relevant one but it has to be looked at in the context of the times and the facts then and still now that for may serving armed forces personnel and would include blue light front line personnel in that too that coming forward and asking for help still has the perception of a stigma attached to it..

same with young men in general..

what infected the courtroom was that one of their own had crossed the line and literally shot himself in the foot with the footage, they had no choice but to convict on the evidence presented..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rMrs CumalotCouple over a year ago

East Mids

"It should never have come to this. Unfortunately the stench of political correctness has infected the courtroom.

Marines and Paras in the Falklands did the same and it was accepted as battle. With the additional fact that more Falkands hero/veterans have died at their own hands since than died in combat.

Bollocks..

its nothing to do with 'pc' its to do with the rule of law that as members of the British military is something that is drummed into those who have served and are serving..

we used to have the yellow card in NI and it was stressed time and time again what the rules of engagement where, no doubts were left..

with Blackman it should never have come out but when it did then there were not many options left..

same with young men in general..

what infected the courtroom was that one of their own had crossed the line and literally shot himself in the foot with the footage, they had no choice but to convict on the evidence presented.."

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *layfullsamMan over a year ago

Solihull

Disgraceful he even got charges to start with for destroying the enemy .

How people can use phrases like 'destroying the enemy' when referring to other human beings, I will never understand."

You don't have to understand it other than knowing that your freedom to do as you so wish and speak freely has a lot to do with an older generation who destroyed the enemy.

It's only a word and the outcome is the same if it's changed to beat the enemy not destroy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ickawitchCouple over a year ago

Away with the fairies (Liverpool to you)

The only people who win ( in any war / no matter what side your on ) are the ass holes who supply the weapons .

But this persecution of a soldier sounds more political than not . I'm not for one minute saying it couldn't have been delt with differently. Having been in that situation myself and can say the only person who knows the truth of what he was thinking is him. And I think it's unfair to judge unless you've been shot at .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oncupiscentTonyMan over a year ago

Kent

(soooo in the minority...)"

Probably a silent majority

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Disgraceful he even got charges to start with for destroying the enemy .

How people can use phrases like 'destroying the enemy' when referring to other human beings, I will never understand.

You don't have to understand it other than knowing that your freedom to do as you so wish and speak freely has a lot to do with an older generation who destroyed the enemy.

It's only a word and the outcome is the same if it's changed to beat the enemy not destroy."

My grandfathers never talked about the opposition in that way.

It's not only a word. It's never only words. Wars are started with words, and ended with lives.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss_tressWoman over a year ago

London

(soooo in the minority...)

I'm in the minority with you."

Make that three.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

(soooo in the minority...)

I'm in the minority with you.

Make that three."

Four. I tend to side with you also

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rMrs CumalotCouple over a year ago

East Mids

"Question

What would your opinion be if he did it to an unarmed man in the uk ?

He knew what he was doing!

An unarmed man?

He was injured and had no weapon system (unarmed)

Really; so what was he fighting with? A catapult?"

He said himself the injured bloke was unarmed!

Do you even know what your talking about?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Question

What would your opinion be if he did it to an unarmed man in the uk ?

He knew what he was doing!

An unarmed man?

He was injured and had no weapon system (unarmed)

Really; so what was he fighting with? A catapult?

He said himself the injured bloke was unarmed!

Do you even know what your talking about?"

He was armed before he got injured. He was a terrorist who our side was fighting. Whose side are you on?

[ on the side of peace and justice ]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

He was armed before he got injured. He was a terrorist who our side was fighting. Whose side are you on?

[ on the side of peace and justice ]"

And then he was unarmed and they treated him for his injuries. And then shot him. In the back. Before laughing at the Geneva Convention.

If a British solder was captured, disarmed, then murdered - we would be baying for blood. Quite right too. Prisoners of war should not be murdered.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

He was armed before he got injured. He was a terrorist who our side was fighting. Whose side are you on?

[ on the side of peace and justice ]

And then he was unarmed and they treated him for his injuries. And then shot him. In the back. Before laughing at the Geneva Convention.

If a British solder was captured, disarmed, then murdered - we would be baying for blood. Quite right too. Prisoners of war should not be murdered."

Are you religious? Do you believe in absolute morality?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rMrs CumalotCouple over a year ago

East Mids

"Question

What would your opinion be if he did it to an unarmed man in the uk ?

He knew what he was doing!

An unarmed man?

He was injured and had no weapon system (unarmed)

Really; so what was he fighting with? A catapult?

He said himself the injured bloke was unarmed!

Do you even know what your talking about?

He was armed before he got injured. He was a terrorist who our side was fighting. Whose side are you on?

[ on the side of peace and justice ]"

I'm on the side that separates us and them!

Your talking to someone that has done 3 herricks

He was no threat and was unarmed at the time the patrol came across him

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss_tressWoman over a year ago

London

"it was an act of irrelevance.

