|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 29, 2017 7:24:27 GMT
Common sense prevails at last  , should never have been charged. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 29, 2017 7:29:44 GMT
He was wrong. He was filmed doing wrong. He said on film he was doing wrong.
I have no sympathy for him what so ever.
The reason British troops are generally respected is because they fight by the rules. And are normally fair and humane as you can be in battle. There is a strict code of engagement they adhere to in combat and treatment of combatants.
There have been odd incidents that have been correctly punished. This incident falls into the same. He should have known better and as a leader showed a poor example.
The organised support for this case shows a lack of understanding of the morality of war.
Murder or manslaughter that's up to the courts but in this case he is an extremely lucky man.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Mar 29, 2017 7:42:35 GMT
I can't agree with you, Salop. It's all well & good if we're talking about two professional fighting units going head-to-head in a traditional war where both sides stick to the rules. This case is nothing like that though, and therefore, in my opinion, you can't judge it by the same standards.
|
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 29, 2017 7:50:56 GMT
He was wrong. He was filmed doing wrong. He said on film he was doing wrong. I have no sympathy for him what so ever. The reason British troops are generally respected is because they fight by the rules. And are normally fair and humane as you can be in battle. There is a strict code of engagement they adhere to in combat and treatment of combatants. There have been odd incidents that have been correctly punished. This incident falls into the same. He should have known better and as a leader showed a poor example. The organised support for this case shows a lack of understanding of the morality of war. Murder or manslaughter that's up to the courts but in this case he is an extremely lucky man. It's a correct view in general but listening to the background the army put him and his colleagues in an intolerable situation for months on end with no support. It sounds like he committed the act with his mind frazzelled and on the very edge of reason. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Mar 29, 2017 8:50:04 GMT
He was wrong. He was filmed doing wrong. He said on film he was doing wrong. I have no sympathy for him what so ever. The reason British troops are generally respected is because they fight by the rules. And are normally fair and humane as you can be in battle. There is a strict code of engagement they adhere to in combat and treatment of combatants. There have been odd incidents that have been correctly punished. This incident falls into the same. He should have known better and as a leader showed a poor example. The organised support for this case shows a lack of understanding of the morality of war. Murder or manslaughter that's up to the courts but in this case he is an extremely lucky man. It's a correct view in general but listening to the background the army put him and his colleagues in an intolerable situation for months on end with no support. It sounds like he committed the act with his mind frazzelled and on the very edge of reason. Listening to the tape he is very clear he knows what he has done, he mentions just seconds after killing the prisoner, he has just broken the Geneva convention. He's a very lucky man as Salop says. |
|
|
|
Post by Skankmonkey on Mar 29, 2017 8:59:57 GMT
Salop's right. We treat prisoners humanely. If we kill prisoners the rest will stop surrendering, continue fighting and cost our side unnecessary casualties.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 29, 2017 9:37:09 GMT
I can't agree with you, Salop. It's all well & good if we're talking about two professional fighting units going head-to-head in a traditional war where both sides stick to the rules. This case is nothing like that though, and therefore, in my opinion, you can't judge it by the same standards. We normally don't and should not stoop to the lowest level. Regardless of the previous situation the British forces usually rise above all the back ground shit and get on with the job professionally. |
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Mar 29, 2017 9:56:15 GMT
I can't agree with you, Salop. It's all well & good if we're talking about two professional fighting units going head-to-head in a traditional war where both sides stick to the rules. This case is nothing like that though, and therefore, in my opinion, you can't judge it by the same standards. We normally don't and should not stoop to the lowest level. Regardless of the previous situation the British forces usually rise above all the back ground shit and get on with the job professionally. As you said earlier, it's exactly that professionalism that marks us out as one of the best and most respected armed forces around. If people think we should now chop and change the rules and our standards as and when we see fit, then that opens up the playing field to our men and women being allowed to act as they please as long as they think they have a valid excuse to back it up. Certainly not the way i think any of us want it to go really. Pretty sure in a hell of a lot of conflicts there are sides that don't "stick to the rules", it's not as if this situation is unique in that respect. "The court martial heard that Blackman used abusive language