FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Justice for Marine A
Justice for Marine A
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. " His victim would love that | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I watched it on bbc1 yesterday and I cant see he did anything wrong, they have to make sure he was dead, as otherwise they would put all the other military guys at risk." I think it's a product of being on this site for too long, but I automatically translated bbc1, into "big black cock 1".  | |||
| |||
"I watched it on bbc1 yesterday and I cant see he did anything wrong, they have to make sure he was dead, as otherwise they would put all the other military guys at risk. I think it's a product of being on this site for too long, but I automatically translated bbc1, into "big black cock 1". "Yes, always wondered who was the first bbc on here | |||
"If footage emerged of IS killing an injured marine while joking about it there would be outcry" Exactly and I wonder if the ' Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him' would still apply. | |||
"Yesterday, the Appeal Court, overturned Sergeant Alexander Blackman's conviction for murder on a battlefield, with manslaughter, on the grounds of diminished responsibility. I'm pleased, and I'm hopeful the man is released from prison, as early as next week. He was a victim of political spin. Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. "  | |||
"Oh I understand and take into consideration the psychological factors to what you are saying but to paraphrase you 'walk a mile in someone's shoes, before you judge him/her' It goes both way. Even to the ones that the army are fighting. " I respect, that with your military background (as i understand?) a different viewpoint, exists. I was always puzzled as to "unauthorised helmet camera" footage, from his colleague, and then being handed to the police. My view remains, the same, but I respect your opinion. | |||
"Oh I understand and take into consideration the psychological factors to what you are saying but to paraphrase you 'walk a mile in someone's shoes, before you judge him/her' It goes both way. Even to the ones that the army are fighting. I respect, that with your military background (as i understand?) a different viewpoint, exists. I was always puzzled as to "unauthorised helmet camera" footage, from his colleague, and then being handed to the police. My view remains, the same, but I respect your opinion. " When it comes to the rules of war there is no opinion. What he did was unlawful and broke the convention. He even said it himself. To paint him as a victim is very dangerous ground. | |||
"If footage emerged of IS killing an injured marine while joking about it there would be outcry" And if the British then captured said IS fighter and put him on trial for murder and he produced evidence to show how psychologically damaged he was and got it reduced to manslaughter I suspect that the people now telling us to walk a mike in blackmans shoes would be outraged. Bottom line. Blackman committed homicide. The evidence against him was damning. The guy he killed was seriously injured and no threat and Blackman knew that. I am perfectly willing to accept he was in a terrible state when he committed the crime and that manslaughter was the right verdict. What I don't get to see is those who see him as some sort of hero. . Let's not forget that he told junior soldiers to lie for him and that this sort of thing is a propaganda gift for the likes of IS and the Talib an. British soldiers do not kill unarmed prisoners. And when they do they are punished. We should be proud of that. | |||
"If footage emerged of IS killing an injured marine while joking about it there would be outcry And if the British then captured said IS fighter and put him on trial for murder and he produced evidence to show how psychologically damaged he was and got it reduced to manslaughter I suspect that the people now telling us to walk a mike in blackmans shoes would be outraged. Bottom line. Blackman committed homicide. The evidence against him was damning. The guy he killed was seriously injured and no threat and Blackman knew that. I am perfectly willing to accept he was in a terrible state when he committed the crime and that manslaughter was the right verdict. What I don't get to see is those who see him as some sort of hero. . Let's not forget that he told junior soldiers to lie for him and that this sort of thing is a propaganda gift for the likes of IS and the Talib an. British soldiers do not kill unarmed prisoners. And when they do they are punished. We should be proud of that. " | |||
| |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love that" If it was roles reversed his "victim" would've tortured him first before killing him so fuck his "victim" | |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love that If it was roles reversed his "victim" would've tortured him first before killing him so fuck his "victim" " With 'if' we could put Paris in a bottle. Interesting to see how one side view is taken into consideration. | |||
| |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love that" His "victim" was a terrorist pal | |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love that If it was roles reversed his "victim" would've tortured him first before killing him so fuck his "victim" " There's literally no conversing with someone who takes this attitude. Whatever your individual opinion on people who's nationality differs from yours, the human he shot was, by the letter of the law, a victim of a crime. End of story. If he walks with no punishment you set a very dangerous precedent. But it was a Muslim so who cares right?  | |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love that His "victim" was a terrorist pal " Does that mean we can all go around murdering 'suspected terrorists' There is protocol that troops must stick to - he didn't. Guilty of murder in my opinion - play the Pussy, get fucked | |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love that His "victim" was a terrorist pal " Or from another point of view was fighting against foreign forces invading his country. However you define him there is no dispute he was seriously injured, unarmed, no threat and a prisoner of British forces. Are you saying it is OK to kill someone in that situation? | |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love that His "victim" was a terrorist pal " His victim was a soldier. Not operating in a way we agree with, but the only thing we have which separates us from the barbarians is that we respect and obey the rules. They call us terrorists. Does that mean it is OK to kill unarmed British soldiers? Walk a mile in both men's shoes before you judge. Not just one. | |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love that If it was roles reversed his "victim" would've tortured him first before killing him so fuck his "victim" There's literally no conversing with someone who takes this attitude. Whatever your individual opinion on people who's nationality differs from yours, the human he shot was, by the letter of the law, a victim of a crime. End of story. If he walks with no punishment you set a very dangerous precedent. But it was a Muslim so who cares right? "No he was a terrorist so who cares. His religion doesn't come into my thinking | |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love that If it was roles reversed his "victim" would've tortured him first before killing him so fuck his "victim" There's literally no conversing with someone who takes this attitude. Whatever your individual opinion on people who's nationality differs from yours, the human he shot was, by the letter of the law, a victim of a crime. End of story. If he walks with no punishment you set a very dangerous precedent. But it was a Muslim so who cares right?
No he was a terrorist so who cares. His religion doesn't come into my thinking "As we don't know who he was I am amazed you know he was a terrorist. He is just have likely to have been some poor lad uninterested in politics forcibly conscripted by the taliban. You see that's the great thing about having trial before punishment. You get to find out the facts. | |||
| |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love that If it was roles reversed his "victim" would've tortured him first before killing him so fuck his "victim" There's literally no conversing with someone who takes this attitude. Whatever your individual opinion on people who's nationality differs from yours, the human he shot was, by the letter of the law, a victim of a crime. End of story. If he walks with no punishment you set a very dangerous precedent. But it was a Muslim so who cares right?
No he was a terrorist so who cares. His religion doesn't come into my thinking "So why is he a terrorist not a solider? I'd love to hear your distinction | |||
| |||
"Bees and wasps have caused as many deaths in the UK as terrorism in the past decade! Quick KILL ALL WASPS AND BEES!!" To be fair we have been doing a good job of that using neo-nicotinoid pesticides for a while now. | |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love that If it was roles reversed his "victim" would've tortured him first before killing him so fuck his "victim" There's literally no conversing with someone who takes this attitude. Whatever your individual opinion on people who's nationality differs from yours, the human he shot was, by the letter of the law, a victim of a crime. End of story. If he walks with no punishment you set a very dangerous precedent. But it was a Muslim so who cares right?
No he was a terrorist so who cares. His religion doesn't come into my thinking
So why is he a terrorist not a solider? I'd love to hear your distinction "He was speaking a funny language and had dark skin. | |||
"The guy deserves a medal not a prison cell !! Fact" Putting 'fact' at the end doesn't make it a fact, just like if I label my penis 'watermelon' it doesn't make it so | |||
"The guy deserves a medal not a prison cell !! Fact" He's no hero.. he is a murder... Shall we give Fred West a medal while we are at it? | |||
| |||
"The guy deserves a medal not a prison cell !! Fact He's no hero.. he is a murder... Shall we give Fred West a medal while we are at it?" Maybe they give medals fur cowardice now. After all its difficult to think of anything more cowardly than killing a helpless prisoner | |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love that If it was roles reversed his "victim" would've tortured him first before killing him so fuck his "victim" There's literally no conversing with someone who takes this attitude. Whatever your individual opinion on people who's nationality differs from yours, the human he shot was, by the letter of the law, a victim of a crime. End of story. If he walks with no punishment you set a very dangerous precedent. But it was a Muslim so who cares right?
No he was a terrorist so who cares. His religion doesn't come into my thinking
As we don't know who he was I am amazed you know he was a terrorist. He is just have likely to have been some poor lad uninterested in politics forcibly conscripted by the taliban.
You see that's the great thing about having trial before punishment. You get to find out the facts. "So by your thinking two big boys made him do it 
| |||
"The guy deserves a medal not a prison cell !! Fact" the new verdict of guilty of manslaughter by diminished responsibility is not being challenged.... I don't know of medals being given out to people who kill unlawfully.... it that was the original verdict... he still would have faced some jail time.... | |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love that If it was roles reversed his "victim" would've tortured him first before killing him so fuck his "victim" There's literally no conversing with someone who takes this attitude. Whatever your individual opinion on people who's nationality differs from yours, the human he shot was, by the letter of the law, a victim of a crime. End of story. If he walks with no punishment you set a very dangerous precedent. But it was a Muslim so who cares right?
No he was a terrorist so who cares. His religion doesn't come into my thinking
As we don't know who he was I am amazed you know he was a terrorist. He is just have likely to have been some poor lad uninterested in politics forcibly conscripted by the taliban.
You see that's the great thing about having trial before punishment. You get to find out the facts.