Joining the armed forces is not mandatory, thank fuck, hence why I never joined, don't have the character/stomach for it. Wouldn't be a nursery nurse for the same reason.

I hope people who undertake certain jobs have the acumen to carry it out.

We wouldn't be any the wiser if one of his comrades didn't provide the clip, so not everyone thinks he's a hero!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Question

What would your opinion be if he did it to an unarmed man in the uk ?

He knew what he was doing!

An unarmed man?

He was injured and had no weapon system (unarmed)

Really; so what was he fighting with? A catapult?

He said himself the injured bloke was unarmed!

Do you even know what your talking about?

He was armed before he got injured. He was a terrorist who our side was fighting. Whose side are you on?

[ on the side of peace and justice ]

I'm on the side that separates us and them!

Your talking to someone that has done 3 herricks

He was no threat and was unarmed at the time the patrol came across him"

I don't know what a herrick is

What I do know is that he was a threat and would have remained a threat had he lived. I somehow don't think that he would have shown his gratitude by not killing one of us, given even half a chance

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ickawitchCouple over a year ago

Away with the fairies (Liverpool to you)

The appearance of 'unarmed' unfortunately doesn't always proof to be the case.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss_tressWoman over a year ago

London

"A soldier has a couple of beers, has a blazing row with his wife, someone jostles him at the bar.

He glasses them.

I guess he would also be innocent? You know mitigating circumstances, stress etc?"

Exactly!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Do you believe in absolute morality? "

I've not studied enough philosophy to give a satisfactory answer to that question to be honest.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

"The appearance of 'unarmed' unfortunately doesn't always proof to be the case. "

Very true, so you proceed with caution to determine his state. That generally does not include shooting him.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rMrs CumalotCouple over a year ago

East Mids

"Question

What would your opinion be if he did it to an unarmed man in the uk ?

He knew what he was doing!

An unarmed man?

He was injured and had no weapon system (unarmed)

Really; so what was he fighting with? A catapult?

He said himself the injured bloke was unarmed!

Do you even know what your talking about?

He was armed before he got injured. He was a terrorist who our side was fighting. Whose side are you on?

[ on the side of peace and justice ]

I'm on the side that separates us and them!

Your talking to someone that has done 3 herricks

He was no threat and was unarmed at the time the patrol came across him

I don't know what a herrick is

What I do know is that he was a threat and would have remained a threat had he lived. I somehow don't think that he would have shown his gratitude by not killing one of us, given even half a chance"

Herrick is the name given to Afghan,

That is what separates us and them!

I've been in situations where the people shooting me ive been trying to save mins later

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *mmmMaybeCouple over a year ago

West Wales

(soooo in the minority...)

I'm in the minority with you.

Make that three.

Four. I tend to side with you also "

Five, They should have left him to bleed out the sgt's case is weakened in my view by him immediately saying "I didn't do that OK, we both know I just broke the Geneva convention" or words to that effect.

In the past, what went on during a war was always told by the victor, So the Nazi's were murdering scumbags to a man. All our soldiers were good Tommy's & all RAF pilot said "What Ho, let's give the hun a bloody nose chaps".

Anyone who thinks the allies didn't have a few of there own pieces of work needs to take their head out of their arse.

Difference now is what happens is beamed live by satellite around the world as it happens or shortly after. He fell foul of technology and really didn't do anything that many others haven't done previously.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ouple in LancashireCouple over a year ago

in Lancashire

The 'who's side are you on' argument where the issue involves something as clear cut as the rules of engagement and the accepted laws that our forces are trained to and adhere to just doesn't hold water ..

once you go down that line your on a slippery slope..

what happened wasn't new, its been done before by soldiers of all countries in major conflicts for hundreds of years..

all sides committed acts outside the rules in ww2, thing is they didn't talk about let alone for the evidence to have not been wiped..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ickawitchCouple over a year ago

Away with the fairies (Liverpool to you)

"The appearance of 'unarmed' unfortunately doesn't always proof to be the case.

Very true, so you proceed with caution to determine his state. That generally does not include shooting him."

Unfortunately, in this case I agree.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 09/02/17 18:22:44]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *mmmMaybeCouple over a year ago

West Wales

"The 'who's side are you on' argument where the issue involves something as clear cut as the rules of engagement and the accepted laws that our forces are trained to and adhere to just doesn't hold water ..

once you go down that line your on a slippery slope..

what happened wasn't new, its been done before by soldiers of all countries in major conflicts for hundreds of years..

all sides committed acts outside the rules in ww2, thing is they didn't talk about let alone for the evidence to have not been wiped.. "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

(soooo in the minority...)

I'm in the minority with you.

Make that three.

Four. I tend to side with you also

Anyone who thinks the allies didn't have a few of there own pieces of work needs to take their head out of their arse.

I kind of agree with that too but, they should have given him medical treatment? If he succumbed to his wounds then that's sad but if he survived, taken him as a POW.