and said: "There you are. Shuffle off this mortal coil." He then turned to his comrades and said: "obviously this doesn't go anywhere, fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention". That isn't something that happened as a spur of the moment thing in a combat situation where he or his men were being imminently threatened with their lives by the man who he shot...they had already seriously wounded him, knew he no longer posed a threat (hence not needing to commit this act from a safe distance), found him then went up specifically to kill him at close range. Our servicemen and women are incredible people putting their lives on the line for our safety, but that doesn't (and shouldn't) excuse them from rules, regulations and laws that are laid down for everyone to follow. They can't just go around doing whatever the fuck they please, we're better than that! |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Mar 30, 2017 14:39:22 GMT
I can't agree with you, Salop. It's all well & good if we're talking about two professional fighting units going head-to-head in a traditional war where both sides stick to the rules. This case is nothing like that though, and therefore, in my opinion, you can't judge it by the same standards. We normally don't and should not stoop to the lowest level. Regardless of the previous situation the British forces usually rise above all the back ground shit and get on with the job professionally. Mate I bow to your obvious experiences. When I heard the tape saying " anyone want to give this idiot 1st aid ? " I lost all sympathy for him . Shooting a wounded man is barbaric imo |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2017 15:12:48 GMT
I think given the situation that they were in, the murder charge was maybe excessive, manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, especially given his diagnosis of PTSD was more realistic.
He will be out in a couple of weeks, and although 2 rights don't make a wrong, and yes, we are more civilized than the Taliban, would a Taliban fighter be punished by his regime for doing the same, well, we all know the answer to that, but I do not condone his actions, though I do appreciate the extenuating circumstances that led to his crime.
Question now is will he be entitled to any compo, probably not, given the fact that he was found guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter.
|
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 30, 2017 17:28:29 GMT
I think given the situation that they were in, the murder charge was maybe excessive, manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, especially given his diagnosis of PTSD was more realistic. He will be out in a couple of weeks, and although 2 rights don't make a wrong, and yes, we are more civilized than the Taliban, would a Taliban fighter be punished by his regime for doing the same, well, we all know the answer to that, but I do not condone his actions, though I do appreciate the extenuating circumstances that led to his crime. Question now is will he be entitled to any compo, probably not, given the fact that he was found guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter. No doubt the dead Taliban's family will be suing the MOD and been paid out. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 30, 2017 17:39:18 GMT
I think given the situation that they were in, the murder charge was maybe excessive, manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, especially given his diagnosis of PTSD was more realistic. He will be out in a couple of weeks, and although 2 rights don't make a wrong, and yes, we are more civilized than the Taliban, would a Taliban fighter be punished by his regime for doing the same, well, we all know the answer to that, but I do not condone his actions, though I do appreciate the extenuating circumstances that led to his crime. Question now is will he be entitled to any compo, probably not, given the fact that he was found guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter. No doubt the dead Taliban's family will be suing the MOD and been paid out. Unfortunately they have a valid case |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 30, 2017 17:40:18 GMT
I think given the situation that they were in, the murder charge was maybe excessive, manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, especially given his diagnosis of PTSD was more realistic. He will be out in a couple of weeks, and although 2 rights don't make a wrong, and yes, we are more civilized than the Taliban, would a Taliban fighter be punished by his regime for doing the same, well, we all know the answer to that, but I do not condone his actions, though I do appreciate the extenuating circumstances that led to his crime. Question now is will he be entitled to any compo, probably not, given the fact that he was found guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter. you can't judge the case on what would the enemy do. The case is the laws for U.K. Military |
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Mar 30, 2017 17:58:50 GMT
If this had been against, lets just say France for arguements sake, and this same thing happened then yes, it's wrong & he deserves to be punished for it.
But if the French had one of our guys in that position they'd have called the medics in, took him in as a POW, fed him, treated him right, and at the end of the war handed him back over.... Just like I'd expect us to do to the French... That's where all your 'respect' & 'values' come into it.