So by your thinking two big boys made him do it
"That's not what I said is it. I said we don't know what his situation was. Hence you don't actually know if he was a terrorist. If Blackman hadn't killed him we might have found out. | |||
"The guy deserves a medal not a prison cell !! Fact He's no hero.. he is a murder... Shall we give Fred West a medal while we are at it?" It's an idiotic comparison. To operate in a 24/7 war zone, with an under manned outpost, difficult defensive position, sleeping in a shipping container, operating in extreme temperatures (50 degrees or so) and having to take twice daily patrols, to ensure safety, a high casualty rate, including deaths, for 6 months, and then encounter someone who was moments before, attacking your position to kill. He snapped and acted accordingly. Fred West was a sexual predator a prolific serial killer of children, with some patio skills. | |||
"He snapped and acted accordingly. " X | |||
"The guy deserves a medal not a prison cell !! Fact He's no hero.. he is a murder... Shall we give Fred West a medal while we are at it? It's an idiotic comparison. To operate in a 24/7 war zone, with an under manned outpost, difficult defensive position, sleeping in a shipping container, operating in extreme temperatures (50 degrees or so) and having to take twice daily patrols, to ensure safety, a high casualty rate, including deaths, for 6 months, and then encounter someone who was moments before, attacking your position to kill. He snapped and acted accordingly. Fred West was a sexual predator a prolific serial killer of children, with some patio skills." Wouldn't say the best comparison if I'm honest. However, he wasn't the only member of the armed forces enduring that. His actions and words are inexcusable. End of story. He technically killed a prisoner of war. Murky details and diminished responsibility are one thing but blind patriotism and flag waving is not the answer. Excusing this makes a mockery of all the other grave men and women who serve in the forces with some fucking honour. | |||
"The guy deserves a medal not a prison cell !! Fact" That is right, he should have one too. | |||
"The guy deserves a medal not a prison cell !! Fact He's no hero.. he is a murder... Shall we give Fred West a medal while we are at it? It's an idiotic comparison. To operate in a 24/7 war zone, with an under manned outpost, difficult defensive position, sleeping in a shipping container, operating in extreme temperatures (50 degrees or so) and having to take twice daily patrols, to ensure safety, a high casualty rate, including deaths, for 6 months, and then encounter someone who was moments before, attacking your position to kill. He snapped and acted accordingly. Fred West was a sexual predator a prolific serial killer of children, with some patio skills. Wouldn't say the best comparison if I'm honest. However, he wasn't the only member of the armed forces enduring that. His actions and words are inexcusable. End of story. He technically killed a prisoner of war. Murky details and diminished responsibility are one thing but blind patriotism and flag waving is not the answer. Excusing this makes a mockery of all the other grave men and women who serve in the forces with some fucking honour. " I think that sums it up. Lots of mitigating circumstances but at the end of the day he committed an unlawful killing. He's not Fred West by any stretch of the imagination but he's equally far from being a hero. He let himself, the army and his colleagues down and I suspect he knows that. | |||
" Excusing this makes a mockery of all the other grave men and women who serve in the forces with some fucking honour. " | |||
 | |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love that His "victim" was a terrorist pal " it subjective though isint it.one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.you have absolutely no idea why he fought,mabye it was because his family and home had been blown to pieces like the generations before him by forigien invaders preaching democracy while really it's all about money\resources.don't be so quick to judge.there is no black and white just a fucked up shade of grey. | |||
"The guy deserves a medal not a prison cell !! Fact He's no hero.. he is a murder... Shall we give Fred West a medal while we are at it?" So it's ok for the taliban to murder and behead our troops !! Get a grip on reality love | |||
| |||
"which was why, I posted "walk a mile in his shoes" when faced with that, how would "we" react? It's easy for many of us, to sit on a sofa, slurping a cup of tea, reading the news, expressing an opinion. Less so, when faced with that situation, 24hrs a day, for 6 months. Well said mate ! As I understand it, the outpost was being fired upon, so they called in a helicopter strike. Helicopter appears, blasts the area, and a patrol, then finds the remains of the person, which was dealt with. Does a moral compass exist, when faced with such extremes? If it does, then if the stress of combat, leads to an extreme reaction, with extenuating circumstances, is it excusable? Manslaughter, with 3+ years served. Punished? " | |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love that His "victim" was a terrorist pal " you know we called those same guys freedom fighters when the Russians where fighting then in afgan in the 80s right.the west even supplied them with weapons much like what is still happening now but the term has been changed to moderate rebels  . | |||
"which was why, I posted "walk a mile in his shoes" when faced with that, how would "we" react? It's easy for many of us, to sit on a sofa, slurping a cup of tea, reading the news, expressing an opinion. Less so, when faced with that situation, 24hrs a day, for 6 months. As I understand it, the outpost was being fired upon, so they called in a helicopter strike. Helicopter appears, blasts the area, and a patrol, then finds the remains of the person, which was dealt with. Does a moral compass exist, when faced with such extremes? If it does, then if the stress of combat, leads to an extreme reaction, with extenuating circumstances, is it excusable? Manslaughter, with 3+ years served. Punished? " It's not about a moral compass existing . It's about the Geneva Convention which does exist and he knowingly and willingly breached | |||
"which was why, I posted "walk a mile in his shoes" when faced with that, how would "we" react? It's easy for many of us, to sit on a sofa, slurping a cup of tea, reading the news, expressing an opinion. Less so, when faced with that situation, 24hrs a day, for 6 months. As I understand it, the outpost was being fired upon, so they called in a helicopter strike. Helicopter appears, blasts the area, and a patrol, then finds the remains of the person, which was dealt with. Does a moral compass exist, when faced with such extremes? If it does, then if the stress of combat, leads to an extreme reaction, with extenuating circumstances, is it excusable? Manslaughter, with 3+ years served. Punished? " I would say it's never excusable for a soldier to kill a prisoner It's basic military discipline. As people have said we would be outraged if an enemy soldier killed a British soldier is similar circumstances. The factors you mention go to mitigation of sentence. Blackman got far less than a civilian killer would have got. | |||
| |||
| |||
"And if you can't cope with being in a warzone maybe don't join the military" Oh well that's it then. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"And if you can't cope with being in a warzone maybe don't join the military" I think his military record, his rank attained, with duties served in both Afghanistan and Northern Ireland, proved his capabilities as a Royal Marine. His conduct thereafter, simply proved he was human, and fallible. | |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love that If it was roles reversed his "victim" would've tortured him first before killing him so fuck his "victim" There's literally no conversing with someone who takes this attitude. Whatever your individual opinion on people who's nationality differs from yours, the human he shot was, by the letter of the law, a victim of a crime. End of story. If he walks with no punishment you set a very dangerous precedent. But it was a Muslim so who cares right?
No he was a terrorist so who cares. His religion doesn't come into my thinking
So why is he a terrorist not a solider? I'd love to hear your distinction "The lack of a recognised uniform and the concealment of involvement int he armed forces/pretending to be a civilian. Thats why we used to execute spies etc they where exempt from protection under various conventions But i think that changed with the geneva convention and hed now be an "unlawful combatant" which would mean he would be a POW untill he was tried but he could then be tried under civilian law ie hed be a murderer not a soilder carrying out his duty | |||
| |||
"And if you can't cope with being in a warzone maybe don't join the military" I am not sure any person would know if they could cope in a war zone before they joined up | |||
"which was why, I posted "walk a mile in his shoes" when faced with that, how would "we" react? It's easy for many of us, to sit on a sofa, slurping a cup of tea, reading the news, expressing an opinion. Less so, when faced with that situation, 24hrs a day, for 6 months. As I understand it, the outpost was being fired upon, so they called in a helicopter strike. Helicopter appears, blasts the area, and a patrol, then finds the remains of the person, which was dealt with. Does a moral compass exist, when faced with such extremes? If it does, then if the stress of combat, leads to an extreme reaction, with extenuating circumstances, is it excusable? Manslaughter, with 3+ years served. Punished? I would say it's never excusable for a soldier to kill a prisoner It's basic military discipline. As people have said we would be outraged if an enemy soldier killed a British soldier is similar circumstances. The factors you mention go to mitigation of sentence. Blackman got far less than a civilian killer would have got. " Never is a strong word. You're part of a 4 man special forces team you are on your way to storm a compound and potentially kill a high value enemy comander and obtain important information that could save many lives. On the way you encounter a 10 man patrol you engange. 4 are killed 2 are badly wounded, 4 surrender with minor injuries. You're in the wilderness tying them up to a point you're sure they wont escape is effectivly a death sentence via exposure especialy for the wounded. You can't risk them reporting back that you're there. What do you do? | |||
| |||
| |||
" The lack of a recognised uniform and the concealment of involvement int he armed forces/pretending to be a civilian. Thats why we used to execute spies etc they where exempt from protection under various conventions But i think that changed with the geneva convention and hed now be an "unlawful combatant" which would mean he would be a POW untill he was tried but he could then be tried under civilian law ie hed be a murderer not a soilder carrying out his duty" So you are OK with the summary execution of our armed forces who go into dangerous areas out of uniform to gather intelligence and maybe assassinate people? | |||
"As ex military who served 6 months in Iraq, I don't think he should ever have been charged with murder. That piece of shit he put out of its misery wouldn't have given our lads or ladies such a quick death given the chance. Only moments before it'd been doing it's best to make sure our soldiers didn't come home. Good riddance to it, one less for our forces out there to have to worry about." | |||
"Yesterday, the Appeal Court, overturned Sergeant Alexander Blackman's conviction for murder on a battlefield, with manslaughter, on the grounds of diminished responsibility. I'm pleased, and I'm hopeful the man is released from prison, as early as next week. He was a victim of political spin. Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. " I find the fact that he was convicted madness in the first place. If it was the other way round no mercy would be offered. It's also a war what do people expect? That said I don't know the details surrounding the case so I should really hold my opinion. Mr | |||