In my opinion, his amittance and acknowledgment of the Geneva code being broken dilutes any argument of mental issues.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

He was armed before he got injured. He was a terrorist who our side was fighting. Whose side are you on?

[ on the side of peace and justice ]

And then he was unarmed and they treated him for his injuries. And then shot him. In the back. Before laughing at the Geneva Convention.

If a British solder was captured, disarmed, then murdered - we would be baying for blood. Quite right too. Prisoners of war should not be murdered."

Quite interesting reading the points you make. On a differing tangent, do you recall, the two british servicemen, whom took a wrong turn and got caught up in the funeral of an IRA member? I cannot recall specifically the details, other than I know or understand they were trapped, dragged from their car, stripped tortured and killed.

Can't recall the precise punishment handed out to the perpetrators, if at all. Just your comment, refreshed that moment in my mind.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If people really think that the German army were "all" nasty pieces of work, you're as stupid as the idiots who were generally forcing the soldiers to be there. It was that or be killed. I would go on about how ridiculous a lot of the statements on this thread, buy what would be the point. The soldier got caught doing something he shouldn't have done, it was a disgusting act to another human being and he gloated over it. If it makes an example that would question another one of our soldiers in the same situation, then it's done the right thing.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *harpDressed ManMan over a year ago

Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else

He was armed before he got injured. He was a terrorist who our side was fighting. Whose side are you on?

[ on the side of peace and justice ]

And then he was unarmed and they treated him for his injuries. And then shot him. In the back. Before laughing at the Geneva Convention.

If a British solder was captured, disarmed, then murdered - we would be baying for blood. Quite right too. Prisoners of war should not be murdered.

Can't recall the precise punishment handed out to the perpetrators, if at all. Just your comment, refreshed that moment in my mind."

I remember it too. Although the perpetrators weren't specifically identified,there was uproar, outrage and disgust from the public. And I *think* one of them was armed, but may be wrong about that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *harpDressed ManMan over a year ago

Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else

Well modded, someone...

Although it's a shame the hypocrisy is lost too.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orwegian BlueMan over a year ago

Iceland, but Aldi is closer..

Either it's alright to murder injured, unarmed people or it's not.

You suggested that it's wrong that those 'we' are fighting murder people. But then you suggest that we should support our own troops for murdering people.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If we're going out there to stop the mirderers, then we can't be murderers in return."

You are right, you can't have it both ways..

Either it's wrong or its right.. there is no shades of grey in war is there, no confusion, no levels of stress that will send a man beyond breaking point..

I actively served in NI, Iraq and Croatia..

I fired a weapon in anger, and I mean in anger.. I wanted that person in my sight dead with all the passion and hatred I could muster, not because I am a murderous cunt but because it isn't a normal thing for most people to want to kill another human.

I still deal with the armed forces today and I can honestly say that those guys that served in Op Herrick have gone through hell.. I cannot emphasise it enough, it's the worst conflict the British army have been involved in, they went in underprepared and paid heavily for it.. New weapons and vehicles had to be rushed into service, the standard issue 5.56mm round was useless against the longer range 7.62mm round of the kalashnikovs, it would run out of energy and rounds would simply bounce off of the insurgents clothing..

IEDs a constant worry for every foot patrol and a population too scared of the taliban or too involved to want to help..

It was an absolute shit storm from hell..

Only those that served there truly know the horrors and suffering our soldiers endured..

And if one guy, just one soldier out of the thousands deployed loses the plot and in the heat of battle.. And trust me, the adrenaline would still have been pumping and their arseholes going 10p/2p, one guy decides to shoot dead an insurgent that shortly before was trying to kill him, well it's a bloody miracle it only happened the once.

War changes people, there is no to ways about that. I'm not saying for one minute what he did was right but I don't for one minute think that he would have acted in such a manner if he hadn't mentally been pushed way over the edge..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Question

What would your opinion be if he did it to an unarmed man in the uk ?

He knew what he was doing!

An unarmed man?

He was injured and had no weapon system (unarmed)

Really; so what was he fighting with? A catapult?

He said himself the injured bloke was unarmed!

Do you even know what your talking about?

He was armed before he got injured. He was a terrorist who our side was fighting. Whose side are you on?

[ on the side of peace and justice ]

I'm on the side that separates us and them!

Your talking to someone that has done 3 herricks

He was no threat and was unarmed at the time the patrol came across him

I don't know what a herrick is

What I do know is that he was a threat and would have remained a threat had he lived. I somehow don't think that he would have shown his gratitude by not killing one of us, given even half a chance

Herrick is the name given to Afghan,

That is what separates us and them!

I've been in situations where the people shooting me ive been trying to save mins later "

Errrr, Herrick [1,2,3 etc] is the name given to the military operation(s) in Afghanistan.

