# Marine A - Right or wrong?



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 16, 2016)

Just read this article, what is the general consensus of opinion on here?

Should a soldier be charged with murder/manslaughter for shooting an injured enemy on the battlefield? Does the fact that if the Taliban fighter had done the same thing he would not have been prosecuted by his superiors make a difference?

Not taking sides, just posing the question!


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38338951


----------



## Beezerk (Dec 16, 2016)

Ain't read the article but wasn't the Taliban soldier on the floor and badly wounded?
Marine A should get everything he deserves if so, it's murder pure and simple. The fact the Taliban's superiors may have done nothing, well it means nothing IMO.


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 16, 2016)

Yes correct he was wounded on the ground. 

Devils advocate......what if the guy had survived and recovered then went on to kill British soldiers?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Dec 16, 2016)

I think you have to treat the enemy as you would want to be treated. That is the point of the Geneva Convention isn't it? Just because they don't play be the rules doesn't mean we drop to their level.

The complication in this case is the psycholigical aspect. I don't know enough about the case to understand the state he was in but his wife is claiming he had ptsd and so should not have been there.

Looking at the raw facts, it looks very bad.


----------



## Beezerk (Dec 16, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Devils advocate......what if the guy had survived and recovered then went on to kill British soldiers?
		
Click to expand...

It's not really an argument is it, he's dead and in the ground. And besides you can't say what the soldier had gone on to do had he survived.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 16, 2016)

One of things our military prides itself in is following the Rules of Engagement and Geneva Convention 

Marine A broke both 

The Taliban fighter was on the floor injured and caused no immediate threat to life - first aid should have been administered to the best of their abilities and then he should have been evacuated to further first aid and then dealt with properly by the authorities 

Marine A was clearly guilty of manslaughter at the very least 

Rules of Engagement and Geneva Convention doesn't cover "what if he then later in life goes onto kill" - that's not a justification for what he did 

The public and the red tops have jumped on the bandwagon with demands he be released etc and it's wrong - he committed a crime and should serve the punishment for that crime 

Aside from that I do have a problem with certain lawyers chasing cases looking to earn big money


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 16, 2016)

Yep, all fair comments.

So we pick up the injured extremists, treat them in hospital until better, jail them for 5 years then release them to go back into the battlefield?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

Disgraceful treatment of a hero, should be freed immediately.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Dec 16, 2016)

In cases like this the question of bail pending the appeal should be decided based on whether it's likely the original decision will change. If there is a reasonable prospect then I can see the merit. It's a legal decision at the end of the day not a moral or emotional one. If the people who decide these things think it's appropriate then I'll go with that.......if they don't I'll be happy with that too.


----------



## Coffey (Dec 16, 2016)

Its obviously wrong to shoot an injured person at point blank range. But I guess you need to consider what he has seen on the battlefield and what the Taliban could have done to his friends and fellow soldiers. Its easy to say its wrong and should have done xyz from behind a computer screen. 

Not defending his actions in anyway as it is 100% wrong to do that, but just putting another side the argument which 99% of us will never experience.


----------



## Beezerk (Dec 16, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Yep, all fair comments.

So we pick up the injured extremists, treat them in hospital until better, jail them for 5 years then release them to go back into the battlefield?
		
Click to expand...

If that's what the law says, yes.
Alternatively he could go back to his wife and kids, settle down and become a pig farmer with a very bad limp.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 16, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Yep, all fair comments.

So we pick up the injured extremists, treat them in hospital until better, jail them for 5 years then release them to go back into the battlefield?
		
Click to expand...

That's up to the courts to decide 

The solider on the ground doesn't have the right to be judge and jury 

And Paul - Heroes don't shoot unarmed injured people lying on the floor


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 16, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Disgraceful treatment of a hero, should be freed immediately.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, No!



Liverpoolphil said:



			One of things our military prides itself in is following the Rules of Engagement and Geneva Convention 

Marine A broke both 

The Taliban fighter was on the floor injured and caused no immediate threat to life - first aid should have been administered to the best of their abilities and then he should have been evacuated to further first aid and then dealt with properly by the authorities 

Marine A was clearly guilty of manslaughter at the very least 

Rules of Engagement and Geneva Convention doesn't cover "what if he then later in life goes onto kill" - that's not a justification for what he did 

The public and the red tops have jumped on the bandwagon with demands he be released etc and it's wrong - he committed a crime and should serve the punishment for that crime 

Aside from that I do have a problem with certain lawyers chasing cases looking to earn big money
		
Click to expand...

I'm with this!

The PTSD argument is certainly a mitigating one though!


----------



## Robobum (Dec 16, 2016)

I struggle with this one.

Having had to sit and go through the rules of engagement ad nauseum, I know that what he did is absolutely wrong. However, the phrase "walk a mile in his shoes" is never more apt.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 16, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Yep, all fair comments.

So we pick up the injured extremists, treat them in hospital until better, jail them for 5 years then release them to go back into the battlefield?
		
Click to expand...

I don't know the rights and wrongs of it but maybe treating people decently like that can win over some hearts and minds whereas summarily executing them will only harden attitudes?

Could be wishful thinking, of course.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Dec 16, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Yep, all fair comments.

So we pick up the injured extremists, treat them in hospital until better, jail them for 5 years then release them to go back into the battlefield?
		
Click to expand...

I don't know the rights and wrongs of it but maybe treating people decently like that can win over some hearts and minds whereas summarily executing them will only harden attitudes?

Could be wishful thinking, of course.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

Really need to get the facts correct before we make judgements, the armed taliban fighter who'd attacked the Marines had suffered catastrophic injuries and was dying, he put an end to his suffering and done the humane thing.
Sgt A had served his Country for years and had done numerous Operational Tours.
To me he is and will always be hero and this Country once again proves it wants to think the world is a sweet and decent place were bad men don't exist, we should be thanking him, not condemning him.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 16, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Really need to get the facts correct before we make judgements, the armed taliban fighter who'd attacked the Marines had suffered catastrophic injuries and was dying, he put an end to his suffering and done the humane thing.
Sgt A had served his Country for years and had done numerous Operational Tours.
To me he is and will always be hero and this Country once again proves it wants to think the world is a sweet and decent place were bad men don't exist, we should be thanking him, not condemning him.
		
Click to expand...

The Marine doesn't have the authority to "end his suffering " - also it not humane to use the words he did when he shot him , also not humane for all three of them to be kicking him whilst he was injured on the floor. Also doesn't explain why he moved him away from the surveillance ballon that was covering them.

Just because he had served many tours doesn't give someone carte Blanche to administer the law how they sit fit

He failed to follow Rules of Engagement and also Geneva Convention as you yourself know exactly what the means 

We pride ourselves in follow the rules - by acting how the "enemy" does makes us no better than them 

The only mitigating possibly circumstance is PSTD


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The Marine doesn't have the authority to "end his suffering " - also it not humane to use the words he did when he shot him , also not humane for all three of them to be kicking him whilst he was injured on the floor. Also doesn't explain why he moved him away from the surveillance ballon that was covering them.

Just because he had served many tours doesn't give someone carte Blanche to administer the law how they sit fit

He failed to follow Rules of Engagement and also Geneva Convention as you yourself know exactly what the means 

We pride ourselves in follow the rules - by acting how the "enemy" does makes us no better than them 

The only mitigating possibly circumstance is PSTD
		
Click to expand...

I'm fully aware of all that and as far as I'm concerned he was let down by the Government and should not of faced a trial, hero in my book, nothing more, nothing less.
Please let's be silly enough to believe these things go on, someone has to do it and thank god for people like him.
The way the Taliban have treated their own people never mind the amount of lives they've took of ours, you can have as many rules as you like, he deserves a medal.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 16, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			I'm fully aware of all that and as far as I'm concerned he was let down by the Government and should not of faced a trial, hero in my book, nothing more, nothing less.
Please let's be silly enough to believe these things go on, someone has to do it and thank god for people like him.
The way the Taliban have treated their own people never mind the amount of lives they've took of ours, you can have as many rules as you like, he deserves a medal.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry Paul but that's wrong and makes us no better than them even more so if your well aware of his actions - how on earth can he a hero when he did what he did

He acted like a coward and he knew the rules and he broke them - there is a line and you know full well that we don't cross the line - that is what is supposed to seperate us from them. 

Why should he be protected when he has broken the Geneva Convention and Rules of Engagement 

No someone doesn't have to do it at all - we all have to act within our guidelines. 

It's the same with the QLR and their treatment of POWs - lots of outcry that they were heroes should be protected 

Any other criminal activities should soldiers be able to commit and our government protects them ?


----------



## Robobum (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry Paul but that's wrong and makes us no better than them even more so if your well aware of his actions - how on earth can he a hero when he did what he did

He acted like a coward and he knew the rules and he broke them - there is a line and you know full well that we don't cross the line - that is what is supposed to seperate us from them. 

Why should he be protected when he has broken the Geneva Convention and Rules of Engagement 

No someone doesn't have to do it at all - we all have to act within our guidelines. 

It's the same with the QLR and their treatment of POWs - lots of outcry that they were heroes should be protected 

Any other criminal activities should soldiers be able to commit and our government protects them ?
		
Click to expand...

Coward!? 

You must have spent a good deal of time with him to reach that conclusion.


----------



## Dellboy (Dec 16, 2016)

He did wrong and he knew it, an unarmed man was on the floor dying but he instead of trying to help, even if it was in vain, he took out his pistol and murdered him in cold blood.

He should serve life for murder, simple as that.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry Paul but that's wrong and makes us no better than them even more so if your well aware of his actions - how on earth can he a hero when he did what he did

He acted like a coward and he knew the rules and he broke them - there is a line and you know full well that we don't cross the line - that is what is supposed to seperate us from them. 

Why should he be protected when he has broken the Geneva Convention and Rules of Engagement 

No someone doesn't have to do it at all - we all have to act within our guidelines. 

It's the same with the QLR and their treatment of POWs - lots of outcry that they were heroes should be protected 

Any other criminal activities should soldiers be able to commit and our government protects them ?
		
Click to expand...

Wow, just wow, how dare you call him a coward! My definition of cowards were the guys in Afghan who took off their body armour and shot at it to make it look like they'd been fired at after the Taliban attacked the airfield.


----------



## Val (Dec 16, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Disgraceful treatment of a hero, should be freed immediately.
		
Click to expand...

100% agree. Disgusting treatment


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

Dellboy said:



			He did wrong and he knew it, an unarmed man was on the floor dying but he instead of trying to help, even if it was in vain, he took out his pistol and murdered him in cold blood.

He should serve life for murder, simple as that.
		
Click to expand...

Very easy judgement to make sat in the UK and not on the Battlefield, he had been hit by an Apache helicopter, he was not recovering from his wounds, kill them before they kill us, that's simple.


----------



## chrisd (Dec 16, 2016)

There is a book just released where a soldier talked about shooting a soldier who had all his lower intestines blown out and was laying mortally wounded and did the same thing. The point was that he was certain to die a slow agonising death and the special forces guy was being begged to do the best thing - he did and rightly so imo, how could get be guilty of murder?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 16, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Very easy judgement to make sat in the UK and not on the Battlefield, he had been hit by an Apache helicopter, he was not recovering from his wounds,* kill them before they kill us, that's simple.*

Click to expand...

Which Rule of Engagement is that ?