" The lack of a recognised uniform and the concealment of involvement int he armed forces/pretending to be a civilian. Thats why we used to execute spies etc they where exempt from protection under various conventions But i think that changed with the geneva convention and hed now be an "unlawful combatant" which would mean he would be a POW untill he was tried but he could then be tried under civilian law ie hed be a murderer not a soilder carrying out his duty So you are OK with the summary execution of our armed forces who go into dangerous areas out of uniform to gather intelligence and maybe assassinate people? " I did just say they now have protections untill trial. But yeah thats kind of what you agree to when you remove your uniform and conduct an illegal combat operation. You are no longer a soldier you are now a murderer under international and national law. You are if captured judged by the laws of that country, if they execute murderers you may well be executed. You Can't demand protection under the law and the flout the conditions/requirements of that law. | |||
"Yesterday, the Appeal Court, overturned Sergeant Alexander Blackman's conviction for murder on a battlefield, with manslaughter, on the grounds of diminished responsibility. I'm pleased, and I'm hopeful the man is released from prison, as early as next week. He was a victim of political spin. Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. I find the fact that he was convicted madness in the first place. If it was the other way round no mercy would be offered. It's also a war what do people expect? That said I don't know the details surrounding the case so I should really hold my opinion. Mr" He kills a wpunded man on video and even says on video himself that he jist violated the geneva convention. It is as you say a war, people expect soldiers to follow the rules and laws of war our country was so instrumental in writing. If you belive its war and no mercy or law applies then why not just use chemical weapons to deny vast areas of land to the enemy for months/years | |||
"It would be naive to think, other instances, have not occurred, in other war zones, and terrorist hot spots. Wasn't a Para prosecuted for the shooting of a civilian kid, who'd nicked a car, driving through a staggered Northern Ireland patrol stop zone? Yes Lee Clegg fired upon a vehicle joyriding and they drove at speed in the vehicle check Point which under the Rules of Engagement is a threat so it was fired upon. He was convicted because a round was fired into the rear of the car after threat had passed. However the Rules of Engagement Card Alpha did not have this written into it. This is why he was later released. Obviously, this one would not have surfaced without the helmet footage. Does it make it right? No. Do, I think circumstances influenced his conduct, yes. Can others, with military experience, offer a more credible opinion? probably. The "walk a mile in his shoes" etc - was simply that. Sitting on the sofa, munching biscuits, I can express a view, that may not be popular. Experiencing what they were, daily, and for months, will stress 24/7 - I cannot comprehend, and judge." | |||
"If footage emerged of IS killing an injured marine while joking about it there would be outcry" How about 2 men from east Croydon radicalised and in cold blood murdering a soldier and taping it.. then having the audacity to ask for compensation whilst imprisoned. As a firmer soldier .. who has also served in countries which have seen some of the most horrific violence , I can honestly say that combat stress I'm all of its forms is horrific and can jeorpardise your rationale. This marine had seen several tours and whilst what he said and what he did wasn't right.. he has been made an example of by Westminster.. because I am absolute in thinking the military will have taken combat stress etc... into account when charging at a CM. The murder charge is politicians that don't have the brains let alone the balls to a fraction of what that and every other soldier has to do when on operational tour. | |||
"As ex military who served 6 months in Iraq, I don't think he should ever have been charged with murder. That piece of shit he put out of its misery wouldn't have given our lads or ladies such a quick death given the chance. Only moments before it'd been doing it's best to make sure our soldiers didn't come home. Good riddance to it, one less for our forces out there to have to worry about." | |||
"If footage emerged of IS killing an injured marine while joking about it there would be outcry How about 2 men from east Croydon radicalised and in cold blood murdering a soldier and taping it.. then having the audacity to ask for compensation whilst imprisoned. As a firmer soldier .. who has also served in countries which have seen some of the most horrific violence , I can honestly say that combat stress I'm all of its forms is horrific and can jeorpardise your rationale. This marine had seen several tours and whilst what he said and what he did wasn't right.. he has been made an example of by Westminster.. because I am absolute in thinking the military will have taken combat stress etc... into account when charging at a CM. The murder charge is politicians that don't have the brains let alone the balls to a fraction of what that and every other soldier has to do when on operational tour." | |||
"which was why, I posted "walk a mile in his shoes" when faced with that, how would "we" react? It's easy for many of us, to sit on a sofa, slurping a cup of tea, reading the news, expressing an opinion. Less so, when faced with that situation, 24hrs a day, for 6 months. As I understand it, the outpost was being fired upon, so they called in a helicopter strike. Helicopter appears, blasts the area, and a patrol, then finds the remains of the person, which was dealt with. Does a moral compass exist, when faced with such extremes? If it does, then if the stress of combat, leads to an extreme reaction, with extenuating circumstances, is it excusable? Manslaughter, with 3+ years served. Punished? I would say it's never excusable for a soldier to kill a prisoner It's basic military discipline. As people have said we would be outraged if an enemy soldier killed a British soldier is similar circumstances. The factors you mention go to mitigation of sentence. Blackman got far less than a civilian killer would have got. Never is a strong word. You're part of a 4 man special forces team you are on your way to storm a compound and potentially kill a high value enemy comander and obtain important information that could save many lives. On the way you encounter a 10 man patrol you engange. 4 are killed 2 are badly wounded, 4 surrender with minor injuries. You're in the wilderness tying them up to a point you're sure they wont escape is effectivly a death sentence via exposure especialy for the wounded. You can't risk them reporting back that you're there. What do you do? " I would say in that situation you radio your hq and tell them where the prisoners are so they can be picked up later. But I accept difficult decisions sometimes have to be made in situations like that. I am talking about a situation where prisoners are killed and there is no conceivable military justification for the killing. That's murder (or manslaughter). | |||
" Hopefully guys will learn this lesson. Don't take prisoners." | |||
"If footage emerged of IS killing an injured marine while joking about it there would be outcry How about 2 men from east Croydon radicalised and in cold blood murdering a soldier and taping it.. then having the audacity to ask for compensation whilst imprisoned. As a firmer soldier .. who has also served in countries which have seen some of the most horrific violence , I can honestly say that combat stress I'm all of its forms is horrific and can jeorpardise your rationale. This marine had seen several tours and whilst what he said and what he did wasn't right.. he has been made an example of by Westminster.. because I am absolute in thinking the military will have taken combat stress etc... into account when charging at a CM. The murder charge is politicians that don't have the brains let alone the balls to a fraction of what that and every other soldier has to do when on operational tour." I am not sure what your point is about Lee Rigbys murderers. One got a whole life tariff and the other the younger one a tariff of thirty years. They got far higher punishments than Blackman. As indeed they should have As for the compensation point, of course Noone can stop them asking for anything. They were told to fuck off. | |||
" The lack of a recognised uniform and the concealment of involvement int he armed forces/pretending to be a civilian. Thats why we used to execute spies etc they where exempt from protection under various conventions But i think that changed with the geneva convention and hed now be an "unlawful combatant" which would mean he would be a POW untill he was tried but he could then be tried under civilian law ie hed be a murderer not a soilder carrying out his duty So you are OK with the summary execution of our armed forces who go into dangerous areas out of uniform to gather intelligence and maybe assassinate people? I did just say they now have protections untill trial. But yeah thats kind of what you agree to when you remove your uniform and conduct an illegal combat operation. You are no longer a soldier you are now a murderer under international and national law. You are if captured judged by the laws of that country, if they execute murderers you may well be executed. You Can't demand protection under the law and the flout the conditions/requirements of that law." What if he was given a direct order to remove his uniform.. marines are also members of the SF community. As well the intelligence and men in the regt. These soldiers go into hostile environments often with little comms, no back up and in civilian attire. To gain intelligence on location and supplies and opposing troop numbers.. Marine A did something wrong. He knows this.. but Murder... ???? | |||
" If you belive its war and no mercy or law applies then why not just use chemical weapons to deny vast areas of land to the enemy for months/years" I didn't say that so please don't twist my words. I said no mercy would be given if it was the other way round. In fact it's highly likely he's have been tortured and made a spectical of. As for chemical weapons when your enemy hides amongst civilians that's not possible as you begin taking innocent lives. Then one could argue that a lot are forced into servitude under duress It's an impossible situation. From your explanation though if he openly admits his actions on film that's pretty cold, he's clearly thought about it and not exactly heat of combat. It's a difficult one to say either way. | |||
"If footage emerged of IS killing an injured marine while joking about it there would be outcry How about 2 men from east Croydon radicalised and in cold blood murdering a soldier and taping it.. then having the audacity to ask for compensation whilst imprisoned. As a firmer soldier .. who has also served in countries which have seen some of the most horrific violence , I can honestly say that combat stress I'm all of its forms is horrific and can jeorpardise your rationale. This marine had seen several tours and whilst what he said and what he did wasn't right.. he has been made an example of by Westminster.. because I am absolute in thinking the military will have taken combat stress etc... into account when charging at a CM. The murder charge is politicians that don't have the brains let alone the balls to a fraction of what that and every other soldier has to do when on operational tour. I am not sure what your point is about Lee Rigbys murderers. One got a whole life tariff and the other the younger one a tariff of thirty years. They got far higher punishments than Blackman. As indeed they should have As for the compensation point, of course Noone can stop them asking for anything. They were told to fuck off. " They did get a higher tariff than the Sgt. However Blackman was in a war zone, fighting a war none of us should have needed to fight for a reason ( apart from oil and money and whatever else they needed out of the country) that wasn't ours. Those 2 idiots ( andnthats being pleasant) were British.. killing another man.. England is ( or should I rephrase ) wasn't a war zone. | |||