As you were...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *onny MCMan over a year ago

Crawley

I'm inclined to side with Blackman on this. If the insurgent couldn't be saved as we've been led to believe, putting a bullet in him was probably the humane action. Obviously his motivation wasn't humanitarian but that opens up a whole new debate on are you still doing the right thing if you do it for the wrong reasons. He clearly isn't stable enough to keep on front line duty but a war crimes trial strikes me as disproportionate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rMrs CumalotCouple over a year ago

East Mids

"Question

What would your opinion be if he did it to an unarmed man in the uk ?

He knew what he was doing!

An unarmed man?

He was injured and had no weapon system (unarmed)

Really; so what was he fighting with? A catapult?

He said himself the injured bloke was unarmed!

Do you even know what your talking about?

He was armed before he got injured. He was a terrorist who our side was fighting. Whose side are you on?

[ on the side of peace and justice ]

I'm on the side that separates us and them!

Your talking to someone that has done 3 herricks

He was no threat and was unarmed at the time the patrol came across him

I don't know what a herrick is

What I do know is that he was a threat and would have remained a threat had he lived. I somehow don't think that he would have shown his gratitude by not killing one of us, given even half a chance

Herrick is the name given to Afghan,

That is what separates us and them!

I've been in situations where the people shooting me ive been trying to save mins later

Errrr, Herrick [1,2,3 etc] is the name given to the military operation(s) in Afghanistan.

As you were... "

Thanks for that! I was keeping it simple

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Either it's alright to murder injured, unarmed people or it's not.

You suggested that it's wrong that those 'we' are fighting murder people. But then you suggest that we should support our own troops for murdering people.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If we're going out there to stop the mirderers, then we can't be murderers in return.

You are right, you can't have it both ways..

Either it's wrong or its right.. there is no shades of grey in war is there, no confusion, no levels of stress that will send a man beyond breaking point..

I actively served in NI, Iraq and Croatia..

IEDs a constant worry for every foot patrol and a population too scared of the taliban or too involved to want to help..

It was an absolute shit storm from hell..

Only those that served there truly know the horrors and suffering our soldiers endured..

no more words.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Question

What would your opinion be if he did it to an unarmed man in the uk ?

He knew what he was doing!

An unarmed man?

He was injured and had no weapon system (unarmed)

Really; so what was he fighting with? A catapult?

He said himself the injured bloke was unarmed!

Do you even know what your talking about?

He was armed before he got injured. He was a terrorist who our side was fighting. Whose side are you on?

[ on the side of peace and justice ]

I'm on the side that separates us and them!

Your talking to someone that has done 3 herricks

He was no threat and was unarmed at the time the patrol came across him

I don't know what a herrick is

What I do know is that he was a threat and would have remained a threat had he lived. I somehow don't think that he would have shown his gratitude by not killing one of us, given even half a chance

Herrick is the name given to Afghan,

That is what separates us and them!

I've been in situations where the people shooting me ive been trying to save mins later

Errrr, Herrick [1,2,3 etc] is the name given to the military operation(s) in Afghanistan.

As you were...

Thanks for that! I was keeping it simple "

I am a simpleton. I confess that I know nothing about battles or weapons. The only weapons I've ever fired are shotguns when hunting rabbits

But I have every sympathy for this solider and every other solider who are defending me and none for the terrorist who would have gladly cut my throat

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ickawitchCouple over a year ago

Away with the fairies (Liverpool to you)

Either it's alright to murder injured, unarmed people or it's not.

You suggested that it's wrong that those 'we' are fighting murder people. But then you suggest that we should support our own troops for murdering people.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. If we're going out there to stop the mirderers, then we can't be murderers in return.

You are right, you can't have it both ways..

Either it's wrong or its right.. there is no shades of grey in war is there, no confusion, no levels of stress that will send a man beyond breaking point..

I actively served in NI, Iraq and Croatia..

IEDs a constant worry for every foot patrol and a population too scared of the taliban or too involved to want to help..

It was an absolute shit storm from hell..

Only those that served there truly know the horrors and suffering our soldiers endured..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *etter the devil you knowWoman over a year ago

Lyndhurst

Poor man i feel so sorry for him and his family.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ilary and DonaldCouple over a year ago

chingford

He was armed before he got injured. He was a terrorist who our side was fighting. Whose side are you on?

[ on the side of peace and justice ]

And then he was unarmed and they treated him for his injuries. And then shot him. In the back. Before laughing at the Geneva Convention.

If a British solder was captured, disarmed, then murdered - we would be baying for blood. Quite right too. Prisoners of war should not be murdered.

Can't recall the precise punishment handed out to the perpetrators, if at all. Just your comment, refreshed that moment in my mind.

I remember it too. Although the perpetrators weren't specifically identified,there was uproar, outrage and disgust from the public. And I *think* one of them was armed, but may be wrong about that."

Both British officers were armed. They were shot with their own weapons.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

He was armed before he got injured. He was a terrorist who our side was fighting. Whose side are you on?

[ on the side of peace and justice ]

And then he was unarmed and they treated him for his injuries. And then shot him. In the back. Before laughing at the Geneva Convention.