Does being in a battlefield mean our military can ignore the rules and Geneva Convention 

If he was being humane why did he say when he did when he shot him dead ? 

What is the difference between what he did and the war crimes many dictators have done throughout history


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Which Rule of Engagement is that ?
		
Click to expand...

You live in a very black and white world Phil with no grey areas. So the Taliban guy didn't have a rifle in his hands but I bet moments before he had with the intention of killing allied soldiers?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Which Rule of Engagement is that ?

Does being in a battlefield mean our military can ignore the rules and Geneva Convention 

If he was being humane why did he say when he did when he shot him dead ? 

What is the difference between what he did and the war crimes many dictators have done throughout history
		
Click to expand...

Stick your rules of engagement were the sun don't shine, there's a time and place for rules to be broken, we are fighting an enemy who don't play by rules.
Not everything is black and white, we need people like him to do the dirty jobs that need doing.
Please feel free to post a reply when the Taliban recognise the Geneva Convention and abide by them.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 16, 2016)

drive4show said:



			You live in a very black and white world Phil with no grey areas.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but spent 22 years having to work under the Rules of Engagement and Geneva Convention and it's there for a reason - 99% follow those rules and it ensures you are covered. You have to follow those rules to the letter - it ensures you act in the right way - there is no leeway from them. There is no grey area within the Rules Of Engagement


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but spent 22 years having to work under the Rules of Engagement and Geneva Convention and it's there for a reason - 99% follow those rules and it ensures you are covered. You have to follow those rules to the letter - it ensures you act in the right way - there is no leeway from them. There is no grey area within the Rules Of Engagement
		
Click to expand...

And how much of that time was spent staring into the whites of enemy eyes while they pointed a weapon at you? Or were you in a 'safe' area away from conflict where you could weigh everything up before making a decision?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but spent 22 years having to work under the Rules of Engagement and Geneva Convention and it's there for a reason - 99% follow those rules and it ensures you are covered. You have to follow those rules to the letter - it ensures you act in the right way - there is no leeway from them. There is no grey area within the Rules Of Engagement
		
Click to expand...

I spent 36 years working under them and also had to knock on a front door 3 times and tell families their sons had been killed in Iraq and Afghan and another 4 times their sons and daughter were badly injured, if killing that enemy in that field saved one family in the UK, fantastic, 
The man on the ground made a decision, we weren't there, so who are we to judge him.


----------



## hovis (Dec 16, 2016)

so,  your allowed to drop a predator missile on them whilst they,  and their kids eat dinner but God forbid you walk up to one (after you already shot him once)   and finish him off!!!!!!!    crazy


----------



## One Planer (Dec 16, 2016)

Just for clarification.

A highly trained, battle hardened, marine made a decision to neutrilase a combatant he deemed a threat on the battlefield under live fire.

I'm struggling to see the issue.

Could the combatant have a concealed weapon?

Could the combatant have been wearing a suicide vest?

We don't know and at the time I'm sure Marine A didn't either. IMO he did what he thought was best to neutralise a battlefield threat.


----------



## Fish (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but spent 22 years having to work under the Rules of Engagement and Geneva Convention and it's there for a reason - 99% follow those rules and it ensures you are covered. You have to follow those rules to the letter - it ensures you act in the right way - there is no leeway from them. There is no grey area within the Rules Of Engagement
		
Click to expand...

You didn't do enough front line tours to make that statement, the regiment and position you were in in the RAF for 22 years meant you did token/minimum tours and mainly in much safer areas as you weren't trained well enough to get really dirty, but when people like Marine A and other frontline regiments do tours 10/1 more than you within the same period I think you'll find that the 99% you state is nowhere near realistic, it wasn't 99% in the 4 full tours of NI I did during some of the worst troubles, it wasn't in the Falklands, Bosnia, Iraq and many more, some my government wouldn't even admit to sending me/us, so please, lets not read from the book in some ideological fantasy just because you did 22 years, of what I would think was mainly behind a desk!   



drive4show said:



			And how much of that time was spent staring into the whites of enemy eyes while they pointed a weapon at you? Or were you in a 'safe' area away from conflict where you could weigh everything up before making a decision?
		
Click to expand...

Not much.....even our light infantry regiments/battalions do much more than the RAF on the ground and even that is somewhat protected to the areas they are deployed for their own safety, even the cooks have to go out on tour, they've done 22 years also and have to do so much time on the ground to warrant their tour medal, but obviously nothing like the guys they feed, so in the grand scheme of things, the term of service means squat!


----------



## hovis (Dec 16, 2016)

Fish said:



			You didn't do enough front line tours to make that statement, the regiment and position you were in in the RAF for 22 years meant you did token/minimum tours and mainly in much safer areas as you weren't trained well enough to get really dirty, but when people like Marine A and other frontline regiments do tours 10/1 more than you within the same period I think you'll find that the 99% you state is nowhere near realistic, it wasn't 99% in the 4 full tours of NI I did during some of the worst troubles, it wasn't in the Falklands, Bosnia, Iraq and many more, some my government wouldn't even admit to sending me/us, so please, lets not read from the book in some ideological fantasy just because you did 22 years, of what I would think was mainly behind a desk!
		
Click to expand...

light fuse at arms length and retreat to safe distance. &#128512;

this should get interesting


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 16, 2016)

Fish said:



			You didn't do enough front line tours to make that statement, the regiment and position you were in in the RAF for 22 years meant you did token/minimum tours and mainly in much safer areas as you weren't trained well enough to get really dirty, but when people like Marine A and other frontline regiments do tours 10/1 more than you within the same period I think you'll find that the 99% you state is nowhere near realistic, it wasn't 99% in the 4 full tours of NI I did during some of the worst troubles, it wasn't in the Falklands, Bosnia, Iraq and many more, some my government wouldn't even admit to sending me/us, so please, lets not read from the book in some ideological fantasy just because you did 22 years, of what I would think was mainly behind a desk!   



No much.....even our light infantry regiments/battalions do much more than the RAF on the ground and even that is somewhat protected to the areas they are deployed for their own safety, even the cooks have to go out on tour, they've done 22 years also and have to do so much time on the ground to warrant their tour medal, but obviously nothing like the guys they feed, so in the grand scheme of things, the term of service means squat!
		
Click to expand...

You or indeed no one on here knows exactly what or where I have been or not been over the years of my career in the RAF and they certainly weren't 22 years behind a desk but I don't feel the need to discuss or disclose where I need or get into a peeing competition about various careers with the armed forces. My career and where I have been is not the discussion and certainly no one including yourself has the right to dismiss it or indeed attempt to belittle it.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			You or indeed no one on here knows exactly what or where I have been or not been over the years of my career in the RAF and they certainly weren't 22 years behind a desk but I don't feel the need to discuss or disclose where I need or get into a peeing competition about various careers with the armed forces. My career and where I have been is not the discussion and certainly no one including yourself has the right to dismiss it or indeed attempt to belittle it.
		
Click to expand...

And yet you deem it OK to call Sgt Blackman a Coward, unbelievable!


----------



## Robobum (Dec 16, 2016)

Fish said:



			You didn't do enough front line tours to make that statement, the regiment and position you were in in the RAF for 22 years meant you did token/minimum tours and mainly in much safer areas as you weren't trained well enough to get really dirty, but when people like Marine A and other frontline regiments do tours 10/1 more than you within the same period I think you'll find that the 99% you state is nowhere near realistic, it wasn't 99% in the 4 full tours of NI I did during some of the worst troubles, it wasn't in the Falklands, Bosnia, Iraq and many more, some my government wouldn't even admit to sending me/us, so please, lets not read from the book in some ideological fantasy just because you did 22 years, of what I would think was mainly behind a desk!   



Not much.....even our light infantry regiments/battalions do much more than the RAF on the ground and even that is somewhat protected to the areas they are deployed for their own safety, even the cooks have to go out on tour, they've done 22 years also and have to do so much time on the ground to warrant their tour medal, but obviously nothing like the guys they feed, so in the grand scheme of things, the term of service means squat!
		
Click to expand...

Oh boy, do I like this post a lot


----------



## Fish (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



*Sorry but spent 22 years having to work under the Rules of Engagement*

Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			You or indeed no one on here knows exactly what or where I have been or not been over the years of my career in the RAF and they certainly weren't 22 years behind a desk but I don't feel the need to discuss or disclose where I need or get into a peeing competition about various careers with the armed forces. My career and where I have been is not the discussion and certainly no one including yourself has the right to dismiss it or indeed attempt to belittle it.
		
Click to expand...

This statement though say's otherwise, it gives the impression to those not knowing the roles of RAF personnel who were mainly in administration or training/computer roles that they played just as much an equal role and did as many tours in hot spots than those in other regiments like Marine A, which in simple terms is, utter garbage!

Now if you were in the RAF Regiment now that would be different, but I know you weren't just by looking at you and the opinions you give, I've met some of them and they were proper soldiers, akin to the Para's & Marine's.

A cook could come on here and make the same unqualified statement and attempt to back it up by stating they've done 22 years, that's no different to you IMO.

I'm not belittling anyone, but don't start turning into Walter Mitty!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 16, 2016)

Fish said:



			This statement though say's otherwise, it gives the impression to those not knowing the roles of RAF personnel who were mainly in administration or training/computer roles that they played just as much an equal role and did as many tours in hot spots than those in other regiments like Marine A, which in simple terms is, utter garbage!

Now if you were in the RAF Regiment now that would be different, but I know you weren't just by looking at you and the opinions you give, I've met some of them and they were proper soldiers, akin to the Para's & Marine's.

A cook could come on here and make the same unqualified statement and attempt to back it up by stating they've done 22 years, that's no different to you IMO.

I'm not belittling anyone, but don't start turning into Walter Mitty!
		
Click to expand...

Anytime anyone in any service handles a weapon they must handle that weapon under the Rules of Engagement whether that be in exercise or on guard or on Ops 

The make up of the military and their roles within Ops has changed dramatically since 2001 and many many people across the forces have spent many months in the Ops area either in the FOBs or the MOBs including Admins and Cooks because everyone became a solider first and trade person second 

I havent suggested anything about any time I did or didn't do on Ops nor any "Walter Mitty" type suggestions 

And suggesting that RAF are mainly admin/computer roles is widely false


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Anytime anyone in any service handles a weapon they must handle that weapon under the Rules of Engagement whether that be in exercise or on guard or on Ops 

The make up of the military and their roles within Ops has changed dramatically since 2001 and many many people across the forces have spent many months in the Ops area either in the FOBs or the MOBs including Admins and Cooks because everyone became a solider first and trade person second 

I havent suggested anything about any time I did or didn't do on Ops nor any "Walter Mitty" type suggestions 

And suggesting that RAF are mainly admin/computer roles is widely false
		
Click to expand...

So please justify Sgt Blackman being a coward, is that not worse than walter?
Or feel free to ignore the posts that are too dificult to answer


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Anytime anyone in any service handles a weapon they must handle that weapon under the Rules of Engagement whether that be in exercise or on guard or on Ops 

The make up of the military and their roles within Ops has changed dramatically since 2001 and many many people across the forces have spent many months in the Ops area either in the FOBs or the MOBs including Admins and Cooks because everyone became a solider first and trade person second 

I havent suggested anything about any time I did or didn't do on Ops nor any "Walter Mitty" type suggestions 

And suggesting that RAF are mainly admin/computer roles is widely false
		
Click to expand...