"If footage emerged of IS killing an injured marine while joking about it there would be outcry How about 2 men from east Croydon radicalised and in cold blood murdering a soldier and taping it.. then having the audacity to ask for compensation whilst imprisoned. As a firmer soldier .. who has also served in countries which have seen some of the most horrific violence , I can honestly say that combat stress I'm all of its forms is horrific and can jeorpardise your rationale. This marine had seen several tours and whilst what he said and what he did wasn't right.. he has been made an example of by Westminster.. because I am absolute in thinking the military will have taken combat stress etc... into account when charging at a CM. The murder charge is politicians that don't have the brains let alone the balls to a fraction of what that and every other soldier has to do when on operational tour. I am not sure what your point is about Lee Rigbys murderers. One got a whole life tariff and the other the younger one a tariff of thirty years. They got far higher punishments than Blackman. As indeed they should have As for the compensation point, of course Noone can stop them asking for anything. They were told to fuck off. They did get a higher tariff than the Sgt. However Blackman was in a war zone, fighting a war none of us should have needed to fight for a reason ( apart from oil and money and whatever else they needed out of the country) that wasn't ours. Those 2 idiots ( andnthats being pleasant) were British.. killing another man.. England is ( or should I rephrase ) wasn't a war zone." So I don't understand why you are raising it. Everyone agrees their crime was a lot worse than Blackmans and that they deserved their far more severe punishment. The person whose post you answered was making the point that nobody would excuse a foreign soldier who killed a British soldier in similar circumstances to Blackmans. That seems to me to be true but the Lee Rigby case is irrelevant to that point. | |||
"If footage emerged of IS killing an injured marine while joking about it there would be outcry How about 2 men from east Croydon radicalised and in cold blood murdering a soldier and taping it.. then having the audacity to ask for compensation whilst imprisoned. As a firmer soldier .. who has also served in countries which have seen some of the most horrific violence , I can honestly say that combat stress I'm all of its forms is horrific and can jeorpardise your rationale. This marine had seen several tours and whilst what he said and what he did wasn't right.. he has been made an example of by Westminster.. because I am absolute in thinking the military will have taken combat stress etc... into account when charging at a CM. The murder charge is politicians that don't have the brains let alone the balls to a fraction of what that and every other soldier has to do when on operational tour. I am not sure what your point is about Lee Rigbys murderers. One got a whole life tariff and the other the younger one a tariff of thirty years. They got far higher punishments than Blackman. As indeed they should have As for the compensation point, of course Noone can stop them asking for anything. They were told to fuck off. They did get a higher tariff than the Sgt. However Blackman was in a war zone, fighting a war none of us should have needed to fight for a reason ( apart from oil and money and whatever else they needed out of the country) that wasn't ours. Those 2 idiots ( andnthats being pleasant) were British.. killing another man.. England is ( or should I rephrase ) wasn't a war zone. So I don't understand why you are raising it. Everyone agrees their crime was a lot worse than Blackmans and that they deserved their far more severe punishment. The person whose post you answered was making the point that nobody would excuse a foreign soldier who killed a British soldier in similar circumstances to Blackmans. That seems to me to be true but the Lee Rigby case is irrelevant to that point. " The point is ... they were not foreign. They were British. And whilst I agree with your reference on their sentences my main point was with regards to combat stress that the Sgt was suffering from. There is no idea what the orders were from above.. there is no idea as to the intelligence gained on the group sgt Blackman patrol encountered. To request heli cover in that area is a probable cause to understand heavy enemy contact. Suffering from Combat stress and being in those situations is difficult. Sgt Blackman knows he did wrong.. he accepts he did wrong... | |||
"which was why, I posted "walk a mile in his shoes" when faced with that, how would "we" react? It's easy for many of us, to sit on a sofa, slurping a cup of tea, reading the news, expressing an opinion. Less so, when faced with that situation, 24hrs a day, for 6 months. As I understand it, the outpost was being fired upon, so they called in a helicopter strike. Helicopter appears, blasts the area, and a patrol, then finds the remains of the person, which was dealt with. Does a moral compass exist, when faced with such extremes? If it does, then if the stress of combat, leads to an extreme reaction, with extenuating circumstances, is it excusable? Manslaughter, with 3+ years served. Punished? I would say it's never excusable for a soldier to kill a prisoner It's basic military discipline. As people have said we would be outraged if an enemy soldier killed a British soldier is similar circumstances. The factors you mention go to mitigation of sentence. Blackman got far less than a civilian killer would have got. Never is a strong word. You're part of a 4 man special forces team you are on your way to storm a compound and potentially kill a high value enemy comander and obtain important information that could save many lives. On the way you encounter a 10 man patrol you engange. 4 are killed 2 are badly wounded, 4 surrender with minor injuries. You're in the wilderness tying them up to a point you're sure they wont escape is effectivly a death sentence via exposure especialy for the wounded. You can't risk them reporting back that you're there. What do you do? I would say in that situation you radio your hq and tell them where the prisoners are so they can be picked up later. But I accept difficult decisions sometimes have to be made in situations like that. I am talking about a situation where prisoners are killed and there is no conceivable military justification for the killing. That's murder (or manslaughter). " So basicsly you leave them there to die slowly. As for no "conceivable military justification" that is a huge gaping maw of a loop hole. What counts as a justification? Conserving medical supplies? No wanting to waste man power on gaurds? Budget constraints? | |||
| |||
"The law is alwais with the terrorists, not so much the ones fighting against it." How on earth do you conclude that? | |||
"The law is alwais with the terrorists, not so much the ones fighting against it. How on earth do you conclude that? " Otherwise the soldier wouldnt have been investigated, it is a tough job. | |||
"As ex military who served 6 months in Iraq, I don't think he should ever have been charged with murder. That piece of shit he put out of its misery wouldn't have given our lads or ladies such a quick death given the chance. Only moments before it'd been doing it's best to make sure our soldiers didn't come home. Good riddance to it, one less for our forces out there to have to worry about." I'm so glad you're not still serving | |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love that" put it the other way round given the chance the victim if that's what you want to call him would of killed our soldier without even blinking an eye when your in a war shit happens until your actually in that situation yourself you have no idea it's not an excuse it's a fact of war | |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love thatput it the other way round given the chance the victim if that's what you want to call him would of killed our soldier without even blinking an eye when your in a war shit happens until your actually in that situation yourself you have no idea it's not an excuse it's a fact of war" | |||
"The law is alwais with the terrorists, not so much the ones fighting against it. How on earth do you conclude that? Otherwise the soldier wouldnt have been investigated, it is a tough job." The soldier was investigated because he was recorded on his own helmet camera shooting dead an injured man. Then telling the other soldiers with him that he had broken the Geneva Convention so it should go no further. Not because the law is on the side of terrorists. | |||
"The law is alwais with the terrorists, not so much the ones fighting against it. How on earth do you conclude that? Otherwise the soldier wouldnt have been investigated, it is a tough job. The soldier was investigated because he was recorded on his own helmet camera shooting dead an injured man. Then telling the other soldiers with him that he had broken the Geneva Convention so it should go no further. Not because the law is on the side of terrorists." I reckon he was confused as it can play on your mind what you have done or not have done in those situations. | |||
"The law is alwais with the terrorists, not so much the ones fighting against it. How on earth do you conclude that? Otherwise the soldier wouldnt have been investigated, it is a tough job. The soldier was investigated because he was recorded on his own helmet camera shooting dead an injured man. Then telling the other soldiers with him that he had broken the Geneva Convention so it should go no further. Not because the law is on the side of terrorists.I reckon he was confused as it can play on your mind what you have done or not have done in those situations." I don't understand. What was he confused about? | |||
"The law is alwais with the terrorists, not so much the ones fighting against it. How on earth do you conclude that? Otherwise the soldier wouldnt have been investigated, it is a tough job. The soldier was investigated because he was recorded on his own helmet camera shooting dead an injured man. Then telling the other soldiers with him that he had broken the Geneva Convention so it should go no further. Not because the law is on the side of terrorists.I reckon he was confused as it can play on your mind what you have done or not have done in those situations." Nope not confused at all. He even says "shuffle of this mortal coil" before executing him | |||
"Similar thread, evoked quite strong views, a month or so ago. From ex military, who'd served in some of he worst war zones and trouble spots, and their respective views, to civilians, with differing opinions. Each to their own. It certainly divides opinions. Mines pretty clear." I support you all and always have, military close to my heart for many reasons. I salute you all for everything you have all die for this country X | |||
"The law is alwais with the terrorists, not so much the ones fighting against it. How on earth do you conclude that? Otherwise the soldier wouldnt have been investigated, it is a tough job. The soldier was investigated because he was recorded on his own helmet camera shooting dead an injured man. Then telling the other soldiers with him that he had broken the Geneva Convention so it should go no further. Not because the law is on the side of terrorists.I reckon he was confused as it can play on your mind what you have done or not have done in those situations. I don't understand. What was he confused about?" That he said it was the geneva convention, he had to check he was dead, better to be safe than sorry. | |||
"Similar thread, evoked quite strong views, a month or so ago. From ex military, who'd served in some of he worst war zones and trouble spots, and their respective views, to civilians, with differing opinions. Each to their own. It certainly divides opinions. Mines pretty clear. I support you all and always have, military close to my heart for many reasons. I salute you all for everything you have all die for this country X " Sorry meant do not die X | |||
"The law is alwais with the terrorists, not so much the ones fighting against it. How on earth do you conclude that? Otherwise the soldier wouldnt have been investigated, it is a tough job. The soldier was investigated because he was recorded on his own helmet camera shooting dead an injured man. Then telling the other soldiers with him that he had broken the Geneva Convention so it should go no further. Not because the law is on the side of terrorists.I reckon he was confused as it can play on your mind what you have done or not have done in those situations. Nope not confused at all. He even says "shuffle of this mortal coil" before executing him" That is right | |||
" Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. His victim would love thatput it the other way round given the chance the victim if that's what you want to call him would of killed our soldier without even blinking an eye when your in a war shit happens until your actually in that situation yourself you have no idea it's not an excuse it's a fact of war" | |||