If a British solder was captured, disarmed, then murdered - we would be baying for blood. Quite right too. Prisoners of war should not be murdered.

Can't recall the precise punishment handed out to the perpetrators, if at all. Just your comment, refreshed that moment in my mind.

I remember it too. Although the perpetrators weren't specifically identified,there was uproar, outrage and disgust from the public. And I *think* one of them was armed, but may be wrong about that.

Both British officers were armed. They were shot with their own weapons. "

Not officers, Royal Signals Corporals. I knew David Howes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eavenscentitCouple over a year ago

barnstaple

(soooo in the minority...)

I'm in the minority with you.

Make that three.

Four. I tend to side with you also

Anyone who thinks the allies didn't have a few of there own pieces of work needs to take their head out of their arse.

I kind of agree with that too but, they should have given him medical treatment? If he succumbed to his wounds then that's sad but if he survived, taken him as a POW.

In my opinion, his amittance and acknowledgment of the Geneva code being broken dilutes any argument of mental issues. "

Exactly this...he knew what he was doing. It was wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ilary and DonaldCouple over a year ago

chingford

He was armed before he got injured. He was a terrorist who our side was fighting. Whose side are you on?

[ on the side of peace and justice ]

And then he was unarmed and they treated him for his injuries. And then shot him. In the back. Before laughing at the Geneva Convention.

If a British solder was captured, disarmed, then murdered - we would be baying for blood. Quite right too. Prisoners of war should not be murdered.

Can't recall the precise punishment handed out to the perpetrators, if at all. Just your comment, refreshed that moment in my mind.

I remember it too. Although the perpetrators weren't specifically identified,there was uproar, outrage and disgust from the public. And I *think* one of them was armed, but may be wrong about that.

Both British officers were armed. They were shot with their own weapons.

Not officers, Royal Signals Corporals. I knew David Howes. "

Sorry , my mistake.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lascumMan over a year ago

Glasgow

"A fine soldier who has been through hell. It's reported that the prosecutors have now accepted mental difficulties in a terrifying situation, so now we're cautiously optimistic ............"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ittleAcornMan over a year ago

visiting the beach

Both British officers were armed. They were shot with their own weapons.

Not officers, Royal Signals Corporals. I knew David Howes.

Sorry , my mistake. "

No worries, just a correction, nothing more...

;-)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Murder in cold blood of a defenseless unarmed injured person.

Sounds fair ??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Murder in cold blood of a defenseless unarmed injured person.

Sounds fair ??"

You forgot to mention, "innocent"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm all for vindicating this guy but just to play devils advocate, if an injured British soldier was captured by the taliban and then brutally killed on camera what would your thoughts be then. Would you all be saying that the taliban responsible should be vindicated too.

Personally I think that our soldiers are on the back foot, having to stick to struck rules of engagement and seeking permission to open fire when the enemy fight using terrorist tactics but that's what makes us a civilised society. Without rules we are just the same as them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ilary and DonaldCouple over a year ago

chingford

"Murder in cold blood of a defenseless unarmed injured person.

Sounds fair ??

You forgot to mention, "innocent""

First time that word has been used on this thread.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *orwegian BlueMan over a year ago

Iceland, but Aldi is closer..

He was armed before he got injured. He was a terrorist who our side was fighting. Whose side are you on?

[ on the side of peace and justice ]

And then he was unarmed and they treated him for his injuries. And then shot him. In the back. Before laughing at the Geneva Convention.

If a British solder was captured, disarmed, then murdered - we would be baying for blood. Quite right too. Prisoners of war should not be murdered.

Can't recall the precise punishment handed out to the perpetrators, if at all. Just your comment, refreshed that moment in my mind.

I remember it too. Although the perpetrators weren't specifically identified,there was uproar, outrage and disgust from the public. And I *think* one of them was armed, but may be wrong about that.

Both British officers were armed. They were shot with their own weapons. "

Lee Rigby wasn't armed..

Just walked out of his barracks and was murdered.

This is the mentality of the zealots that our boys are fighting to destroy, a religious ideology that has been bastardised for their own means..

It doesn't seem right that remote control aircraft patrol the skies covered in a small arsenal of weapons, guided missiles designed for destroying tanks during the coldwar, now utilised for counter insurgent use..

This is the world we now live in, a horrible violent and unpredictable place with homegrown enemies.. People from the next street or next town, waiting, planning..

We can sit back and let fate deal us its hand or we can try and end the threat by making their cause unpopular and worthless.

But by vilifying our soldiers that are doing an amazing job, we add fuel to their fire of cause...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Why do we fight terrorism?

To make a stand and send a message.

A message that we won't bow down to fear.

We won't accept or allow inhumane actions against others.

How can we say we stand against it? How can we send that message, how can we be anything but hypocritical, if we accept those actions are ok in the name of fighting against it?

Saying "well they don't play to the rules, so why should we?" Is idiocy!