So have you been in a live battle situation and fired a weapon in anger?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

drive4show said:



			So have you been in a live battle situation and fired a weapon in anger?
		
Click to expand...

Not right asking this question. Nothing to do with you or me what Phil or anyone did or didn't do during their service.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 16, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			So please justify Sgt Blackman being a coward, is that not worse than walter?
Or feel free to ignore the posts that are too dificult to answer
		
Click to expand...

Because he shot an unarmed man who was injured and lying on the ground - he then stated "shuffle off this mortal coil you @@@@ , it's nothing you wouldn't do to us 

Shooting an unarmed man on the ground is a cowardly action


----------



## Deleted Member 1156 (Dec 16, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Not right asking this question. Nothing to do with you or me what Phil or anyone did or didn't do during their service.
		
Click to expand...


Fair enough, let's just have opinions from people who read textbooks rather than those with actual experience.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Because he shot an unarmed man who was injured and lying on the ground - he then stated "shuffle off this mortal coil you @@@@ , it's nothing you wouldn't do to us 

Shooting an unarmed man on the ground is a cowardly action
		
Click to expand...

Or a brave decision that took guts and put bravado on to cover himself while he put him out of his misery,
Come on Phil, the bloke was targetted by an Apache, he was going to die a slow death.


----------



## Wilson (Dec 16, 2016)

One Planer said:



			Just for clarification.

A highly trained, battle hardened, marine made a decision to neutrilase a combatant he deemed a threat on the battlefield under live fire.

I'm struggling to see the issue.

Could the combatant have a concealed weapon?

Could the combatant have been wearing a suicide vest?

We don't know and at the time I'm sure Marine A didn't either. IMO he did what he thought was best to neutralise a battlefield threat.
		
Click to expand...

That's not quite true though is it? I'm sure I've seen a video of this, and immediately afterwards he makes a comment about the others not saying anything, as he's just broken the Geneva Convention - if it was as you'd outlined above, would he have said that?

As for the right/wrong question, I'm not sure. Sat here in my nice warm house, it's easy to say he was wrong, but I've never been in his shoes, so it's too complex for me to make a decision - I'm glad I don't have to.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 16, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Or a brave decision that took guts and put bravado on to cover himself while he put him out of his misery,
Come on Phil, the bloke was targetted by an Apache, he was going to die a slow death.
		
Click to expand...

So why did the three of them move him out of sight from the surveillance balloon so that they couldn't be seen what they were doing to him 

His actions in that incident weren't anywhere near brave


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Dec 16, 2016)

We don't and won't know the full facts. If the grounded soldier was seen as a threat, then thats fair by me. If however he was at that moment totallyneutralised then what was done was wrong. Sadly I feel whichever outcome is made, there will be those who cry foul. 

I fail to see why there has to be those "my dad is bigger than your dad" arguements between members here either. None of us know all about anothers life path, so slating another here is just poor form. They may have an opinion we disagree with, but thats a forum for you and also free speach.


----------



## Fish (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Anytime anyone in any service handles a weapon they must handle that weapon under the Rules of Engagement whether that be in exercise or on guard or on Ops 

The make up of the military and their roles within Ops has changed dramatically since 2001 and many many people across the forces have spent many months in the Ops area either in the FOBs or the MOBs including Admins and Cooks because everyone became a solider first and trade person second 

I havent suggested anything about any time I did or didn't do on Ops nor any "Walter Mitty" type suggestions 

And suggesting that RAF are mainly admin/computer roles is widely false
		
Click to expand...

All of that is just waffle, everyone who joins is a soldier first, even in key trade positions, REME, RE, RCT, Signals, Catering plus many more specific trades within the forces because their basic training enforces this, and yes, cooks and admin have to do a minimum amount of ground operations to gain their medal when on tour also, that's not new, I took cooks and admin out in bricks in NI and on UN tours but they do the bare minimal and they would be taken somewhere less active as we wouldn't know how they may react in an IA situation after being in the kitchens or behind a desk or under a lorry or in a training class the majority of the time against the huge amount of ground op hours that real soldiers like Marine A have endured and would react instinctively, so to a liken them all as similar and that they'll all act the same because of the 'rules', is laughable, this tells me that you've done very little real frontline activity, and that's not belittling you as everyone plays their part and is important throughout the machine, I want my pay on time, I want feeding on time, I don't judge them any different as I rely on them after a tough gig out on the ground, but you cannot compare them to Marine A or try and justify that 99% of military follow the rules of engagement because that's just laughable and anyone that has done much more than token gesture or minimal time on ops to gain their medals when posted on tour but mainly staying in camp would know, understand and accept that!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

drive4show said:



			Fair enough, let's just have opinions from people who read textbooks rather than those with actual experience.
		
Click to expand...

People volunteering info is quite different &#128515;


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So why did the three of them move him out of sight from the surveillance balloon so that they couldn't be seen what they were doing to him 

His actions in that incident weren't anywhere near brave
		
Click to expand...

Or maybe they were moving him to a place of safety to carry out first aid, he told them to stop, maybe with his knowledge and experience he knew they were wasting their time and the words were spoken to help the young toms cope. What was his mental state at that moment? Things happen in war, it wasn't some poor unfortunate civilian caught in the wrong place it was a fully armed Taliban fighter intent on taking lives.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 16, 2016)

As has been said, everything is not black and white and textbook in life.  It's one thing to sit in a classroom and be instructed from the Manual of Air Force/Army/Navy Law on what the rules say and how you must carry them out, it's something else for you to be in a scenario where you are in a nasty battle in some inhospitable dirt hole where maybe some of your mates have just been shot or blow to smithereens by an IED  and the bullets are wanging around your ears.  Just try to imagine what that would feel like, just imagine what your state of mind may be in the situation this Marine Sargent found himself, no one is able to say what they may do if faced with the same conditions.  Quoting the terms of engagement is a rather benign manner or suggesting rules are rules and 'that's that' is taking the complete polar view to the suggestion that this Royal Marine did what he thought was right at the time.  The reality is probably somewhere in between but I would err in the favor of Marine A.


----------



## hovis (Dec 16, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			As has been said, everything is not black and white and textbook in life.  It's one thing to sit in a classroom and be instructed from the Manual of Air Force/Army/Navy Law on what the rules say and how you must carry them out, it's something else for you to be in a scenario where you are in a nasty battle in some inhospitable dirt hole where maybe some of your mates have just been shot or blow to smithereens by an IED  and the bullets are wanging around your ears.  Just try to imagine what that would feel like, just imagine what your state of mind may be in the situation this Marine Sargent found himself, no one is able to say what they may do if faced with the same conditions.  Quoting the terms of engagement is a rather benign manner or suggesting rules are rules and 'that's that' is taking the complete polar view to the suggestion that this Royal Marine shot this terrorist in cold blood.  The reality is somewhere in between.
		
Click to expand...

my good friend was a sniper for 10 years.   this guy is a very gentle,  shy,  unaggressive  and passive.   when he come home from afghan he said that he just wanted to shoot everything that moved.   he said he couldn't help himself. 
 after being engaged in gun fire every day he just wanted  to kill as many as them as possible and cause havoc.     this was soooooo out of character for this lad it's untrue.    

so if he was driven to that then anything is possible imo


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Dec 16, 2016)

It is clear that unless you have seen a lot of frontline action, you have absolutely no idea what pressures these guys were under,
They had just survived an attack, tensions were obviously very high and very probably the red mist descended.

The Geneva convention is there to protect the soldiers and prisoners in equal measure, the fact that the Taliban have never heard of it is neither here or there, Sgt Blackman himself admitted that he had broken the GC, and for that he should pay a price

However the PTSD angle is very real, we were told about it at the H4H day, it is also a very big mitigating factor.

Im not a Judge, but I think Time served is sufficient


----------



## chrisd (Dec 16, 2016)

I played golf at H4H with Jimmy Hill who was shot 7 times whilst  on duty in Afghanistan.i can't begin to imagine what it was like for him, and what must have gone through, and in his shoes who knows what I'd have done to the first Taliban I came across


----------



## hovis (Dec 16, 2016)

chrisd said:



			who knows what I'd have done to the first Taliban I came across
		
Click to expand...

how about 
"dreadfully sorry about shooting you old boy,  you stay still and ill patch you up and give you a nice warm cup of tea "

i think not.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 16, 2016)

Absolutely no military experience so hard to answer. On the one hand, unless PTSD can be categorically proved which will be difficult, it seems a very clear cut case and he broke the Geneva Convention and cold bloodedly murdered an enemy soldier. What I don't know, certainly from the article, is what else was going on. Was the soldier still capable of firing and was there a weapon nearby. A lot of questions and a very tough and emotive subject


----------



## hovis (Dec 16, 2016)

would the Taliban be adhering to the Geneva convention?     i missed the part about acceptable beheadings


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 16, 2016)

hovis said:



			would the Taliban be adhering to the Geneva convention? *    i missed the part about acceptable beheadings*

Click to expand...

Only if they advise them of their Human Rights first.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 16, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Or maybe they were moving him to a place of safety to carry out first aid, he told them to stop, maybe with his knowledge and experience he knew they were wasting their time and the words were spoken to help the young toms cope. What was his mental state at that moment? Things happen in war, it wasn't some poor unfortunate civilian caught in the wrong place it was a fully armed Taliban fighter intent on taking lives.
		
Click to expand...

His mental state at the time was enough for him to realise that he had broken Geneva Convention and he requested to the two other marines for it not to go any further

So they moved him out of the way of surveillance- no report of them being under fire , 

When out of sight they started to kick him on the floor , he was seriously injured so no threat from him - he asked them to stop and then shot him straight in the chest and then quoted Shakespeare afterwards , and then told the others for it not to go any further. 

His actions and words suggest someone in full control of his actions and knowing fully what he was doing. 

And just because others don't respect the Geneva Convention doesn't mean we lower ourselves to replicate.


----------



## pokerjoke (Dec 16, 2016)

I'm another with no military experience and I'm also really glad about that.

I suppose unless your in the situation of said soldier its hard to quantify what was going on inside.

However calling a soldier on the frontline facing bombs and bullets a "coward" is imo crazy and obviously going to cause a heated debate although some have said he should face the consequences of his actions.

I'm with the get him out camp,both parties go into action to kill and not be killed.

I also go to HFH every year to support the injured and thank them from the bottom of my heart for the job they done and the job our forces continue to do all around the world.


----------



## Papas1982 (Dec 16, 2016)

My take on this is quite simply, So what.

Do i think he is a hero. No, i wouldn't go that far. 
I'd probably say he should be discharged as he's obviously brought a bad light upon us.

That said, the bloke he killed was taliban. I'm not someone who is overly affectionate to the forces. I respect all that serve for doing something i clearly wouldn't and think the h4h is a great event to help those that have served. But i'm not someone who gets all worked up and proud that as a nation our leaders have us medal welsher. But thats not really relevant here.

All i will say, is if a soldier is in a war zone, i don't car whether it be via airstrike, predator, baseball bat, pistol or machete. If he kills someone recognised as the enemy. He shouldn't face sanctions for it. In a time when collateral damage can be accepted, why on earth do we have to worry about some poor taliban who'd happily suicide vest himself and take out as many ifidels as possible?


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 16, 2016)

Nice to read the judge and jury on the forum.