"The law is alwais with the terrorists, not so much the ones fighting against it. How on earth do you conclude that? Otherwise the soldier wouldnt have been investigated, it is a tough job. The soldier was investigated because he was recorded on his own helmet camera shooting dead an injured man. Then telling the other soldiers with him that he had broken the Geneva Convention so it should go no further. Not because the law is on the side of terrorists.I reckon he was confused as it can play on your mind what you have done or not have done in those situations. I don't understand. What was he confused about?That he said it was the geneva convention, he had to check he was dead, better to be safe than sorry." No he says he just broke the geneva convention...csuse he executed a pow | |||
| |||
"If footage emerged of IS killing an injured marine while joking about it there would be outcry" EXACTLY | |||
| |||
"I'm really pleased that there are a number of people who find this uncomfortable. It does not sit well with me. We decided on our rules of engagement, he then broke them. They are our rules... Not the Taliban's. If all the people who think he's deserves a medal, please ponder this, if a police officer shoots a suspect, walks up to him under the same circumstances, says what I'm about to do is not lawful then shoots the suspect, Would you all give that officer a medal? God I hope not. " totally different and pointless scenario your in a war zone with the enemy everywhere every soldier there wanted him dead he was a risk to all of them if he managed to get a signal out and all his insurgent friends turned up would our troops be treated as pows yes we have rules of engagement but sometimes they have to be ignored if it saves lives like I said earlier that is war for you soldiers are trained to kill and protect they're colleagues so what might seem wrong to some was the right thing to do at the time. | |||
"I'm really pleased that there are a number of people who find this uncomfortable. It does not sit well with me. We decided on our rules of engagement, he then broke them. They are our rules... Not the Taliban's. If all the people who think he's deserves a medal, please ponder this, if a police officer shoots a suspect, walks up to him under the same circumstances, says what I'm about to do is not lawful then shoots the suspect, Would you all give that officer a medal? God I hope not. " That analogy, as you've described, is crucially flawed. The details of the firefight, in a war zone, are detailed briefly further up the thread. The scenario you've described, has more in common with the US police force. | |||
"If footage emerged of IS killing an injured marine while joking about it there would be outcry EXACTLY" we have all watched footage of beheadings people getting burned in cages or drowned hence the reason I don't care about one of them getting executed quickly. | |||
"I'm really pleased that there are a number of people who find this uncomfortable. It does not sit well with me. We decided on our rules of engagement, he then broke them. They are our rules... Not the Taliban's. If all the people who think he's deserves a medal, please ponder this, if a police officer shoots a suspect, walks up to him under the same circumstances, says what I'm about to do is not lawful then shoots the suspect, Would you all give that officer a medal? God I hope not. That analogy, as you've described, is crucially flawed. The details of the firefight, in a war zone, are detailed briefly further up the thread. The scenario you've described, has more in common with the US police force." There was no firefight was there? An apache gun ship wounds the insurgent marines then go up to him while hes badly wounded and kill him. Arguably the amount of damage being in the middle of 139 20mm explosive shell detonations would do to a body it was a mercy killing but it was the soilders attitude that hung him here. If he had just "put him out of his misery" without the gloating i rhink he would have potentiality beat even a manslaughter charge. | |||
"I'm really pleased that there are a number of people who find this uncomfortable. It does not sit well with me. We decided on our rules of engagement, he then broke them. They are our rules... Not the Taliban's. If all the people who think he's deserves a medal, please ponder this, if a police officer shoots a suspect, walks up to him under the same circumstances, says what I'm about to do is not lawful then shoots the suspect, Would you all give that officer a medal? God I hope not. totally different and pointless scenario your in a war zone with the enemy everywhere every soldier there wanted him dead he was a risk to all of them if he managed to get a signal out and all his insurgent friends turned up would our troops be treated as pows yes we have rules of engagement but sometimes they have to be ignored if it saves lives like I said earlier that is war for you soldiers are trained to kill and protect they're colleagues so what might seem wrong to some was the right thing to do at the time." They had close airsupport watching over them. The risk to the marines from reinforcements was minimal | |||
| |||
"The law is alwais with the terrorists, not so much the ones fighting against it. How on earth do you conclude that? Otherwise the soldier wouldnt have been investigated, it is a tough job. The soldier was investigated because he was recorded on his own helmet camera shooting dead an injured man. Then telling the other soldiers with him that he had broken the Geneva Convention so it should go no further. Not because the law is on the side of terrorists.I reckon he was confused as it can play on your mind what you have done or not have done in those situations. I don't understand. What was he confused about?That he said it was the geneva convention, he had to check he was dead, better to be safe than sorry. No he says he just broke the geneva convention...csuse he executed a pow" Yes, but they dont show the lead up to it, lots of things could of happen. | |||
"The law is alwais with the terrorists, not so much the ones fighting against it. How on earth do you conclude that? Otherwise the soldier wouldnt have been investigated, it is a tough job. The soldier was investigated because he was recorded on his own helmet camera shooting dead an injured man. Then telling the other soldiers with him that he had broken the Geneva Convention so it should go no further. Not because the law is on the side of terrorists.I reckon he was confused as it can play on your mind what you have done or not have done in those situations. I don't understand. What was he confused about?That he said it was the geneva convention, he had to check he was dead, better to be safe than sorry. No he says he just broke the geneva convention...csuse he executed a powYes, but they dont show the lead up to it, lots of things could of happen." Which is why its been investigated. | |||
"The law is alwais with the terrorists, not so much the ones fighting against it. How on earth do you conclude that? Otherwise the soldier wouldnt have been investigated, it is a tough job. The soldier was investigated because he was recorded on his own helmet camera shooting dead an injured man. Then telling the other soldiers with him that he had broken the Geneva Convention so it should go no further. Not because the law is on the side of terrorists.I reckon he was confused as it can play on your mind what you have done or not have done in those situations. I don't understand. What was he confused about?That he said it was the geneva convention, he had to check he was dead, better to be safe than sorry. No he says he just broke the geneva convention...csuse he executed a powYes, but they dont show the lead up to it, lots of things could of happen." The lead uo had been released now. Helipoter shoots taliban or whoever. Marines bitch that they didnt kill them and they should have used a missile, msrine executed pow | |||
"I'm really pleased that there are a number of people who find this uncomfortable. It does not sit well with me. We decided on our rules of engagement, he then broke them. They are our rules... Not the Taliban's. If all the people who think he's deserves a medal, please ponder this, if a police officer shoots a suspect, walks up to him under the same circumstances, says what I'm about to do is not lawful then shoots the suspect, Would you all give that officer a medal? God I hope not. totally different and pointless scenario your in a war zone with the enemy everywhere every soldier there wanted him dead he was a risk to all of them if he managed to get a signal out and all his insurgent friends turned up would our troops be treated as pows yes we have rules of engagement but sometimes they have to be ignored if it saves lives like I said earlier that is war for you soldiers are trained to kill and protect they're colleagues so what might seem wrong to some was the right thing to do at the time. They had close airsupport watching over them. The risk to the marines from reinforcements was minimal" but there is always a risk involved regardless | |||
"I'm really pleased that there are a number of people who find this uncomfortable. It does not sit well with me. We decided on our rules of engagement, he then broke them. They are our rules... Not the Taliban's. If all the people who think he's deserves a medal, please ponder this, if a police officer shoots a suspect, walks up to him under the same circumstances, says what I'm about to do is not lawful then shoots the suspect, Would you all give that officer a medal? God I hope not. totally different and pointless scenario your in a war zone with the enemy everywhere every soldier there wanted him dead he was a risk to all of them if he managed to get a signal out and all his insurgent friends turned up would our troops be treated as pows yes we have rules of engagement but sometimes they have to be ignored if it saves lives like I said earlier that is war for you soldiers are trained to kill and protect they're colleagues so what might seem wrong to some was the right thing to do at the time. They had close airsupport watching over them. The risk to the marines from reinforcements was minimalbut there is always a risk involved regardless " Right...but that doesnt change the laws we wrote | |||
"The law is alwais with the terrorists, not so much the ones fighting against it. How on earth do you conclude that? Otherwise the soldier wouldnt have been investigated, it is a tough job. The soldier was investigated because he was recorded on his own helmet camera shooting dead an injured man. Then telling the other soldiers with him that he had broken the Geneva Convention so it should go no further. Not because the law is on the side of terrorists.I reckon he was confused as it can play on your mind what you have done or not have done in those situations. I don't understand. What was he confused about?That he said it was the geneva convention, he had to check he was dead, better to be safe than sorry. No he says he just broke the geneva convention...csuse he executed a powYes, but they dont show the lead up to it, lots of things could of happen. The lead uo had been released now. Helipoter shoots taliban or whoever. Marines bitch that they didnt kill them and they should have used a missile, msrine executed pow" Yes it have, although I am still on the marines side. | |||
"If footage emerged of IS killing an injured marine while joking about it there would be outcry EXACTLYwe have all watched footage of beheadings people getting burned in cages or drowned hence the reason I don't care about one of them getting executed quickly." So we should aspire to fight like them? Are we not better than that? Are we not decent and humane? Or are we barbaric murdering scum too? | |||
"i will say exactly the same thing i said in the sgt blackman thread yesterday... not cleared.... he still killed someone who should not have done... it has been downgraded from mudrer to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility..... for all the evidence they produced (the death of his father, the fact it has been said his higher ups should have noticed his state so he should not have been on duty ect) has rightly been taken into consideration to his mental wellbeing when it wasn't during his court martial... that fact remains is he still killed someone unlawfully though... so yes... the change in verdict is a vindication that he should never have been charged with murder.... but seeing the people outside the court cheering, shouting hip hip hooray and the speech given by frederick forsythe and the lawyer doesn't sit well.... the wife was the only one who i think struck the right tone..... happy the verdict had been changed whilst acknowledging that he had done something wrong.... if that means he has now served his time plus good behaviour.... then so be it... i am happy they changed the verdict if it is a truer reflection of what happen... but to see some many people gloating over someone being unlawfully killed just rubs me up the wrong way....." This!