It's not acting in the same way they do that's sets us apart! It's not acting in the same way they do that makes us humane.

How can anyone not understand that?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'm not sure I can support the killing of an unarmed injured person.

That had been hit by an apache and would have died anyway and had already been named as a target to destroy, hence the helicopter firing at him in the first place.

So it was an act of compassion?

I think his words at the time disprove that.

The evidence seems to show a cold, calculated act. Asking for cameras to be turned off (but at least one wasn't). Telling his colleagues that it should go no further and fully aware that his actions broke the Geneva convention.

It's a difficult one to call but I wouldn't bank on him being freed.....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Why do we fight terrorism?

To make a stand and send a message.

A message that we won't bow down to fear.

We won't accept or allow inhumane actions against others.

How can we say we stand against it? How can we send that message, how can we be anything but hypocritical, if we accept those actions are ok in the name of fighting against it?

Saying "well they don't play to the rules, so why should we?" Is idiocy!

It's not acting in the same way they do that's sets us apart! It's not acting in the same way they do that makes us humane.

How can anyone not understand that? "

I thought we were fighting terrorism so that the terrorists can't kill us. I wasn't aware we were sending messages

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

(soooo in the minority...)

I'm in the minority with you.

And me

and me

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *mmmMaybeCouple over a year ago

West Wales

He was armed before he got injured. He was a terrorist who our side was fighting. Whose side are you on?

[ on the side of peace and justice ]

And then he was unarmed and they treated him for his injuries. And then shot him. In the back. Before laughing at the Geneva Convention.

If a British solder was captured, disarmed, then murdered - we would be baying for blood. Quite right too. Prisoners of war should not be murdered.

Can't recall the precise punishment handed out to the perpetrators, if at all. Just your comment, refreshed that moment in my mind.

I remember it too. Although the perpetrators weren't specifically identified,there was uproar, outrage and disgust from the public. And I *think* one of them was armed, but may be wrong about that.

Both British officers were armed. They were shot with their own weapons.

Lee Rigby wasn't armed..

Just walked out of his barracks and was murdered.

This is the mentality of the zealots that our boys are fighting to destroy, a religious ideology that has been bastardised for their own means..

This is the world we now live in, a horrible violent and unpredictable place with homegrown enemies.. People from the next street or next town, waiting, planning..

We can sit back and let fate deal us its hand or we can try and end the threat by making their cause unpopular and worthless.

But by vilifying our soldiers that are doing an amazing job, we add fuel to their fire of cause... "

But we are not, this is one soldier who for one moment didn't do his job as he was instructed and trained to do. No argument from me on the others out there, one bad apple and all that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why do we fight terrorism?

To make a stand and send a message.

A message that we won't bow down to fear.

We won't accept or allow inhumane actions against others.

How can we say we stand against it? How can we send that message, how can we be anything but hypocritical, if we accept those actions are ok in the name of fighting against it?

Saying "well they don't play to the rules, so why should we?" Is idiocy!

It's not acting in the same way they do that's sets us apart! It's not acting in the same way they do that makes us humane.

How can anyone not understand that?

I thought we were fighting terrorism so that the terrorists can't kill us. I wasn't aware we were sending messages"

You jest surely?????

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Why do we fight terrorism?

To make a stand and send a message.

A message that we won't bow down to fear.

We won't accept or allow inhumane actions against others.

How can we say we stand against it? How can we send that message, how can we be anything but hypocritical, if we accept those actions are ok in the name of fighting against it?

Saying "well they don't play to the rules, so why should we?" Is idiocy!

It's not acting in the same way they do that's sets us apart! It's not acting in the same way they do that makes us humane.

How can anyone not understand that?

I thought we were fighting terrorism so that the terrorists can't kill us. I wasn't aware we were sending messages

You jest surely????? "

Nope

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inky-MinxWoman over a year ago

Grantham

War is what it is. If you don't want to play the game don't join the military in the first place.

And if you do want to play then you follow the rules. Regardless of stress. Because that kind of stress is part of the job you signed up for.

It may be sad and horrible what's happened to him, but he committed a nasty crime.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why do we fight terrorism?

To make a stand and send a message.

A message that we won't bow down to fear.

We won't accept or allow inhumane actions against others.

How can we say we stand against it? How can we send that message, how can we be anything but hypocritical, if we accept those actions are ok in the name of fighting against it?

Saying "well they don't play to the rules, so why should we?" Is idiocy!

It's not acting in the same way they do that's sets us apart! It's not acting in the same way they do that makes us humane.

How can anyone not understand that?

I thought we were fighting terrorism so that the terrorists can't kill us. I wasn't aware we were sending messages

You jest surely?????

Nope"

Wow, just... Wow.....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Why do we fight terrorism?

To make a stand and send a message.

A message that we won't bow down to fear.

We won't accept or allow inhumane actions against others.

How can we say we stand against it? How can we send that message, how can we be anything but hypocritical, if we accept those actions are ok in the name of fighting against it?