The family is currently under the care and support of the forces charities and his unit. the courts will decide the outcome. There is more to this case than meets the eye but the man knows he did wrong but purhaps the sentence may have been different if the full facts had been taken into account.

Those that call the man a coward need to take a long hard look at themselves.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			His mental state at the time was enough for him to realise that he had broken Geneva Convention and he requested to the two other marines for it not to go any further

So they moved him out of the way of surveillance- no report of them being under fire , 

When out of sight they started to kick him on the floor , he was seriously injured so no threat from him - he asked them to stop and then shot him straight in the chest and then quoted Shakespeare afterwards , and then told the others for it not to go any further. 

His actions and words suggest someone in full control of his actions and knowing fully what he was doing. 

And just because others don't respect the Geneva Convention doesn't mean we lower ourselves to replicate.
		
Click to expand...

Conveniently left out the part of the other 2 were administering First Aid when he asked them to stop, stop because he was dying and couldn't be saved, The Geneva Convention is only any good if everybody plays by the rules, it serves a purpose, but certainly shouldn't be used a stick against our own when the enemy have no respect for anything or anyone.


----------



## Andy (Dec 16, 2016)

I wouldn't hesitate in buying the guy a pint.


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 16, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Conveniently left out the part of the other 2 were administering First Aid when he asked them to stop, stop because he was dying and couldn't be saved, The Geneva Convention is only any good if everybody plays by the rules, it serves a purpose, *but certainly shouldn't be used a stick against our own when the enemy have no respect for anything or anyone.*

Click to expand...

Wrong!


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 16, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			Wrong!
		
Click to expand...

Perhaps but living in a country that gives known terrorists get out of jail free cards and continue to pursue those who tried to operate with one hand tied behind their back it doesn't give those sent out to do a very nasty job any confidence.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 16, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Conveniently left out the part of the other 2 were administering First Aid when he asked them to stop, stop because he was dying and couldn't be saved, The Geneva Convention is only any good if everybody plays by the rules, it serves a purpose, but certainly shouldn't be used a stick against our own when the enemy have no respect for anything or anyone.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Paul but you are searching for justification for someone who broke the Geneva Convention and committed murder/manslaughter. 

Just because one side doesn't follow the Geneva Convention does that mean everyone can ignore it ? We pride ourselves in living in a respectful country and pride ourselves following laws and rules - whenever someone breaks those rules we follow the courts who are the ones who decides the relevant punishment. It's not a "stick being used" it's called the law we all abide by. 

Marine A actions don't justify someone who was acting humanely , why hide the actions away from the surveillance, why quote the Shakespeare , why then admit he knew he broke the Geneva Convention and ask the other two for it not to go any further - none of them are humane actions. He doesn't have the right to decide if an unarmed man can live or not regardless of his injuries. If they believe he was going to die of the results of the Apache attack then let nature run its course - there was no need to shoot him - it wasn't premeditated so don't understand why manslaughter wasn't offered but he still made a choice to kill and unarmed man in cold blood when he live wasn't in danger from that person.


----------



## MadAdey (Dec 16, 2016)

Fish said:



			You didn't do enough front line tours to make that statement, the regiment and position you were in in the RAF for 22 years meant you did token/minimum tours and mainly in much safer areas as you weren't trained well enough to get really dirty, but when people like Marine A and other frontline regiments do tours 10/1 more than you within the same period I think you'll find that the 99% you state is nowhere near realistic, it wasn't 99% in the 4 full tours of NI I did during some of the worst troubles, it wasn't in the Falklands, Bosnia, Iraq and many more, some my government wouldn't even admit to sending me/us, so please, lets not read from the book in some ideological fantasy just because you did 22 years, of what I would think was mainly behind a desk!   



Not much.....even our light infantry regiments/battalions do much more than the RAF on the ground and even that is somewhat protected to the areas they are deployed for their own safety, even the cooks have to go out on tour, they've done 22 years also and have to do so much time on the ground to warrant their tour medal, but obviously nothing like the guys they feed, so in the grand scheme of things, the term of service means squat!
		
Click to expand...

Big assumption to make Robin. Just because he was in the RAF does not mean he has never been in harms way. I was in that too and three times in 1 tour of Afghanistan could have died.


----------



## hovis (Dec 16, 2016)

unless you was there you cannot say anything about right or wrong.   its not as clear cut as it sounds and certainly can't call this person a coward.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I'm sorry Paul but you are searching for justification for someone who broke the Geneva Convention and committed murder/manslaughter. 

Just because one side doesn't follow the Geneva Convention does that mean everyone can ignore it ? We pride ourselves in living in a respectful country and pride ourselves following laws and rules - whenever someone breaks those rules we follow the courts who are the ones who decides the relevant punishment. It's not a "stick being used" it's called the law we all abide by. 

Marine A actions don't justify someone who was acting humanely , why hide the actions away from the surveillance, why quote the Shakespeare , why then admit he knew he broke the Geneva Convention and ask the other two for it not to go any further - none of them are humane actions. He doesn't have the right to decide if an unarmed man can live or not regardless of his injuries. If they believe he was going to die of the results of the Apache attack then let nature run its course - there was no need to shoot him - it wasn't premeditated so don't understand why manslaughter wasn't offered but he still made a choice to kill and unarmed man in cold blood when he live wasn't in danger from that person.
		
Click to expand...

You are of course quite entitled to that opinion but at this time it is just that, your opinion, just like everyone elses.  Maybe if you put aside your 'holier than thou' attitude (which seems to be a pattern with your posts) then they would not come over as so condescending.


----------



## MadAdey (Dec 16, 2016)

The big question in all oft his is....did he use his rules of engagement? The answer is no, right or wrong he knows the rules and has to follow them, or face the punishment. If there is mitigating circumstances then that will come out in court and he will be judged on that. What rules of engagement the Taliban are and what they would have done, is of no bearing in this case. 

People like the Taliban will use anything they can as a recruitment tool. They want to make us look like the bad guy who hates Muslims, so all Muslims should take up the fight against us. We only win this fight by changing the minds of the people, not enforcing the lies that the Taliban spread.


----------



## hovis (Dec 16, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			The big question in all oft his is....did he use his rules of engagement? The answer is no, right or wrong he knows the rules and has to follow them, or face the punishment. If there is mitigating circumstances then that will come out in court and he will be judged on that. What rules of engagement the Taliban are and what they would have done, is of no bearing in this case. 

People like the Taliban will use anything they can as a recruitment tool. They want to make us look like the bad guy who hates Muslims, so all Muslims should take up the fight against us. We only win this fight by changing the minds of the people, not enforcing the lies that the Taliban spread.
		
Click to expand...

the rules of engagement as everyone keeps  saying are obscure because they was already engaged.   this is not about rules of Engagement


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			Wrong imo!
		
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I'm sorry Paul but you are searching for justification for someone who broke the Geneva Convention and committed murder/manslaughter. 

Just because one side doesn't follow the Geneva Convention does that mean everyone can ignore it ? We pride ourselves in living in a respectful country and pride ourselves following laws and rules - whenever someone breaks those rules we follow the courts who are the ones who decides the relevant punishment. It's not a "stick being used" it's called the law we all abide by. 

Marine A actions don't justify someone who was acting humanely , why hide the actions away from the surveillance, why quote the Shakespeare , why then admit he knew he broke the Geneva Convention and ask the other two for it not to go any further - none of them are humane actions. He doesn't have the right to decide if an unarmed man can live or not regardless of his injuries. If they believe he was going to die of the results of the Apache attack then let nature run its course - there was no need to shoot him - it wasn't premeditated so don't understand why manslaughter wasn't offered but he still made a choice to kill and unarmed man in cold blood when he live wasn't in danger from that person.
		
Click to expand...

Not searching for anything as imo he did the right thing, he was going to die slowly and given the choice of risking his patrol or the MERT to get this person to a hospital or end his suffering, Sgt Blackman made the right call imo.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 16, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			You are of course quite entitled to that opinion but at this time it is just that, your opinion, just like everyone elses.  Maybe if you put aside your 'holier than thou' attitude (which seems to be a pattern with your posts) then they would not come over as so condescending.
		
Click to expand...

The worst part of his "opinion" is not even based on the facts of the case and a new submission by the navy.  A simple use of his favorite google would tell a different story.

Sgt Blackmans actions could easily be described as wrong and deserving of punishment, it's the punishment that many may feel wrong.

I would hope he has the courage to retract the coward statement.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 16, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			You are of course quite entitled to that opinion but at this time it is just that, your opinion, just like everyone elses.  Maybe if you put aside your 'holier than thou' attitude (which seems to be a pattern with your posts) then they would not come over as so condescending.
		
Click to expand...

Well said sir. At the moment it's all conjecture


----------



## MadAdey (Dec 16, 2016)

hovis said:



			the rules of engagement as everyone keeps  saying are obscure because they was already engaged.   this is not about rules of Engagement
		
Click to expand...

If it wasn't about rules of engagement then he wouldn't be in trouble like he is. The rules of engagement still have to be followed even after you have engaged the enemy. IT doesn't become obsolete once engaged with the enemy. You can only use lethal force if someone is committing or about to commit an act likely to endanger human life. Executing someone who is laid on the floor injured is not committing an act likely to endanger human life. By condoning what this soldier did is no different to condoning the Taliban when the chop peoples heads off. What the state of mind this soldier was in at the time is not for me to comment on. I have never met this person, I can't read minds and am I not a psychiatrist. 

All we can look at are the facts of the case and what he did was against his rules of engagement. That is what the civilized world lives by in armed conflict and by doing anything else makes us no better than the people we are currently fighting against to make the world a better place.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 16, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Not searching for anything as imo he did the right thing, he was going to die slowly and given the choice of risking his patrol or the MERT to get this person to a hospital or end his suffering, Sgt Blackman made the right call imo.
		
Click to expand...

The judges comments when giving the verdict 

http://converseprisonnews.com/marine-gets-life-judges-remarks-in-full/

I'll highlight a few things 

When he was moved 

to quote what you said: â€œPGSS canâ€™t see what weâ€™re doing to him.â€

He also stated that he thought he was already dead when he shot him 

The facts are all in that document and opinions backed up military judges.


----------



## One Planer (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The judges comments when giving the verdict 

http://converseprisonnews.com/marine-gets-life-judges-remarks-in-full/

I'll highlight a few things 

When he was moved 

to quote what you said: â€œPGSS canâ€™t see what weâ€™re doing to him.â€

He also stated that he thought he was already dead when he shot him 

The facts are all in that document and opinions backed up military judges.
		
Click to expand...

Is Paul allowed a personal opinion?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The judges comments when giving the verdict 

http://converseprisonnews.com/marine-gets-life-judges-remarks-in-full/

I'll highlight a few things 

When he was moved 

to quote what you said: â€œPGSS canâ€™t see what weâ€™re doing to him.â€

He also stated that he thought he was already dead when he shot him 

The facts are all in that document and opinions backed up military judges.
		
Click to expand...

Changes nothing Phil, as imo he should never have been charged.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 16, 2016)

One Planer said:



			Is Paul allowed a personal opinion?
		
Click to expand...

Apparently not especially when you can call on google to give answers to suit  Still doesn't change the fact it's conjecture at the moment and no view is categorically right or wrong


----------



## Beezerk (Dec 16, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			Executing someone who is laid on the floor injured is not committing an act likely to endanger human life. By condoning what this soldier did is no different to condoning the Taliban when the chop peoples heads off.
		