It is also a worry for me that the military are incapable of spotting mental health issues in people they are sending into war zones with guns. In this case he shot a dying man, the next mentally unstable one may turn on his colleagues.
Annoys me also how the mental health card is often used...no wonder stigma around such issues remain. | |||
"As someone who hasn't served that element cannot come in to my reasoning. The evidence I have seen is all I base this on. The recording oh him saying "this didn't happen alright lads, I just broke the Geneva convention" isn't really marrying up to the diminished responsibility plea. He clearly knew what he was doing was wrong. It's a very murky case as we only have as far as I am aware audio evidence. The flag waving brigade who say he should get a medal and be a hero clearly cannot see how vital the Geneva convention is and why it's followed. He broke the law and needed to face proportionate action. Whether a murder charge was right is something I can't answer however walking free as a hero with no action isn't a road I would like to see our military go down" | |||
"If footage emerged of IS killing an injured marine while joking about it there would be outcry And if the British then captured said IS fighter and put him on trial for murder and he produced evidence to show how psychologically damaged he was and got it reduced to manslaughter I suspect that the people now telling us to walk a mike in blackmans shoes would be outraged. Bottom line. Blackman committed homicide. The evidence against him was damning. The guy he killed was seriously injured and no threat and Blackman knew that. I am perfectly willing to accept he was in a terrible state when he committed the crime and that manslaughter was the right verdict. What I don't get to see is those who see him as some sort of hero. . Let's not forget that he told junior soldiers to lie for him and that this sort of thing is a propaganda gift for the likes of IS and the Talib an. British soldiers do not kill unarmed prisoners. And when they do they are punished. We should be proud of that. " | |||
"If footage emerged of IS killing an injured marine while joking about it there would be outcry EXACTLYwe have all watched footage of beheadings people getting burned in cages or drowned hence the reason I don't care about one of them getting executed quickly. So we should aspire to fight like them? Are we not better than that? Are we not decent and humane? Or are we barbaric murdering scum too?" During their invasion of the USSR in 1941 the Germans captured hundreds of thousands of soviet soldiers. Their attitude was that those soldiers were a bunch of murdering communists who would have killed any German they got their hands on. Hence they used the prisoners as slave labour or let them starve. That was a self fulfilling prophecy. When the tide of war changed and the soviets captured lots of German prisoners they were treated equally badly because the soviets were outraged at how their prisoners had been treated. Not to mention the thousands of German women who ended up being r@ped Those who don't recall history are condemned to repeat it as someone once said. | |||
"The guy deserves a medal not a prison cell !! Fact He's no hero.. he is a murder... Shall we give Fred West a medal while we are at it? It's an idiotic comparison. To operate in a 24/7 war zone, with an under manned outpost, difficult defensive position, sleeping in a shipping container, operating in extreme temperatures (50 degrees or so) and having to take twice daily patrols, to ensure safety, a high casualty rate, including deaths, for 6 months, and then encounter someone who was moments before, attacking your position to kill. He snapped and acted accordingly. Fred West was a sexual predator a prolific serial killer of children, with some patio skills. Wouldn't say the best comparison if I'm honest. However, he wasn't the only member of the armed forces enduring that. His actions and words are inexcusable. End of story. He technically killed a prisoner of war. Murky details and diminished responsibility are one thing but blind patriotism and flag waving is not the answer. Excusing this makes a mockery of all the other grave men and women who serve in the forces with some fucking honour. " | |||
| |||
| |||
"Nelson Mandela, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Menachem Begin, Archbishop Makarios and many others. All considered "Terrorists"! All became or have become "statesmen"! Although gut reaction may say good on him for killing a terrorist, the rule of law is very important. We have a young man lying injured on the ground, no weapon and no way of finding out if he was involved in anything other than "wrong place, wrong time"! This so called soldier knew what he did was wrong, he said as much on the transcript. He told the others not to report it. It was cold blood. How anyone can condone murder is beyond me. I suppose I am OK with the manslaughter charge, but I didn't have any problem with the murder charge!" | |||
"If footage emerged of IS killing an injured marine while joking about it there would be outcry EXACTLYwe have all watched footage of beheadings people getting burned in cages or drowned hence the reason I don't care about one of them getting executed quickly. So we should aspire to fight like them? Are we not better than that? Are we not decent and humane? Or are we barbaric murdering scum too? During their invasion of the USSR in 1941 the Germans captured hundreds of thousands of soviet soldiers. Their attitude was that those soldiers were a bunch of murdering communists who would have killed any German they got their hands on. Hence they used the prisoners as slave labour or let them starve. That was a self fulfilling prophecy. When the tide of war changed and the soviets captured lots of German prisoners they were treated equally badly because the soviets were outraged at how their prisoners had been treated. Not to mention the thousands of German women who ended up being r@ped Those who don't recall history are condemned to repeat it as someone once said. " IIRC the soviets captured over 150,000 in one battle alone & MARCHED them to Siberia to the gulags to work in the mines, after the war approx 6000 were released the soviets said the rest were dead but _umours say some died there in the 1970's.. I watched Panarama on this case last night & think its telling that they did not just walk up and shoot him. They patched him up & started dragging him to where they possibly could have called an evac. Then they thought better of their & any medical party sents safety (five vehicles, another 25 personnel in danger) & he was shot. War is a nasty business, many do not know the half of what went on in the wars of the past, crucified soldiers in ww1, tied, put upsidedown in barrels and burnt alive in ww2, whole villages massacred for nothing. The forces out there are not fighting people with the same values, they are fighting fanatics some of whom will happily strap a vestbomb to a ten year old while pointing a gun at the mothers head. My opinion, the guy got what he deserved, they just fucked up in the way it was done. Apparently if they had just shot him as they approached that would have been fine, ironically it was their own initial thoughts on saving him (and any information he had) that cost them. S | |||
"I watched it on bbc1 yesterday and I cant see he did anything wrong, they have to make sure he was dead, as otherwise they would put all the other military guys at risk." Which, as he himself quoted, was against the Geneva Convention. | |||
"I'm really pleased that there are a number of people who find this uncomfortable. It does not sit well with me. We decided on our rules of engagement, he then broke them. They are our rules... Not the Taliban's. If all the people who think he's deserves a medal, please ponder this, if a police officer shoots a suspect, walks up to him under the same circumstances, says what I'm about to do is not lawful then shoots the suspect, Would you all give that officer a medal? God I hope not. " . Its part of the deal in life that the system is designed to keep emotion from civilians getting involved, obviously it wont sit well with you, youve not been trained to kill people, youve not been sent to a battlefield to be shot at, youve not seen your friends insides splattered all over the floor, youve not spent months alone isolated but surrounded by "comrades" being programmed to take kill kill kill and not feel sorry about it. If you work in a meat factory butchering animals on a daily basis they wont let you do certain jury service, your considered to morally bankrupt. Life is tricky in our modern society not everything is black and white and i thought it was a good compromise that his crime was reduced. | |||
| |||
"Some people on here seem to take the view that soldiers can act as judge, jury and executioner on captured enemy fighters if fighters on the other side have acted badly. Really? " Less capturing. More killing, is what's needed. | |||
| |||
"is war, ever polite & nice? Many here, with vast experience of both combat and military careers, past & present, have differing views, but most will agree or accept, that what is not seen, is far more inhumane. Each successive war or "trouble spot" has become more savage and violent, and with today's access to media, it's almost that in today's society, we've become immune to such degraded violence. IS videos on YouTube - "ooh that's nasty, pass the pizza I'm gonna watch Taylor Swift...." etc War, is about control, and killing people is an inevitable consequence. Geneva Convention, with rules of engagement, I'm unsure how much longer, if at all, that's relevant in today's conflicts, when opposing forces or factions, fail to comprehend or adhere to the same set of rules. Mistakes occur, humans break, and the fallout, and finger pointing happens. But, how can you ask such conduct from soldiers, when the majority of finger pointing people, couldn't or wouldn't contemplate, undertake such a job? I've read the postings here, and encountered some knowledgeable people, with opposing views, expeiences, who've expressed them very well, even if I have not agreed with their thinking. Thank you " But surely you have to have some set of rules when in combat situations. Otherwise you are saying that doing stuff like rap1ng civilians, torturing prisoners for fun and so on and so forth is OK. Apart from anything else allowing soldiers to inflict violence as and when they feel like it is hardly conducive to military effectiveness. And if you accept there have to be some rules then you accept that those suspected of breaking them have to face court martial and if found guilty punished. | |||
"is war, ever polite & nice? Many here, with vast experience of both combat and military careers, past & present, have differing views, but most will agree or accept, that what is not seen, is far more inhumane. Each successive war or "trouble spot" has become more savage and violent, and with today's access to media, it's almost that in today's society, we've become immune to such degraded violence. IS videos on YouTube - "ooh that's nasty, pass the pizza I'm gonna watch Taylor Swift...." etc War, is about control, and killing people is an inevitable consequence. Geneva Convention, with rules of engagement, I'm unsure how much longer, if at all, that's relevant in today's conflicts, when opposing forces or factions, fail to comprehend or adhere to the same set of rules. Mistakes occur, humans break, and the fallout, and finger pointing happens. But, how can you ask such conduct from soldiers, when the majority of finger pointing people, couldn't or wouldn't contemplate, undertake such a job? I've read the postings here, and encountered some knowledgeable people, with opposing views, expeiences, who've expressed them very well, even if I have not agreed with their thinking. Thank you " Conflict has always been as vicious, and even moreso in the past. With the communication revolution and the consequent transparency of everyone's actions it has become been more important to behave with fairness and integrity, not only to keep within the rules, but to win the hearts and minds of the people in who's counties we are fighting. Without them, the terrorists, guerrillas and their like have a perfect recruiting ground. Is not just about being the good guy, it's about strategy. | |||