If them terrorist fucks had our guy in that situation we have a whole heap of evidence asto what they'd do. Machine gun them as they parachute down, put them in a cage & set them on fire, bury them upto their necks & run them over with a bulldozer, put them in a row & behead them one by one etc... Go on Liveleak the videos are there for everyone to see.
This shit about 'treat them right & they'll surrender' or 'They'll treat us right', do you think these fucks give a toss? If some Taliban/ISIS/whoever wave a white flag - Which they never would! They fight to the death due to their warped ideology. Take this fucker in as a POW & the first chance he gets he'll kill anyone near him. They're not a professional fighting unit doing their job, it's a fucked up ideology where the death & destruction of the 'unbelievers' is all that matters.
Mr.Blackman should be praised for showing such restraint by just shooting the scumbag fucker, 'cos I'd have happily spent a good half an hour punching his fucking face into the ground beneath him.
Laws are no use when only you are obeying them.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 30, 2017 18:11:19 GMT
You cannot base your morals on what others would do.
You have a law and stick to it regardless of the enemy. We are better than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Mar 30, 2017 18:18:59 GMT
You cannot base your morals on what others would do. You have a law and stick to it regardless of the enemy. We are better than that. Is this 'obey the law at all times' just for the army, Salop? Or is it different on 'civi street'? |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 30, 2017 18:21:44 GMT
You cannot base your morals on what others would do. You have a law and stick to it regardless of the enemy. We are better than that. Is this 'obey the law at all times' just for the army, Salop? Or is it different on 'civi street'? I'm talking about this case. He knew the rules. Our rules are for us regardless of what the enemy chooses to do |
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Mar 30, 2017 18:23:11 GMT
I'm glad I'm not alone in feeling really uneasy about the verdict. Surely most soldiers experience terrible things in war, but can we condone what was basically an execution? We would have to condone atrocities committed by the Nazis or American soldiers in Vietnam.
|
|
|
|
Post by samba :) on Mar 30, 2017 18:34:47 GMT
He was wrong. He was filmed doing wrong. He said on film he was doing wrong. I have no sympathy for him what so ever. The reason British troops are generally respected is because they fight by the rules. And are normally fair and humane as you can be in battle. There is a strict code of engagement they adhere to in combat and treatment of combatants. There have been odd incidents that have been correctly punished. This incident falls into the same. He should have known better and as a leader showed a poor example. The organised support for this case shows a lack of understanding of the morality of war. Murder or manslaughter that's up to the courts but in this case he is an extremely lucky man. fighting by the rules, for example the british empire |
|
|
|
Post by samba :) on Mar 30, 2017 18:34:59 GMT
Oh wait
|
|
|
|
Post by Dutchpeter on Mar 30, 2017 19:04:14 GMT
Sometimes there are more to things than you'd ever know. This was a correct decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Mar 30, 2017 19:15:24 GMT
Common sense prevails at last , should never have been charged. Based on the replies you've received, particularly the excellent one from Salop, can you state your reasons why you think he should never have been charged? |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 30, 2017 19:19:01 GMT
Is this 'obey the law at all times' just for the army, Salop? Or is it different on 'civi street'? I'm talking about this case. He knew the rules. Our rules are for us regardless of what the enemy chooses to do I'm presuming you know this case inside and out and in pure black and white terms I completely agree with you. I did however take the trouble to listen to his lawyer commenting in detail after the case about the circumstances which led to this situation. Do you think the lawyer was spinning the truth or did the army support for this man before, during and after fall short of what's expected from an employer? |
|
|
|
Post by Dutchpeter on Mar 30, 2017 19:21:08 GMT
I'm talking about this case. He knew the rules. Our rules are for us regardless of what the enemy chooses to do I'm presuming you know this case inside and out and in pure black and white terms I completely agree with you. I did however take the trouble to listen to his lawyer commenting in detail after the case about the circumstances which led to this situation. Do you think the lawyer was spinning the truth or did the army support for this man before, during and after fall short of what's expected from an employer? He was under Navy command, as he was a Royal Marine just to clarify. |
|
|
|
Post by StokieNath on Mar 30, 2017 20:08:11 GMT
I'm torn with this to be honest.