Click to expand...

Put better than I could have said it.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Apparently not especially when you can call on google to give answers to suit  Still doesn't change the fact it's conjecture at the moment and no view is categorically right or wrong
		
Click to expand...

You've obviously changed your mind because initially you stated unless PTSD it's was a very clear cut case!


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 16, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Changes nothing Phil, as imo he should never have been charged.
		
Click to expand...

It's not even an official site so it's validity could be bought into question.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 16, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			You've obviously changed your mind because initially you stated unless PTSD it's was a very clear cut case!
		
Click to expand...

I have my opinion. I may be right or wrong but until the verdict is delivered it's simply an opinion and in my mind PTSD is going to be a major contributory factor


----------



## NWJocko (Dec 16, 2016)

Quite amazed by the naivety of some posters on here who have served in the forces and think all of our forces are whiter than white with the exception of the odd incident like this one TBH.

My view is that, yes he shouldn't have done what he did but I'm staggered it was ever allowed to get as far as it did. Plus I have the ease of my armchair to say he shouldn't have, god only knows what he's been through to that point.

Unless of course the establishment wanted to take the opportunity to give the impression our forces always comply 100% with laws of engagement etc.......

I've never been in the forces myself but a lot of close friends and family who are and first hand accounts of their involvement in certain engagements would make some pass out with shock going by the posts on here. War is a horrendous business, stiff upper lips and handshakes all round don't get the job done a lot of the time.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I have my opinion. I may be right or wrong but until the verdict is delivered it's simply an opinion and in my mind PTSD is going to be a major contributory factor
		
Click to expand...

What verdict? 
Your first post made sense, the ones that followed are purely petty point scoring and using such a serious subject to get your digs in, is sad imo.


----------



## MadAdey (Dec 16, 2016)

NWJocko said:



			Quite amazed by the naivety of some posters on here who have served in the forces and think all of our forces are whiter than white with the exception of the odd incident like this one TBH.

My view is that, yes he shouldn't have done what he did but I'm staggered it was ever allowed to get as far as it did. Plus I have the ease of my armchair to say he shouldn't have, god only knows what he's been through to that point.

Unless of course the establishment wanted to take the opportunity to give the impression our forces always comply 100% with laws of engagement etc.......

I've never been in the forces myself but a lot of close friends and family who are and first hand accounts of their involvement in certain engagements would make some pass out with shock going by the posts on here. War is a horrendous business, stiff upper lips and handshakes all round don't get the job done a lot of the time.
		
Click to expand...


I agree that a lot of stuff goes on that are against the rules. But now and again people get caught doing it and then that person will get punished an example to others and to show that we play fairly, unlike the people we are fighting.


----------



## NWJocko (Dec 16, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			I agree that a lot of stuff goes on that are against the rules. But now and again people get caught doing it and then that person will get punished an example to others and to show that we play fairly, unlike the people we are fighting.
		
Click to expand...

Bit selective though isn't it if you're the unfortunate one that is seen/caught? We happy to condone it if we don't see it?

Incredibly hypocritical IMO but then I'm not making the decisions....


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Dec 16, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			What verdict? 
Your first post made sense, the ones that followed are purely petty point scoring and using such a serious subject to get your digs in, is sad imo.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not looking to score any points. Sorry if thats how it came across but I do feel (especially as you say on a serious subject) that everyone has a right to a view and sometimes others don't always look at that in full. That however is ALSO an opinion. I was talking about the bail hearing (due Wednesday) and the fact that the verdict call be quashed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...r-blackman-must-wait-wednesday-bail-decision/) Until then surely what may or may not have gone before is on hold and any opinion is subjective. I'm bowing out tonight (early start and don't want this to be a side show)


----------



## freddielong (Dec 16, 2016)

I have always found it really bizarre how two side who are trying to kill each other have to follow rules.


----------



## MadAdey (Dec 16, 2016)

NWJocko said:



			Bit selective though isn't it if you're the unfortunate one that is seen/caught? We happy to condone it if we don't see it?

Incredibly hypocritical IMO but then I'm not making the decisions....
		
Click to expand...


I don't condone what he did at all, I'm just pointing that I'm not naive enough to think that this is an isolated incident. It is unfortunate for him that he got caught and is being made an example of.

But when you break the law you run that risk and that is what he has done. Right or wrong in peoples minds, that is the cold hard facts. Now if it is proven he was suffering with PTSD or there was other mitigating circumstances then that is for legal system to decide, not me.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 16, 2016)

These 'Rules of Engagement' seem rather selective and devoid of the emotions and stress that can affect our judgement.  I would like to see Sgt Blackman tried by a civilian jury rather than a court marshal as this would remove the trial from the military that sit in private and allow us to understand better the circumstances of what happened and under what conditions.

When a howitzer is fired at a target are the ROE being applied?
When a Brimstone Missile is sent through a window are the ROE being applied?
When a submarine fires a torpedo at a surface ship are the ROE being applied?
When an HMG is fired indiscriminately into the distance are the ROE being applied?
And so on and so forth.


----------



## MadAdey (Dec 16, 2016)

freddielong said:



			I have always found it really bizarre how two side who are trying to kill each other have to follow rules.
		
Click to expand...


BEcause it is those rules that protect innocent civilians in times of an armed conflict. By having those rules it makes people accountable for anything they do that is just plain wrong. Imagine what war would be like if we did not follow rules? Prisoners being tortured and abused, female soldiers being sexually assaulted, innocent women and children being slaughtered.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 16, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			BEcause it is those rules that protect innocent civilians in times of an armed conflict. By having those rules it makes people accountable for anything they do that is just plain wrong. Imagine what war would be like if we did not follow rules? Prisoners being tortured and abused, female soldiers being sexually assaulted, innocent women and children being slaughtered.
		
Click to expand...

Bit like Aleppo then.


----------



## hovis (Dec 16, 2016)

freddielong said:



			I have always found it really bizarre how two side who are trying to kill each other have to follow rules.
		
Click to expand...

i find it unusual how they say  'we dont like the landmines that jump in the air and spray everyone with ball bearings but the ones that use high explosives and blow your limbs clean off your body are ok'


----------



## MadAdey (Dec 16, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			These 'Rules of Engagement' seem rather selective and devoid of the emotions and stress that can affect our judgement.  I would like to see Sgt Blackman tried by a civilian jury rather than a court marshal as this would remove the trial from the military that sit in private and allow us to understand better the circumstances of what happened and under what conditions.

When a howitzer is fired at a target are the ROE being applied?
When a Brimstone Missile is sent through a window are the ROE being applied?
When a submarine fires a torpedo at a surface ship are the ROE being applied?
When an HMG is fired indiscriminately into the distance are the ROE being applied?
And so on and so forth.
		
Click to expand...

Because anything you attack is identified as a legitimate target. When the military attack something they pretty much ask the lawyers first to make sure that they are not going outside of the Geneva convention. With the modern precision strike weapons that are used now they can pretty much hit a flea up it's arse if they want to, reducing the risk of civilian victims.


----------



## MadAdey (Dec 16, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			Bit like Aleppo then.
		
Click to expand...

Good point. That is a perfect example of what is wrong. Do you condone what is happening there then, I didn't think you did. That is why we play by the rules, to separate us from them. The moment we step outside of the rules then we become no better than them.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 16, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			Good point. That is a perfect example of what is wrong. Do you condone what is happening there then, I didn't think you did. That is why we play by the rules, to separate us from them. The moment we step outside of the rules then we become no better than them.
		
Click to expand...

Of course I don't approve.   Should Russia and the Syrian Government be held to account in the international courts.  Somehow I think not.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			Because anything you attack is identified as a legitimate target. When the military attack something they pretty much ask the lawyers first to make sure that they are not going outside of the Geneva convention. With the modern precision strike weapons that are used now they can pretty much hit a flea up it's arse if they want to, reducing the risk of civilian victims.
		
Click to expand...

So he was a legitimate target from 2000ft in an Apache, but not for a Marine on the ground.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			Good point. That is a perfect example of what is wrong. Do you condone what is happening there then, I didn't think you did. That is why we play by the rules, to separate us from them. The moment we step outside of the rules then we become no better than them.
		
Click to expand...

These rules were written in the 1860's and updated after WW2, it's a different set of circumstances the modern serviceman faces nowadays.


----------



## MadAdey (Dec 16, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			So he was a legitimate target from 2000ft in an Apache, but not for a Marine on the ground.
		
Click to expand...

When he was engaged by an Apache he was a legitimate target as he was a threat. On the ground dying is not a threat, so by the rules he had no right to shoot him.


----------



## MadAdey (Dec 16, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			These rules were written in the 1860's and updated after WW2, it's a different set of circumstances the modern serviceman faces nowadays.
		
Click to expand...


I agree that times have changed, but you still have to abide by the rules that are laid out. Just because the enemy acts in a certain away it does not mean that we should. I find it horrific what some of these enemies do, especially hacking someones head off on camera with a rusty sword. But the moment we start playing by their rules, we loose the right to be outraged when they treat our troops like that.


----------



## MadAdey (Dec 16, 2016)

I spent 16 years in the military and between myself, my brother, my dad, my grandfather and my brother in law we have pretty much attended every conflict since WWII. So I am not a pink, fluffy hippy who is anti-war and wants to destroy the proud British armed forces. So I don't want anyone thinking that, I remember when I joined up I agreed to protect my country and abide by the laws. If I am told I have to follow ROE and the Geneva convention then that is what I agreed to.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 16, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			I agree that times have changed, but you still have to abide by the rules that are laid out. Just because the enemy acts in a certain away it does not mean that we should. I find it horrific what some of these enemies do, especially hacking someones head off on camera with a rusty sword. But the moment we start playing by their rules, we loose the right to be outraged when they treat our troops like that.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe that's the problem, the public and our enemies know that at times we are facing an enemy with one hand tied behind our backs, our service personnel when doing the job we train them for should not have to keep looking over their shoulder in case somebody is offended by their actions.


----------



## Robobum (Dec 17, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			?.....If I am told I have to follow ROE and the Geneva convention then that is what I agreed to.
		
Click to expand...

I bet a pound to a pinch that Blackman had the same intentions through all of his training too. However, when presented with the ultimate situation, you have no idea what your reaction will be.

If you pull the tail of the most obedient dog often enough, they will eventually bite.

What he did was wrong, but I cannot accept that it was murder or that he is/ was a coward.


----------



## MadAdey (Dec 17, 2016)

Robobum said:



			I bet a pound to a pinch that Blackman had the same intentions through all of his training too. However, when presented with the ultimate situation, you have no idea what your reaction will be.

If you pull the tail of the most obedient dog often enough, they will eventually bite.

What he did was wrong, but I cannot accept that it was murder or that he is/ was a coward.
		
Click to expand...

That's why I said in an earlier post that I can't comment on his state of mind as I do not know him, nor am I a Psychiatrist. I'd never call him a coward though, because to do what he did for a living took a lot of balls. 

You are right about one thing though, no one can say what they would do in his situation. Not until you've been there and made that decision.


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 17, 2016)

I'm in the "what he did was wrong" camp. If we can't show that we're better, then we don't deserve to win. However, I don't think that he should be tried for manslaughter/murder. You simply can't apply peacetime morals to conflict situations. They don't fit. 