"Yesterday, the Appeal Court, overturned Sergeant Alexander Blackman's conviction for murder on a battlefield, with manslaughter, on the grounds of diminished responsibility. I'm pleased, and I'm hopeful the man is released from prison, as early as next week. He was a victim of political spin. Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. " It was not political. It was a breach of common sense in the footage being outed.. Given the circumstances as they were then it couldn't just be brushed aside, due process etc.. His defence team should have brought thepsychological issues to the attention of the original case .. And i nor anyone else, despite being ex military need's to walk in anyone's shoes to form an opinion on this.. Were that logic to be the case then no men would be on the juries of r@pe cases where women are the victims.. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I watched a recent program on the SAS. The men interviewed were asked, how they felt being fired upon by child soldiers, in a conflict area. The ex SAS member replied "I don't see a child, I see a target. I don't have time to think about who, what, why. I shoot and I kill, and I complete my job". It was made clear, that those firing upon him or his colleagues, are targets to eliminate, and ensure a job is completed. " Cool story. But as the guy that was killed by the maribe was unarmed and defenseless I really don't see how it's comparable to this scenario? | |||
"I watched a recent program on the SAS. The men interviewed were asked, how they felt being fired upon by child soldiers, in a conflict area. The ex SAS member replied "I don't see a child, I see a target. I don't have time to think about who, what, why. I shoot and I kill, and I complete my job". It was made clear, that those firing upon him or his colleagues, are targets to eliminate, and ensure a job is completed. Cool story. But as the guy that was killed by the maribe was unarmed and defenseless I really don't see how it's comparable to this scenario?" I couldn't see the relevance either. | |||
| |||
"Should never of reached the media. In my eyes the soldier who released the footage should be hung by the neck until they die. Although they are morally courageous. Their loyalty is as absent as my father. " You think the soldier should be sentenced to death? Why? Other than your own sick desire for revenge I can't see any possible reason | |||
| |||
"Should never of reached the media. In my eyes the soldier who released the footage should be hung by the neck until they die. Although they are morally courageous. Their loyalty is as absent as my father. " strange way to express daddy issues | |||
"Should never of reached the media. In my eyes the soldier who released the footage should be hung by the neck until they die. Although they are morally courageous. Their loyalty is as absent as my You think the soldier should be sentenced to death? Why? Other than your own sick desire for revenge I can't see any possible reason" No buddy. Not revenge. By releasing this to the media. Who then put there own spin on the topic to make it sound worse caused more upset. And also could of ended with not just one soldier but the whole members of the patrol being sentenced. For what. One man's guilt. Have you watched "lone surviver" If so. Remember what happens when the US soldiers let the 'innocent' Man go. Same should of happened. | |||
| |||
"Should never of reached the media. In my eyes the soldier who released the footage should be hung by the neck until they die. Although they are morally courageous. Their loyalty is as absent as my You think the soldier should be sentenced to death? Why? Other than your own sick desire for revenge I can't see any possible reason No buddy. Not revenge. By releasing this to the media. Who then put there own spin on the topic to make it sound worse caused more upset. And also could of ended with not just one soldier but the whole members of the patrol being sentenced. For what. One man's guilt. Have you watched "lone surviver" If so. Remember what happens when the US soldiers let the 'innocent' Man go. Same should of happened. " Not that I agree in the slightest with you comments on media spin, but I still can't see anything you say justifying why he should be sentenced to death? | |||
"Should never of reached the media. In my eyes the soldier who released the footage should be hung by the neck until they die. Although they are morally courageous. Their loyalty is as absent as my You think the soldier should be sentenced to death? Why? Other than your own sick desire for revenge I can't see any possible reason No buddy. Not revenge. By releasing this to the media. Who then put there own spin on the topic to make it sound worse caused more upset. And also could of ended with not just one soldier but the whole members of the patrol being sentenced. For what. One man's guilt. Have you watched "lone surviver" If so. Remember what happens when the US soldiers let the 'innocent' Man go. Same should of happened. Not that I agree in the slightest with you comments on media spin, but I still can't see anything you say justifying why he should be sentenced to death?" Suppose it was a bit too far. Agree with me on the loyalty. Give me something | |||
| |||
"Im just about to watch Marine A: The Inside Story from the other night" Make sure you put up your opinion | |||
"I watched a recent program on the SAS. The men interviewed were asked, how they felt being fired upon by child soldiers, in a conflict area. The ex SAS member replied "I don't see a child, I see a target. I don't have time to think about who, what, why. I shoot and I kill, and I complete my job". It was made clear, that those firing upon him or his colleagues, are targets to eliminate, and ensure a job is completed. Cool story. But as the guy that was killed by the maribe was unarmed and defenseless I really don't see how it's comparable to this scenario?" It's war, or conflict zones. Call it what you will.. The various regiments, have differing attitudes to the GC. But they have the same tasks, and face the same reasoning. An interview with SAS member of team who rescued the London embassy hostages, commented that when they were removing all people from the building, they were going to kill all the terrorists, and asked who was who. They identified the remaining terrorist and took him to rear of building to slot him, then saw the media cameras, so they couldn't. He, expressed disappointment. My point being, the person was a target. He was part of a group attacking the position, they called in a helicopter gunship, and if he was alive or dying, he was unlikely to be, or was, after that bombardment. The unarmed claim, was his weapon destroyed by the helicopter attack? This bit has been bandied about quite a lot, but it's a serious question. He was armed and firing beforehand. Reporting as killed "unarmed" adds to the moral emotion, whereas the question remains, was his weapon destroyed by the gunship salvo? Marine A, snapped. Acted in a manner which, some find abhorrent, others, so what. I understand, that others in the atrol, would have acted in the same manner. The task was to remove the problem. They did. Faced with the same position, circumstances and 24/7 pressures, would you waste time with a bandage, for someone who was trying to kill you or your colleagues, earlier? The same group, who'd achieved kills against same colleagues and friends? Soldiers on the ground don't have the luxury of flying in planes, or sailing on warships, firing missiles. Soldiers on the ground, do the shitty dirty horrible stuff, that no one likes to read. They have to look people in the eyes, and squeeze triggers. I think it's naive to think ruthless disposal, has not occurred elsewhere. It's war. The crime was being caught on film. | |||
"I watched a recent program on the SAS. The men interviewed were asked, how they felt being fired upon by child soldiers, in a conflict area. The ex SAS member replied "I don't see a child, I see a target. I don't have time to think about who, what, why. I shoot and I kill, and I complete my job". It was made clear, that those firing upon him or his colleagues, are targets to eliminate, and ensure a job is completed. Cool story. But as the guy that was killed by the maribe was unarmed and defenseless I really don't see how it's comparable to this scenario? It's war, or conflict zones. Call it what you will.. The various regiments, have differing attitudes to the GC. But they have the same tasks, and face the same reasoning. An interview with SAS member of team who rescued the London embassy hostages, commented that when they were removing all people from the building, they were going to kill all the terrorists, and asked who was who. They identified the remaining terrorist and took him to rear of building to slot him, then saw the media cameras, so they couldn't. He, expressed disappointment. My point being, the person was a target. He was part of a group attacking the position, they called in a helicopter gunship, and if he was alive or dying, he was unlikely to be, or was, after that bombardment. The unarmed claim, was his weapon destroyed by the helicopter attack? This bit has been bandied about quite a lot, but it's a serious question. He was armed and firing beforehand. Reporting as killed "unarmed" adds to the moral emotion, whereas the question remains, was his weapon destroyed by the gunship salvo? Marine A, snapped. Acted in a manner which, some find abhorrent, others, so what. I understand, that others in the atrol, would have acted in the same manner. The task was to remove the problem. They did. Faced with the same position, circumstances and 24/7 pressures, would you waste time with a bandage, for someone who was trying to kill you or your colleagues, earlier? The same group, who'd achieved kills against same colleagues and friends? Soldiers on the ground don't have the luxury of flying in planes, or sailing on warships, firing missiles. Soldiers on the ground, do the shitty dirty horrible stuff, that no one likes to read. They have to look people in the eyes, and squeeze triggers. I think it's naive to think ruthless disposal, has not occurred elsewhere. It's war. The crime was being caught on film." They reckon that if it was the other way round ie the marine was a POW. His life would of been spared hahaha. The media thought it was a random bag and tag. Made it out that the chogi was a village elder. Brilliant | |||
"wasn't he a professional murderer anyhow? isn't that what folk do in war? murder each other? i mean it's approved and sanctioned by government or whatever so they get to call it something else to make themselves feel more justified but it's still just murder ". By act yes,legally there a world apart otherwise you could say everybody who works for dignitas in Switzerland? is a murderer. We train people to kill other people who we sanction as dangerous, we train them to have no remorse and no pity, nobody trains you to do a leg shot in the army or wound so you can save, your there to kill people as efficiently as possible and yet we save our moral outrage for one man who goes to far,not over his training but from over his command. It wasnt a good thing but it was an expected thing considering circumstances and that was the reason for the lowering of his sentence. Im happy with that | |||
"I watched it on bbc1 yesterday and I cant see he did anything wrong, they have to make sure he was dead, as otherwise they would put all the other military guys at risk." If he had walked on and the guy had got up and killed him and his mates, wouldn't that have been worse? It's a war, and people get killed in wars, whether we like it or not. If we insist on prosecuting soldiers who put their lives on the line to protect us, then very soon we won't have any men who want to join up and have the 'other side' shoot at them and not be able to fight back without fear of prosecution. We should be supporting all our uniformed men and women who protect us and our way of life as we know it, not dragging them through Court proceedings. I personally hope he doesn't serve any time for the alleged 'crime' and someone gives him a medal. | |||
"wasn't he a professional murderer anyhow? isn't that what folk do in war? murder each other? i mean it's approved and sanctioned by government or whatever so they get to call it something else to make themselves feel more justified but it's still just murder .