The law of the land states no prisoner of war should be killed.
It was a barbaric slaughter if im honest and to say on film that hes broke the Geneva convention.
Very lucky man.
However, the Geneva convention isn't followed by terrorist groups such as the Taliban or Al-Shabab.
If there wasn't such a big protest over the mans arrest then I do think he wouldn't have had it overturned.
Im happy for his family though, but he'll live with the decision he made to end a surrendered life.
|
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Mar 30, 2017 20:20:43 GMT
I'm all for giving soldiers the benefit of the doubt in what must be trying and unique circumstances, but I can't see where the doubt is on this one.
He has been filmed shooting the Taliban fighter at point blank range after he had been disarmed, then admitting that he's broken the recognised rules.
If he was let down by his seniors then they must take some of the blame as well, but it doesn't make him not guilty.
|
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 30, 2017 20:29:01 GMT
I'm torn with this to be honest. The law of the land states no prisoner of war should be killed. It was a barbaric slaughter if im honest and to say on film that hes broke the Geneva convention. Very lucky man. However, the Geneva convention isn't followed by terrorist groups such as the Taliban or Al-Shabab. If there wasn't such a big protest over the mans arrest then I do think he wouldn't have had it overturned. Im happy for his family though, but he'll live with the decision he made to end a surrendered life. The scum bag he executed was a terrorist, not sure they are covered under the Geneva convention pretty sure they would not have signed up to it, terrorists should only be taken alive for interrogation purposes after been hit by a substantially sized high velocity round fired from a helicopter gun ship I am pretty sure he would not have had a great deal to say. These so called people had been using cowardly terrorist methods to slaughter and maim our troops, should they expect any mercy ? |
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 30, 2017 20:30:22 GMT
I'm all for giving soldiers the benefit of the doubt in what must be trying and unique circumstances, but I can't see where the doubt is on this one. He has been filmed shooting the ISIS fighter at point blank range after he had been disarmed, then admitting that he's broken the recognised rules. If he was let down by his seniors then they must take some of the blame as well, but it doesn't make him not guilty. ISIS fighter ??????? wrong fcuking conflict  though he was a terrorist and possibly a Muslim one. |
|
|
|
Post by StokieNath on Mar 30, 2017 20:33:50 GMT
I'm torn with this to be honest. The law of the land states no prisoner of war should be killed. It was a barbaric slaughter if im honest and to say on film that hes broke the Geneva convention. Very lucky man. However, the Geneva convention isn't followed by terrorist groups such as the Taliban or Al-Shabab. If there wasn't such a big protest over the mans arrest then I do think he wouldn't have had it overturned. Im happy for his family though, but he'll live with the decision he made to end a surrendered life. The scum bag he executed was a terrorist, not sure they are covered under the Geneva convention pretty sure they would not have signed up to it, terrorists should only be taken alive for interrogation purposes after been hit by a substantially sized high velocity round fired from a helicopter gun ship I am pretty sure he would not have had a great deal to say. These so called people had been using cowardly terrorist methods to slaughter and maim our troops, should they expect any mercy ? They are covered yes once taken prisoner by other forces. I suspect most fighters dont know of this or choose to pretend not to understand it. British troops are educated on what it is and how it works. As ive said, he's a really lucky bloke. |
|
|
|
Post by StokieNath on Mar 30, 2017 20:38:04 GMT
I'm all for giving soldiers the benefit of the doubt in what must be trying and unique circumstances, but I can't see where the doubt is on this one. He has been filmed shooting the ISIS fighter at point blank range after he had been disarmed, then admitting that he's broken the recognised rules. If he was let down by his seniors then they must take some of the blame as well, but it doesn't make him not guilty. Blackmans solicitor mentioned this. Wrong IMO how they tried to turn the tables over an individuals rash decision. His seniors wouldn't have said "Go and kill some cunts then". The judge was having none of it though. |
|
, should never have been charged.
though he was a terrorist and possibly a Muslim one.