As an aside, this thread has once again highlighted a nasty habit on this forum. Certain individuals arguing with the person, not the situation. The fact that people would use this case as a way to score points is disgusting. FFS, one person even appeared to change his mind just so he could throw more mud.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 17, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			You are right about one thing though, no one can say what they would do in his situation. Not until you've been there and made that decision.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly and to hide behind the Internet and call someone a coward is not a great move for an ex serviceman who may, or may not have been in the same position.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 17, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			That's why I said in an earlier post that I can't comment on his state of mind as I do not know him, nor am I a Psychiatrist. I'd never call him a coward though, because to do what he did for a living took a lot of balls. 

You are right about one thing though, no one can say what they would do in his situation. Not until you've been there and made that decision.
		
Click to expand...

+1 to this and the post you answering.


----------



## Fish (Dec 17, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			You are right about one thing though, no one can say what they would do in his situation. Not until you've been there and made that decision.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly, I've trained with some right hard nuts but saw them change massively when in a conflict, but another point if I may, there is not a single ROE protocol. 

We had a yellow card in NI and there was a green card slightly amended for Kosovo, the yellow card was very confusing and could be interpreted differently at times of engagement and left us exposed to criminal charges, as Pte Clegg found out!  

Unless you've been in a firefight, and I would say that everyone who has has never shouted out, Stop Army of I'll shoot, before firing their weapon or whilst during that firefight thought, is 6 rounds enough now or have I used more than I should have leaving me open to a criminal charge!

For me once your engaged in a gun battle with a known enemy you neutralise it to its end, you don't approach the enemy if he's down until you know it's safe to do so as they can be wearing explosive vests or carrying grenades etc that they still want to use as a last ditch effort to take you out, so you neutralise the threat, because for me, whilst it's still breathing it has the capacity to still be a threat.


----------



## chrisd (Dec 17, 2016)

Fish said:



			Exactly, I've trained with some right hard nuts but saw them change massively when in a conflict, but another point if I may, there is not a single ROE protocol. 

We had a yellow card in NI and there was a green card slightly amended for Kosovo, the yellow card was very confusing and could be interpreted differently at times of engagement and left us exposed to criminal charges, as Pte Clegg found out!  

Unless you've been in a firefight, and I would say that everyone who has has never shouted out, Stop Army of I'll shoot, before firing their weapon or whilst during that firefight thought, is 6 rounds enough now or have I used more than I should have leaving me open to a criminal charge!

For me once your engaged in a gun battle with a known enemy you neutralise it to its end, you don't approach the enemy if he's down until you know it's safe to do so as they can be wearing explosive vests or carrying grenades etc that they still want to use as a last ditch effort to take you out, so you neutralise the threat, because for me, whilst it's still breathing it has the capacity to still be a threat.
		
Click to expand...

That sounds a fair summation to me,. It's very easy to pontificate away from the coal face as to what someone should, or shouldn't, do in a life or death situation


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 17, 2016)

He has won the right to appeal. Until the new evidence is presented I don't have an opinion on his conviction either way. 

As to whether the UK should have been involved in the conflict, and whether or not out troops were adequately resourced. I'm sure another Chilcott report could determine that but imo we shouldn't have even exposed our troops to the risk.


----------



## Val (Dec 17, 2016)

I confess to not having read the full story on this and now that I have I maintain these thoughts.

SGT Blackman is a decorated war hero and rightly so. He has done plenty good in Afghan and Iraq through his tours

HOWEVER

It appears he broke the rules and if proven so he deserves prosecution for it. 

Soldiers do not have a given right to decide if an injured enemy soldier deserves to live or die.


----------



## USER1999 (Dec 17, 2016)

Between marine a, and tony blair, i know which one is the war criminal, and its not the one in prison.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 17, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			Exactly and to hide behind the Internet and call someone a coward is not a great move for an ex serviceman who may, or may not have been in the same position.
		
Click to expand...

A couple of things 

1. I'm not hiding behind anything 
2. - I didn't call him a coward - I said it was a cowardly act and he acted like a coward but that of course doesn't suit certain people like yourself who add nothing but just look to score points on an internet and all because it's me posting the opinion. 

Myself and Paul may have differing points of view and I fully understand why he believes the way he does but you are no better than that other poster who flipped his opinion to jump on the bandwagon point scoring. Pathetic.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 17, 2016)

I don't know the specifics of this particular case, but I am very uncomfortable with ordering our soldiers into massively stressful life and death situations, putting their own very existence at risk and then prosecute them for things that may or may not happen when they follow these orders.
War is war and I don't believe the average man or woman in the street has the slightest clue how horrendous that really is - myself included and I thank God every day for that. I am afraid war is brutal and by nature often a fight to the death. We simply cannot fight wars with one arm tied behind our backs, especially when it's us that is tying our own arm. I wonder if we continue down this road of prosecuting our own soldiers in this way, how on earth we are going to get anyone to sign up for the armed forces in the future and how many of our own lives we are putting at risk when those soldiers are made to hesitate in the middle of a frantic firefight.

If the soldier had refused to go into battle we would have sent him to a court martial. When he does go into battle then we have to place our trust in him and the training we have given him. We cannot send our men and women into situations like this in fear of prosecution. We are telling our people that it's OK to kill the enemy as long as they pose a threat but not if they don't. Then, we are asking them to determine if the enemy poses a threat but if they get it wrong we will send them to jail. And these decisions are taken in a highly stressful environment where their own life is in imminent danger. I don't think I would be signing that employment contract.


----------



## hovis (Dec 17, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			A couple of things 

1. I'm not hiding behind anything 
2. - I didn't call him a coward - I said it was a cowardly act and he acted like a coward but that of course doesn't suit certain people like yourself who add nothing but just look to score points on an internet and all because it's me posting the opinion. 

Myself and Paul may have differing points of view and I fully understand why he believes the way he does but you are no better than that other poster who flipped his opinion to jump on the bandwagon point scoring. Pathetic.
		
Click to expand...

so your saying that someone committed a cowardly act and acted cowardly isn't calling someone a coward?     

am i the only one on this forum that is bemused?


----------



## Papas1982 (Dec 17, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			A couple of things 

1. I'm not hiding behind anything 
2. - I didn't call him a coward - I said it was a cowardly act and he acted like a coward but that of course doesn't suit certain people like yourself who add nothing but just look to score points on an internet and all because it's me posting the opinion. 

Myself and Paul may have differing points of view and I fully understand why he believes the way he does but you are no better than that other poster who flipped his opinion to jump on the bandwagon point scoring. Pathetic.
		
Click to expand...

Phil, I fully respect your opinion on it and you have a far better grasp on the situation that I. BUT,

If i see an animal in the lake and say its acting like a duck and doing something that a duck would. Then the animal is a duck.

You can squirm, hide and deflect all you wish. Everyone interpreted what you said as you calling him a coward. You don't have to categorically right "YOU are a coward"  to say it. 

Would have been a whole lot easier to just clarify that you weren't meaning to call him a coward than imply you hadn't.....


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 17, 2016)

Papas1982 said:



			Phil, I fully respect your opinion on it and you have a far better grasp on the situation that I. BUT,

If i see an animal in the lake and say its acting like a duck and doing something that a duck would. Then the animal is a duck.

You can squirm, hide and deflect all you wish. Everyone interpreted what you said as you calling him a coward. You don't have to categorically right "YOU are a coward"  to say it. 

Would have been a whole lot easier to just clarify that you weren't meaning to call him a coward than imply you hadn't.....
		
Click to expand...

So you're saying that we should all judge a persons character by a single action? If it was a cowardly action, it doesn't necessarily follow that the man is a coward. Seems relatively straightforward to me.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 17, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			A couple of things 

1. I'm not hiding behind anything 
2. - I didn't call him a coward - I said it was a cowardly act and he acted like a coward but that of course doesn't suit certain people like yourself who add nothing but just look to score points on an internet and all because it's me posting the opinion. 

Myself and Paul may have differing points of view and I fully understand why he believes the way he does but you are no better than that other poster who flipped his opinion to jump on the bandwagon point scoring. Pathetic.
		
Click to expand...

Why would I want to score points, there are a lot of holes in your interpretation of the facts which is unfortunate but that's what can happens when you use google.

You did however write he acted like a coward nowhere can I see the quote from you suggesting it was a cowardly act which would be much more easy to agree with.

There would be very few people who have served that disagree that punishment was due but I have said previously, the sentence and charge IMO are what was OTT.

Please point out were I flipped my opinion and jumped on anyone's bandwagon.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 17, 2016)

Sweep said:



			I don't know the specifics of this particular case, but I am very uncomfortable with ordering our soldiers into massively stressful life and death situations, putting their own very existence at risk and then prosecute them for things that may or may not happen when they follow these orders.
War is war and I don't believe the average man or woman in the street has the slightest clue how horrendous that really is - myself included and I thank God every day for that. I am afraid war is brutal and by nature often a fight to the death. We simply cannot fight wars with one arm tied behind our backs, especially when it's us that is tying our own arm. I wonder if we continue down this road of prosecuting our own soldiers in this way, how on earth we are going to get anyone to sign up for the armed forces in the future and how many of our own lives we are putting at risk when those soldiers are made to hesitate in the middle of a frantic firefight.

If the soldier had refused to go into battle we would have sent him to a court martial. When he does go into battle then we have to place our trust in him and the training we have given him. We cannot send our men and women into situations like this in fear of prosecution. We are telling our people that it's OK to kill the enemy as long as they pose a threat but not if they don't. Then, we are asking them to determine if the enemy poses a threat but if they get it wrong we will send them to jail. And these decisions are taken in a highly stressful environment where their own life is in imminent danger. I don't think I would be signing that employment contract.
		
Click to expand...

The Armed Forces are following the same rules they have been for over a hundred years - our soldiers followed it in WW1 and 2 , and every single conflict since - there is no "one hand tied behind the back" . There are rules of Engagement and Geneva Convention to follow - any time a weapon is fired you have to ensure you are doing it within those laws , that's valid for the armed guard on the gate to the guy on patrol. You have to ensure when firing your weapon it's for the right reasons - following those rules is what sets us apart from the Germans in WW1 and 2 or Milosovic and his troops or the Taliban and Bin Laden or indeed anyone who has commited war crimes in the past. 

Yes we do ask our military to ensure that they determine the threat - that's not a new thing and everyone is trained to judge that situation to the very best of their ability , that's what sets the UK armed forces apart - because they can judge those situations. 

There is so many boxes to mentally tick when you are in any situation with a rifle in your hand - or indeed when in charge of a tank or an AC - it's the same rules of Engagement.


----------



## Papas1982 (Dec 17, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			So you're saying that we should all judge a persons character by a single action? If it was a cowardly action, it doesn't necessarily follow that the man is a coward. Seems relatively straightforward to me.
		
Click to expand...

I'm saying he called him a coward.

Whether his single act makes him one isn't my debate. If someone snarls something racist at someone but its only witnessed once. Is that person a racist? Or was it slip of the tongue?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 17, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			Why would I want to score points, there are a lot of holes in your interpretation of the facts which is unfortunate but that's what can happens when you use google.
		
Click to expand...

Going on about use of google is nothing but point scoring 

Fill in the holes of the facts then please - remember you were the one that it appeared attempted to dismiss a link I posted to the actual words used by the judge in his summing up 




			You did however write he acted like a coward nowhere can I see the quote from you suggesting it was a cowardly act which would be much more easy to agree with.
		