By act yes,legally there a world apart otherwise you could say everybody who works for dignitas in Switzerland? is a murderer.
We train people to kill other people who we sanction as dangerous, we train them to have no remorse and no pity, nobody trains you to do a leg shot in the army or wound so you can save, your there to kill people as efficiently as possible and yet we save our moral outrage for one man who goes to far,not over his training but from over his command.
It wasnt a good thing but it was an expected thing considering circumstances and that was the reason for the lowering of his sentence.
Im happy with that
"British soldiers are trained to kill but also should be disciplined to know the rules of engagement. The basic facts are that the marine broke these well defined rules which are drummed into soldiers from the first stages of basic training. Let's keep our forces the best in the world and not let the discipline slip. Ex training NCO. Ex infantry soldier. 1 Queens / 2 Pwrr. | |||
"I watched a recent program on the SAS. The men interviewed were asked, how they felt being fired upon by child soldiers, in a conflict area. The ex SAS member replied "I don't see a child, I see a target. I don't have time to think about who, what, why. I shoot and I kill, and I complete my job". It was made clear, that those firing upon him or his colleagues, are targets to eliminate, and ensure a job is completed. Cool story. But as the guy that was killed by the maribe was unarmed and defenseless I really don't see how it's comparable to this scenario? It's war, or conflict zones. Call it what you will.. The various regiments, have differing attitudes to the GC. But they have the same tasks, and face the same reasoning. An interview with SAS member of team who rescued the London embassy hostages, commented that when they were removing all people from the building, they were going to kill all the terrorists, and asked who was who. They identified the remaining terrorist and took him to rear of building to slot him, then saw the media cameras, so they couldn't. He, expressed disappointment. My point being, the person was a target. He was part of a group attacking the position, they called in a helicopter gunship, and if he was alive or dying, he was unlikely to be, or was, after that bombardment. The unarmed claim, was his weapon destroyed by the helicopter attack? This bit has been bandied about quite a lot, but it's a serious question. He was armed and firing beforehand. Reporting as killed "unarmed" adds to the moral emotion, whereas the question remains, was his weapon destroyed by the gunship salvo? Marine A, snapped. Acted in a manner which, some find abhorrent, others, so what. I understand, that others in the atrol, would have acted in the same manner. The task was to remove the problem. They did. Faced with the same position, circumstances and 24/7 pressures, would you waste time with a bandage, for someone who was trying to kill you or your colleagues, earlier? The same group, who'd achieved kills against same colleagues and friends? Soldiers on the ground don't have the luxury of flying in planes, or sailing on warships, firing missiles. Soldiers on the ground, do the shitty dirty horrible stuff, that no one likes to read. They have to look people in the eyes, and squeeze triggers. I think it's naive to think ruthless disposal, has not occurred elsewhere. It's war. The crime was being caught on film. They reckon that if it was the other way round ie the marine was a POW. His life would of been spared hahaha. The media thought it was a random bag and tag. Made it out that the chogi was a village elder. Brilliant " And if he had been made a POW, next time his family would have seen him would have been in a video, dressed in an orange/red jump suit and waiting to be beheaded...probably on camera too for his family to watch. Let's not get too sentimental and lose sight that we are fighting a war against terrorism. | |||
"I watched a recent program on the SAS. The men interviewed were asked, how they felt being fired upon by child soldiers, in a conflict area. The ex SAS member replied "I don't see a child, I see a target. I don't have time to think about who, what, why. I shoot and I kill, and I complete my job". It was made clear, that those firing upon him or his colleagues, are targets to eliminate, and ensure a job is completed. Cool story. But as the guy that was killed by the maribe was unarmed and defenseless I really don't see how it's comparable to this scenario? It's war, or conflict zones. Call it what you will.. The various regiments, have differing attitudes to the GC. But they have the same tasks, and face the same reasoning. An interview with SAS member of team who rescued the London embassy hostages, commented that when they were removing all people from the building, they were going to kill all the terrorists, and asked who was who. They identified the remaining terrorist and took him to rear of building to slot him, then saw the media cameras, so they couldn't. He, expressed disappointment. My point being, the person was a target. He was part of a group attacking the position, they called in a helicopter gunship, and if he was alive or dying, he was unlikely to be, or was, after that bombardment. The unarmed claim, was his weapon destroyed by the helicopter attack? This bit has been bandied about quite a lot, but it's a serious question. He was armed and firing beforehand. Reporting as killed "unarmed" adds to the moral emotion, whereas the question remains, was his weapon destroyed by the gunship salvo? Marine A, snapped. Acted in a manner which, some find abhorrent, others, so what. I understand, that others in the atrol, would have acted in the same manner. The task was to remove the problem. They did. Faced with the same position, circumstances and 24/7 pressures, would you waste time with a bandage, for someone who was trying to kill you or your colleagues, earlier? The same group, who'd achieved kills against same colleagues and friends? Soldiers on the ground don't have the luxury of flying in planes, or sailing on warships, firing missiles. Soldiers on the ground, do the shitty dirty horrible stuff, that no one likes to read. They have to look people in the eyes, and squeeze triggers. I think it's naive to think ruthless disposal, has not occurred elsewhere. It's war. The crime was being caught on film. They reckon that if it was the other way round ie the marine was a POW. His life would of been spared hahaha. The media thought it was a random bag and tag. Made it out that the chogi was a village elder. Brilliant And if he had been made a POW, next time his family would have seen him would have been in a video, dressed in an orange/red jump suit and waiting to be beheaded...probably on camera too for his family to watch. Let's not get too sentimental and lose sight that we are fighting a war against terrorism. " And with that mentality you're creating a breeding ground for it. | |||
"The guy deserves a medal not a prison cell !! Fact He's no hero.. he is a murder... Shall we give Fred West a medal while we are at it? It's an idiotic comparison. To operate in a 24/7 war zone, with an under manned outpost, difficult defensive position, sleeping in a shipping container, operating in extreme temperatures (50 degrees or so) and having to take twice daily patrols, to ensure safety, a high casualty rate, including deaths, for 6 months, and then encounter someone who was moments before, attacking your position to kill. He snapped and acted accordingly. Fred West was a sexual predator a prolific serial killer of children, with some patio skills." Exactly. Very well articulated. | |||
"wasn't he a professional murderer anyhow? isn't that what folk do in war? murder each other? i mean it's approved and sanctioned by government or whatever so they get to call it something else to make themselves feel more justified but it's still just murder .
By act yes,legally there a world apart otherwise you could say everybody who works for dignitas in Switzerland? is a murderer.
We train people to kill other people who we sanction as dangerous, we train them to have no remorse and no pity, nobody trains you to do a leg shot in the army or wound so you can save, your there to kill people as efficiently as possible and yet we save our moral outrage for one man who goes to far,not over his training but from over his command.
It wasnt a good thing but it was an expected thing considering circumstances and that was the reason for the lowering of his sentence.
Im happy with that
British soldiers are trained to kill but also should be disciplined to know the rules of engagement. The basic facts are that the marine broke these well defined rules which are drummed into soldiers from the first stages of basic training. Let's keep our forces the best in the world and not let the discipline slip.
Ex training NCO. Ex infantry soldier. 1 Queens / 2 Pwrr.". I absolutely agree thats why i said i was happy with his sentence bring lowered and not quashed. He did wrong but i dont think hes a murderer or deserved an overly long prison sentence. I think this was a fair compromise | |||
| |||
| |||
"Do we actually know for definite he was suffering mental health problems when he gleefully executed this inured unarmed man in cold blood? Or has this been fabricated by him and his advisors/solicitors to get him off the hook? Just a thought ?" . Actually, you could experience his mental state for yourself. Join the army and get posted to somewhere hot with sand, IEDs, roadside bombs and snipers on every corner. Stay there 6 months then tell us how you feel. | |||
"Do we actually know for definite he was suffering mental health problems when he gleefully executed this inured unarmed man in cold blood? Or has this been fabricated by him and his advisors/solicitors to get him off the hook? Just a thought ?" anything on the grounds of diminished responsibility is hard to prove, so therefore the case the put in front of then would have to be a compelling one.... | |||
| |||
"Yesterday, the Appeal Court, overturned Sergeant Alexander Blackman's conviction for murder on a battlefield, with manslaughter, on the grounds of diminished responsibility. I'm pleased, and I'm hopeful the man is released from prison, as early as next week. He was a victim of political spin. Walk a mile in that mans shoes, before you judge him. " I'll try again! Best way to demoralise yr army. I think it's disgusting how he's been treated But then I've lived the army life. Civvies wouldn't believe the half of it | |||
"Do we actually know for definite he was suffering mental health problems when he gleefully executed this inured unarmed man in cold blood? Or has this been fabricated by him and his advisors/solicitors to get him off the hook? Just a thought ?" I guess if you've seen half a dozen of your close buddies blown to smithereens in front of yours eyes yr going to be dealing with some kind of mental issues | |||
"Similar thread, evoked quite strong views, a month or so ago. From ex military, who'd served in some of he worst war zones and trouble spots, and their respective views, to civilians, with differing opinions. Each to their own. It certainly divides opinions. Mines pretty clear." Never served due to an injury, but I back the guy. He made a judgement with what he saw and experiencing at the time, who are we to judge the guy. | |||
" Never served due to an injury, but I back the guy. He made a judgement with what he saw and experiencing at the time, who are we to judge the guy." who are we to judge? can we judge using the first words he used after he did what he did? "guys, I have just broken the geneva convention" so whether you call it murder, or manslaughter...... the fact remains he killed a person unlawfully i'll buy there may have been circumstances that led up to what he did.... the fact remains he killed a person unlawfully.... and some people here are so blinded and refuse to acknowledge that he killed a person unlawfully they want to give him a medal.... thats shocking..... his wife accepts the new verdict... his legal team accept the new verdict..... | |||