Saying "well they don't play to the rules, so why should we?" Is idiocy!

It's not acting in the same way they do that's sets us apart! It's not acting in the same way they do that makes us humane.

How can anyone not understand that?

I thought we were fighting terrorism so that the terrorists can't kill us. I wasn't aware we were sending messages

You jest surely?????

Nope

Wow, just... Wow....."

No, not that either

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Who are actually the "REAL TERRORISTS"

Who is it that bullies and steals and murders thousands of innocent people to gain land of strategic military importance and to gain access and control of the worlds fossil fuels??

I will leave that thought with you .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Who are actually the "REAL TERRORISTS"

Who is it that bullies and steals and murders thousands of innocent people to gain land of strategic military importance and to gain access and control of the worlds fossil fuels??

I will leave that thought with you ."

The ones who come here, plant bombs or drive trucks into crowds

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why do we fight terrorism?

To make a stand and send a message.

A message that we won't bow down to fear.

We won't accept or allow inhumane actions against others.

How can we say we stand against it? How can we send that message, how can we be anything but hypocritical, if we accept those actions are ok in the name of fighting against it?

Saying "well they don't play to the rules, so why should we?" Is idiocy!

It's not acting in the same way they do that's sets us apart! It's not acting in the same way they do that makes us humane.

How can anyone not understand that?

I thought we were fighting terrorism so that the terrorists can't kill us. I wasn't aware we were sending messages

You jest surely?????

Nope

Wow, just... Wow.....

No, not that either"

Yes, it really is, and shows complete ignorance of the british army, diplomacy, democracy, and dare I say, human rights and humane acts...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ertsguy2000Man over a year ago

hertford

God willing a free man very soon, the sooner the better

If we keep treating our brave soldiers like this we won't have an army to defend us from these sick and twisted people.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ubSirVient-DefinitionCouple over a year ago

dukinfield

Disgraceful he even got charges to start with for destroying the enemy .

How people can use phrases like 'destroying the enemy' when referring to other human beings, I will never understand.

I do not follow your logic. Hun.

- I do not want British soldiers to murder people.

- Therefore I should go to another country and be stoned to death?"

My logic is pretty simple. I'm going to say this with all due respect to you and in no way what so ever is this a skit. But by just being on this site you're I take it you're a promiscuous woman with a free sexual will. Your have pictures of yourself in various states of undress and you're outspoken on subjects that you care about. You've had sex outside of wedlock with various partners and even possible with other women.

Now! Please bare in mind this is a country that stones women to death for adultery when a man rapes them. So what kind of human does this? And don't think it's just the men. 98% of all FGM performed in the middle east is carried out by the senior women of the family. They do this to the own daughters because the fact that they're female automatically makes them 2nd class citizens.

If they do these things to their own kids. What the he'll do you think they would do to you? I've reluctantly seen a video where a western girl was chased down in the street battered, stripped naked and abused by men and women until late one guy threw a paving slab on her head killing her because a Muslim man ripped her head scarf off in public. These were ordinary people in the street. That guy was a militant soldier.

You want to defend a "human" who wouldn't have thought twice about killing you and your family given the chance then go ahead.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Why do we fight terrorism?

To make a stand and send a message.

A message that we won't bow down to fear.

We won't accept or allow inhumane actions against others.

How can we say we stand against it? How can we send that message, how can we be anything but hypocritical, if we accept those actions are ok in the name of fighting against it?

Saying "well they don't play to the rules, so why should we?" Is idiocy!

It's not acting in the same way they do that's sets us apart! It's not acting in the same way they do that makes us humane.

How can anyone not understand that?

I thought we were fighting terrorism so that the terrorists can't kill us. I wasn't aware we were sending messages

You jest surely?????

Nope

Wow, just... Wow.....

No, not that either

Yes, it really is, and shows complete ignorance of the british army, diplomacy, democracy, and dare I say, human rights and humane acts..."

That is just your opinion. I don't see what that has to do with sending messages

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Disgraceful he even got charges to start with for destroying the enemy .

How people can use phrases like 'destroying the enemy' when referring to other human beings, I will never understand.

I do not follow your logic. Hun.

- I do not want British soldiers to murder people.

- Therefore I should go to another country and be stoned to death?

You want to defend a "human" who wouldn't have thought twice about killing you and your family given the chance then go ahead. "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why do we fight terrorism?

To make a stand and send a message.

A message that we won't bow down to fear.

We won't accept or allow inhumane actions against others.

How can we say we stand against it? How can we send that message, how can we be anything but hypocritical, if we accept those actions are ok in the name of fighting against it?

Saying "well they don't play to the rules, so why should we?" Is idiocy!

It's not acting in the same way they do that's sets us apart! It's not acting in the same way they do that makes us humane.

How can anyone not understand that?

I thought we were fighting terrorism so that the terrorists can't kill us. I wasn't aware we were sending messages

You jest surely?????