Click to expand...

Post 45




			There would be very few people who have served that disagree that punishment was due but I have said previously, the sentence and charge IMO are what was OTT.
		
Click to expand...

I also stated that it should have been manslaughter 




			Please point out were I flipped my opinion and jumped on anyone's bandwagon.
		
Click to expand...

Please read what I posted 
"You are no better than the poster who flipped his opinion to jump on the bandwagon" 

Maybe if you actually read what I posted instead of filling in your own words because of who posted it


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 17, 2016)

Papas1982 said:



			I'm saying he called him a coward.

Whether his single act makes him one isn't my debate. If someone snarls something racist at someone but its only witnessed once. Is that person a racist? Or was it slip of the tongue?
		
Click to expand...

He said "he acted like a coward". Not the same thing. 

And saying one racist thing does not make anyone a racist. Believing what you state and not learning make someone a racist. If we are all to be judged by how we act at times of severe stress then we all fail the humanity test, or have you never made a mistake?


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 17, 2016)

I honestly think there appears to be a geniue misunderstanding between the Geneva Convention and the British Forces ROE by some.


----------



## Papas1982 (Dec 17, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			He said "he acted like a coward". Not the same thing. 

And saying one racist thing does not make anyone a racist. Believing what you state and not learning make someone a racist. If we are all to be judged by how we act at times of severe stress then we all fail the humanity test, or have you never made a mistake?
		
Click to expand...

Surely to act like a coward, or a racist or anything in particular. You are at that time a racist, coward etc.

If someone said i'd acted like an idiot whilst drunk then i'd agree. Yes i was an idiot. I wouldn't say id acted like an idiot and shouldnt be judged as one.  

Either way, its totally not the main crux of this discussion.

For the record, i dont think anybody in a war zone, irrespective of their actions is a coward, or acting like one.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 17, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The Armed Forces are following the same rules they have been for over a hundred years - our soldiers followed it in WW1 and 2 , and every single conflict since - there is no "one hand tied behind the back" . There are rules of Engagement and Geneva Convention to follow - any time a weapon is fired you have to ensure you are doing it within those laws , that's valid for the armed guard on the gate to the guy on patrol. You have to ensure when firing your weapon it's for the right reasons - following those rules is what sets us apart from the Germans in WW1 and 2 or Milosovic and his troops or the Taliban and Bin Laden or indeed anyone who has commited war crimes in the past. 

Yes we do ask our military to ensure that they determine the threat - that's not a new thing and everyone is trained to judge that situation to the very best of their ability , that's what sets the UK armed forces apart - because they can judge those situations. 

There is so many boxes to mentally tick when you are in any situation with a rifle in your hand - or indeed when in charge of a tank or an AC - it's the same rules of Engagement.
		
Click to expand...

I understand that but if setting ourselves apart is subjecting ourselves to rules the enemy does not have to follow, then we are tying one arm behind our back. Which is fine as long as you are not the soldier on the ground.
Just because it's nothing new or it's the way we have always done it does not mean it's right.
I agree that it is desirable to act in the way you describe and indeed train for it, but we have to accept there will be transgressions. People are human with human emotions. You can't prosecute people for this in this way.


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 17, 2016)

Papas1982 said:



			Surely to act like a coward, or a racist or anything in particular. You are at that time a racist, coward etc.

If someone said i'd acted like an idiot whilst drunk then i'd agree. Yes i was an idiot. I wouldn't say id acted like an idiot and shouldnt be judged as one.  

Either way, its totally not the main crux of this discussion.

For the record, i dont think anybody in a war zone, irrespective of their actions is a coward, or acting like one.
		
Click to expand...

 For the record, I don't think it was a cowardly act. However, there are a few in here (not you) who have latched onto the phrase LP used and distorted it in order to launch a personal attack. 

It's very interesting reading the thoughts of ex service people. And let's face it, they understand the situation far better than we ever could. &#128077;


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 17, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Fill in the holes of the facts then please - remember you were the one that it appeared attempted to dismiss a link I posted to the actual words used by the judge in his summing up 



Post 45i
		
Click to expand...

1. I questioned the link as it is not a credible link so you have no guarantee as to its accuracy.

2. I was referring to post 20.

Its unfortunate that you have to always argue down to a personal level when people fail to agree with your point of view.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 17, 2016)

Papas1982 said:



			I'm saying he called him a coward.

Whether his single act makes him one isn't my debate. If someone snarls something racist at someone but its only witnessed once. Is that person a racist? Or was it slip of the tongue?
		
Click to expand...

Coward is an insult used all too often and a highly emotive word. I simply don't think you can call anyone who goes into battle and puts their own life in imminent danger a coward.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 17, 2016)

Sweep said:



			I understand that but if setting ourselves apart is subjecting ourselves to rules the enemy does not have to follow, then we are tying one arm behind our back. Which is fine as long as you are not the soldier on the ground.
Just because it's nothing new or it's the way we have always done it does not mean it's right.
I agree that it is desirable to act in the way you describe and indeed train for it, but we have to accept there will be transgressions. People are human with human emotions. You can't prosecute people for this in this way.
		
Click to expand...

So which transgressions do we accept ? 

Does that not open the door for people to use "human emotions" as justification for going beyond the line ? 

The enemy also has to follow the same rules - they don't so if we don't then what sets us apart from then ? 

All marine As actions were as said by the judge from some who appeared calm and in charge of the situation, actions done within the period seem to be of someone in full control of himself. 

If it was all the opposite way around - a Taliban shooting an unarmed injured Brit on the ground would we say he was being compassionate to the injured soldiers needs or was he going over the line.


----------



## Fish (Dec 17, 2016)

Sweep said:



			I don't know the specifics of this particular case, but I am very uncomfortable with ordering our soldiers into massively stressful life and death situations, putting their own very existence at risk and then prosecute them for things that may or may not happen when they follow these orders.
War is war and I don't believe the average man or woman in the street has the slightest clue how horrendous that really is - myself included and I thank God every day for that. I am afraid war is brutal and by nature often a fight to the death. We simply cannot fight wars with one arm tied behind our backs, especially when it's us that is tying our own arm. I wonder if we continue down this road of prosecuting our own soldiers in this way, how on earth we are going to get anyone to sign up for the armed forces in the future and how many of our own lives we are putting at risk when those soldiers are made to hesitate in the middle of a frantic firefight.

If the soldier had refused to go into battle we would have sent him to a court martial. When he does go into battle then we have to place our trust in him and the training we have given him. We cannot send our men and women into situations like this in fear of prosecution. We are telling our people that it's OK to kill the enemy as long as they pose a threat but not if they don't. Then, we are asking them to determine if the enemy poses a threat but if they get it wrong we will send them to jail. And these decisions are taken in a highly stressful environment where their own life is in imminent danger. I don't think I would be signing that employment contract.
		
Click to expand...

The latter of your post is something that many servicemen that are on the front line and constantly in conflict far more often than those who do token tours have serious concerns about and they have had those concerns for many years. 

Again, referring to the yellow card or basic ROE, I can shoot someone who is about to throw a bomb at me or anyone I am in the presence of protecting, however, if that bomb leaves the aggressors grasp and then I shoot him it's a crime, furthermore, if what initially looks like a bomb doesn't turn out to be a bomb and whether it's in his grasp still or not, it again is a criminal act if I've shot him!  

When in conflict when split seconds count for your own life and those that you are there to protect we are shackled with this stupidity that can create delay & doubt and get us killed because of the fear of being prosecuted for murder, which for a number of years was the minimum you'd be charged with, manslaughter was never a consideration. 

You cannot have these kind of rules when in full battle or any kind of close quarter conflict, we don't have the time to evaluate every possibility to the degree they expect without getting the odd one wrong, so, it's usually a case of him or me and I'd always pick him, but if I'm wrong in that split second decision, should I then be tried for murder when everything before me is indicating to me that what he's about to throw or has thrown is an imminent threat to life?  

Good soldiers will leave the forces and many won't join if we are to shackle them and threaten them with criminal acts for getting a decision wrong in the heat of battle, which many people sitting in the comfort of their homes enjoying their lives due to these brave servicemen will never understand that pressure and in some situations I have been in, wouldn't ever want you to experience. 

You can dress words up however you like, it was not an act of cowardice, it was not a cowardly act and he most certainly could never be called a coward, unless you were there and stood by him and could understand the pressures and adrenalin of everything that has happened that day or within that tour and had any inkling of what was going through his head, the word coward in any form is not justified and is a disgrace that it's been used, especially by an ex-serviceman.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 17, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			1. I questioned the link as it is not a credible link so you have no guarantee as to its accuracy.

2. I was referring to post 20.

Its unfortunate that you have to always argue down to a personal level when people fail to agree with your point of view.
		
Click to expand...

If it's not a credible link why do the "free marine A" use it as a link to the findings ? If you go through the judiciary findings there is no difference - you can dismiss it all you want but its the transcript. 

People took it down to a personal level long before I did with people questioning my service and then also suggesting I was hiding behind the internet including you.


----------



## Papas1982 (Dec 17, 2016)

bluewolf said:



			For the record, I don't think it was a cowardly act. However, there are a few in here (not you) who have latched onto the phrase LP used and distorted it in order to launch a personal attack. 

It's very interesting reading the thoughts of ex service people. And let's face it, they understand the situation far better than we ever could. &#62541;
		
Click to expand...

Fully agree. Have commented previously that i'm not the greatest believer in all our "efforts" overseas. But those are decisions made by people far removed from the dangers the brave men and woman face.,


----------



## Fish (Dec 17, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			I honestly think there appears to be a geniue misunderstanding between the Geneva Convention and the British Forces ROE by some.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, and there isn't a single ROE either as it's adapted at times dependent on the conflict we are serving at/in, I'm aware of 4 various adaptations of ROE during my time in, but I wouldn't expect those that don't get involved in regular frontline conflicts to know or even except that!


----------



## pokerjoke (Dec 17, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			A couple of things 

1. I'm not hiding behind anything 
2. - I didn't call him a coward - I said it was a cowardly act and he acted like a coward but that of course doesn't suit certain people like yourself who add nothing but just look to score points on an internet and all because it's me posting the opinion. 

Myself and Paul may have differing points of view and I fully understand why he believes the way he does but you are no better than that other poster who flipped his opinion to jump on the bandwagon point scoring. Pathetic.
		
Click to expand...

You called him a coward Phil not directly but many people new what you meant.
People questioned this straight away but you failed to clear up what you really meant so yes it doesn't suit certain people including myself.

As for the pathetic points scoring you were the king of this but lately you have been trying to make out your squeaky clean,get a flippin grip.

Calling people pathetic for doing everything you have done in abundance is just imo laughable.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 17, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If it's not a credible link why do the "free marine A" use it as a link to the findings ? If you go through the judiciary findings there is no difference - you can dismiss it all you want but its the transcript. 

People took it down to a personal level long before I did with people questioning my service and then also suggesting I was hiding behind the internet including you.
		
Click to expand...

I would never question anyone's service and I wouldn't expect anyone to question mine.  I have only expressed my dismay basicaly over one of your post and also suggested that the site you used wasn't what should be taken as read. It would be interesting to see if you could find an official MOD site with the full transcript on it.

Your explanation of the ROE would make all of us who were on the road to hell liable for prosecution.