Nope

Wow, just... Wow.....

No, not that either

Yes, it really is, and shows complete ignorance of the british army, diplomacy, democracy, and dare I say, human rights and humane acts...

That is just your opinion. I don't see what that has to do with sending messages"

You get when I say "message" you know I don't mean by face book, Private message, Twitter or royal mail, yes?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Why do we fight terrorism?

To make a stand and send a message.

A message that we won't bow down to fear.

We won't accept or allow inhumane actions against others.

How can we say we stand against it? How can we send that message, how can we be anything but hypocritical, if we accept those actions are ok in the name of fighting against it?

Saying "well they don't play to the rules, so why should we?" Is idiocy!

It's not acting in the same way they do that's sets us apart! It's not acting in the same way they do that makes us humane.

How can anyone not understand that?

I thought we were fighting terrorism so that the terrorists can't kill us. I wasn't aware we were sending messages

You jest surely?????

Nope

Wow, just... Wow.....

No, not that either

Yes, it really is, and shows complete ignorance of the british army, diplomacy, democracy, and dare I say, human rights and humane acts...

That is just your opinion. I don't see what that has to do with sending messages

You get when I say "message" you know I don't mean by face book, Private message, Twitter or royal mail, yes? "

I hope not

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why do we fight terrorism?

To make a stand and send a message.

A message that we won't bow down to fear.

We won't accept or allow inhumane actions against others.

How can we say we stand against it? How can we send that message, how can we be anything but hypocritical, if we accept those actions are ok in the name of fighting against it?

Saying "well they don't play to the rules, so why should we?" Is idiocy!

It's not acting in the same way they do that's sets us apart! It's not acting in the same way they do that makes us humane.

How can anyone not understand that?

I thought we were fighting terrorism so that the terrorists can't kill us. I wasn't aware we were sending messages

You jest surely?????

Nope

Wow, just... Wow.....

No, not that either

Yes, it really is, and shows complete ignorance of the british army, diplomacy, democracy, and dare I say, human rights and humane acts...

That is just your opinion. I don't see what that has to do with sending messages

You get when I say "message" you know I don't mean by face book, Private message, Twitter or royal mail, yes?

I hope not"

Then I'll revert back to just Wow then

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Why do we fight terrorism?

To make a stand and send a message.

A message that we won't bow down to fear.

We won't accept or allow inhumane actions against others.

How can we say we stand against it? How can we send that message, how can we be anything but hypocritical, if we accept those actions are ok in the name of fighting against it?

Saying "well they don't play to the rules, so why should we?" Is idiocy!

It's not acting in the same way they do that's sets us apart! It's not acting in the same way they do that makes us humane.

How can anyone not understand that?

I thought we were fighting terrorism so that the terrorists can't kill us. I wasn't aware we were sending messages

You jest surely?????

Nope

Wow, just... Wow.....

No, not that either

Yes, it really is, and shows complete ignorance of the british army, diplomacy, democracy, and dare I say, human rights and humane acts...

That is just your opinion. I don't see what that has to do with sending messages

You get when I say "message" you know I don't mean by face book, Private message, Twitter or royal mail, yes?

I hope not

Then I'll revert back to just Wow then

You are easily impressed by the Wows

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The Malayan Emergency compared to the Vietnam War are a pretty good examples to learn about diplomacy, hearts and minds etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *onny MCMan over a year ago

Crawley

"Why do we fight terrorism?

To make a stand and send a message.

A message that we won't bow down to fear.

We won't accept or allow inhumane actions against others.

How can we say we stand against it? How can we send that message, how can we be anything but hypocritical, if we accept those actions are ok in the name of fighting against it?

Saying "well they don't play to the rules, so why should we?" Is idiocy!

It's not acting in the same way they do that's sets us apart! It's not acting in the same way they do that makes us humane.

How can anyone not understand that?

I thought we were fighting terrorism so that the terrorists can't kill us. I wasn't aware we were sending messages

You jest surely?????

Nope"

Then you see no moral objective in the war on terror, it's just survival at any cost, just animal instincts?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"The Malayan Emergency compared to the Vietnam War are a pretty good examples to learn about diplomacy, hearts and minds etc."

In a positive way or negative way?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *osieWoman over a year ago

Wembley

"Why do we fight terrorism?

To make a stand and send a message.

A message that we won't bow down to fear.

We won't accept or allow inhumane actions against others.

How can we say we stand against it? How can we send that message, how can we be anything but hypocritical, if we accept those actions are ok in the name of fighting against it?

Saying "well they don't play to the rules, so why should we?" Is idiocy!

It's not acting in the same way they do that's sets us apart! It's not acting in the same way they do that makes us humane.

How can anyone not understand that?

I thought we were fighting terrorism so that the terrorists can't kill us. I wasn't aware we were sending messages

You jest surely?????

Nope

Then you see no moral objective in the war on terror, it's just survival at any cost, just animal instincts? "

Nope

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)