----------



## MadAdey (Dec 17, 2016)

Fish said:



			I agree, and there isn't a single ROE either as it's adapted at times dependent on the conflict we are serving at/in, I'm aware of 4 various adaptations of ROE during my time in, but I wouldn't expect those that don't get involved in regular frontline conflicts to know or even except that!
		
Click to expand...

 
The ROE has changed since you were in. They have adapted them to cover the risk of Suicide bombers. The ROE used in places like Afghanistan are quite different to the one that you would have seen in NI and other places you served.


----------



## MadAdey (Dec 17, 2016)

I think this thread has gotten far away from the original post and become a personal argument between people. Is using what has happened with regards to this highly decorated, brave individual, the right place to air your personal grievance with another forumer.


----------



## hovis (Dec 17, 2016)

pokerjoke said:



			You called him a coward Phil not directly but many people new what you meant.
People questioned this straight away but you failed to clear up what you really meant so yes it doesn't suit certain people including myself.

As for the pathetic points scoring you were the king of this but lately you have been trying to make out your squeaky clean,get a flippin grip.

Calling people pathetic for doing everything you have done in abundance is just imo laughable.
		
Click to expand...

i agree with this


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Dec 17, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			I think this thread has gotten far away from the original post and become a personal argument between people. Is using what has happened with regards to this highly decorated, brave individual, the right place to air your personal grievance with another forumer.
		
Click to expand...

Agree with Adey, The point scoring needs to stop, and if the thread descends into personal backbiting it will be closed and infractions handed out to the perps


----------



## Sweep (Dec 17, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			If it was all the opposite way around - a Taliban shooting an unarmed injured Brit on the ground would we say he was being compassionate to the injured soldiers needs or was he going over the line.
		
Click to expand...

I'd say it was war.
The point is that the Taliban would have shot him. They are not tying themselves with rules of engagement nor would they be prosecuted later.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 17, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			The ROE has changed since you were in. They have adapted them to cover the risk of Suicide bombers. The ROE used in places like Afghanistan are quite different to the one that you would have seen in NI and other places you served.
		
Click to expand...

It's massively changed - especially since we went into Iraq - as you know when we first joined our role was always tradesman first and then solider second - the army were the ones who did the rough stuff. But when 9/11 happened that all changed - we were no longer tradesman first , we no longer went into theatre and hid miles behind - we had to change - hence the weeks and weeks of IRT  before any Op even more so when on the Sqn and it was rolling 2 months - the RAF guys went with patrols , they went out as drivers even though they were admin for example , the comms guys went out to the FOBs to the comms equipment , we were now put in harms way - RAF guys were also getting killed on the ground , they were losing limbs as well - there was no such thing as a "token Tour" anymore , Falklands was now the easy tour. The whole mentality changed within the RAF - I worked in tactical comms , no longer in hotels in Bahrain or Italy , then onto a Merlin sqn and going with them. It was a changing RAF and indeed military- and it had casualties both physically and mentally.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 17, 2016)

Sweep said:



			I'd say it was war.
The point is that the Taliban would have shot him. They are not tying themselves with rules of engagement nor would they be prosecuted later.
		
Click to expand...

So if acting the same as them how does that make us any better or different to them ? If we ignore the Rules then we go to their level and we can no longer take any high road with them. Does it then become a "whoever kills first situation " with no responsibility for actions ?


----------



## Sweep (Dec 17, 2016)

Fish said:



			The latter of your post is something that many servicemen that are on the front line and constantly in conflict far more often than those who do token tours have serious concerns about and they have had those concerns for many years. 

Again, referring to the yellow card or basic ROE, I can shoot someone who is about to throw a bomb at me or anyone I am in the presence of protecting, however, if that bomb leaves the aggressors grasp and then I shoot him it's a crime, furthermore, if what initially looks like a bomb doesn't turn out to be a bomb and whether it's in his grasp still or not, it again is a criminal act if I've shot him!  

When in conflict when split seconds count for your own life and those that you are there to protect we are shackled with this stupidity that can create delay & doubt and get us killed because of the fear of being prosecuted for murder, which for a number of years was the minimum you'd be charged with, manslaughter was never a consideration. 

You cannot have these kind of rules when in full battle or any kind of close quarter conflict, we don't have the time to evaluate every possibility to the degree they expect without getting the odd one wrong, so, it's usually a case of him or me and I'd always pick him, but if I'm wrong in that split second decision, should I then be tried for murder when everything before me is indicating to me that what he's about to throw or has thrown is an imminent threat to life?  

Good soldiers will leave the forces and many won't join if we are to shackle them and threaten them with criminal acts for getting a decision wrong in the heat of battle, which many people sitting in the comfort of their homes enjoying their lives due to these brave servicemen will never understand that pressure and in some situations I have been in, wouldn't ever want you to experience. 

You can dress words up however you like, it was not an act of cowardice, it was not a cowardly act and he most certainly could never be called a coward, unless you were there and stood by him and could understand the pressures and adrenalin of everything that has happened that day or within that tour and had any inkling of what was going through his head, the word coward in any form is not justified and is a disgrace that it's been used, especially by an ex-serviceman.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for putting it better than I ever could.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 17, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So if acting the same as them how does that make us any better or different to them ? If we ignore the Rules then we go to their level and we can no longer take any high road with them. Does it then become a "whoever kills first situation " with no responsibility for actions ?
		
Click to expand...

Surely it's the cause that sets us apart and makes us better. I am sure you know what makes us better than the Taliban.


----------



## Fish (Dec 17, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			The ROE has changed since you were in. They have adapted them to cover the risk of Suicide bombers. The ROE used in places like Afghanistan are quite different to the one that you would have seen in NI and other places you served.
		
Click to expand...

They haven't changed the fabric of the ROE, as I have stated, various places I was sent they were adapted to suit, as such they have been adapted again for Afghan, it's been common practice for decades that they are adapted as 1 glove doesn't fit all, it's nothing new IMO. When doing UN tours they were completely different at times, it's madness to have so many variations, but like you rightly say, with suicide vests being worn in Afghan I would have tapped him irrelevant of him being wounded or not, whilst he's breathing he's a threat, end of.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 17, 2016)

Sweep said:



			Surely it's the cause that sets us apart and makes us better. I am sure you know what makes us better than the Taliban.
		
Click to expand...

Now we are going into different territory there because let's be honest we were in their country so seperating by cause isn't a line we would be entitled to take 

For me what makes us better is because we act humanely and within the laws set out - we aren't looking to kill for a cause we are always looking to protect


----------



## guest100718 (Dec 17, 2016)

I dont have an opinion


----------



## pokerjoke (Dec 17, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			I think this thread has gotten far away from the original post and become a personal argument between people. Is using what has happened with regards to this highly decorated, brave individual, the right place to air your personal grievance with another forumer.
		
Click to expand...

You might be right Adey but have a look at what you posted,you are calling him a "highly decorated brave individual" when others have called him " a coward" maybe indirectly but a coward all the same.

When someone starts a thread that is obviously going to get heated and passionate maybe the thread should not be allowed in the first place.


----------



## bluewolf (Dec 17, 2016)

pokerjoke said:



			You might be right Adey but have a look at what you posted,you are calling him a "highly decorated brave individual" when others have called him " a coward" maybe indirectly but a coward all the same.

When someone starts a thread that is obviously going to get heated and passionate maybe the thread should not be allowed in the first place.
		
Click to expand...

Would be a shame to stifle adult discussion just because of the actions of a minority. 

Would be better to have an "adults only" section of the forum, and ban people from it when they act like petulant children.


----------



## MadAdey (Dec 17, 2016)

pokerjoke said:



			You might be right Adey but have a look at what you posted,you are calling him a "highly decorated brave individual" when others have called him " a coward" maybe indirectly but a coward all the same.

When someone starts a thread that is obviously going to get heated and passionate maybe the thread should not be allowed in the first place.
		
Click to expand...

Just stating the facts mate. To call him a coward to do what he did after a career like he has is a bit off.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 17, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Now we are going into different territory there because let's be honest we were in their country so seperating by cause isn't a line we would be entitled to take 

For me what makes us better is because we act humanely and within the laws set out - we aren't looking to kill for a cause we are always looking to protect
		
Click to expand...

Phil are you seriously that naive to think that at times some things happen in War that are nasty and unwelcome or almost primitive?
The Geneva Convention and ROE are all well and good but let's be honest they are there to protect the MOD and Government more than the guy on the ground, mistakes happen, lines get blurred, Sgt Blackman stated he believed the Guy had died and in a moment of madness put a bullet into him in an error of judgement, it was a 3 minute video out of a 6 month tour were he had faced mates being blown up, the Taliban hanging body parts in trees near the FOB, shortage of equipment etc.
The link you provided, again, how else did expect the judge to sum up a guilty verdict in a murder case?
But on the same site there are link after link of articles and information supporting him and backing his version of events, 
I have never and would never agree that Military personnel should be given a free ride to behave how we/they want, but at the same time we can't send them into battle on the back foot wondering "what if" because hesitation could cost lives.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 17, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Phil are you seriously that naive to think that at times some things happen in War that are nasty and unwelcome or almost primitive?
The Geneva Convention and ROE are all well and good but let's be honest they are there to protect the MOD and Government more than the guy on the ground, mistakes happen, lines get blurred, Sgt Blackman stated he believed the Guy had died and in a moment of madness put a bullet into him in an error of judgement, it was a 3 minute video out of a 6 month tour were he had faced mates being blown up, the Taliban hanging body parts in trees near the FOB, shortage of equipment etc.
The link you provided, again, how else did expect the judge to sum up a guilty verdict in a murder case?
But on the same site there are link after link of articles and information supporting him and backing his version of events, 
I have never and would never agree that Military personnel should be given a free ride to behave how we/they want, but at the same time we can't send them into battle on the back foot wondering "what if" because hesitation could cost lives.
		
Click to expand...

Paul - you said that he was acting humanely by putting him out of his misery? Now you believe his story that he was already dead so he shot him out of frustration ? So if he was already dead why did he tell his colleagues that he broke the Geneva Convention and to ensure it goes no further. Again his actions don't add up to someone acting humanely or putting a bullet into someone who died ?

Paul he shot an unarmed injured man and that video shows him calm whilst doing it - he took the person out of the sight of the surveillance whilst also stating that he wanted to be out of sight , he asked his colleagues to stop administration of first aid and then shot him quoted Shakespeare, he had been disarmed , offered no threat to them and then he even stated he broke Geneva Convention and for them to not say anything and all in a calm controlled manner as shown in the video on his helmut - they are facts. If he had let the man die then nothing would have happened to him and the Taliban more likely would have died anyway but decided to end his life there and then wasn't a choice for Marine A to make 

If he was suffering from PTSD then it should have been manslaughter and time served prob down to 5 years and then you can explain his actions but not justify them for me - the links on the website and the case all concentrate on him suffering from PTSD not that he was acting in a humane way to end someone's life


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 17, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Paul - you said that he was acting humanely by putting him out of his misery? Now you believe his story that he was already dead so he shot him out of frustration ? So if he was already dead why did he tell his colleagues that he broke the Geneva Convention and to ensure it goes no further. Again his actions don't add up to someone acting humanely or putting a bullet into someone who died ?

Paul he shot an unarmed injured man and that video shows him calm whilst doing it - he took the person out of the sight of the surveillance whilst also stating that he wanted to be out of sight , he asked his colleagues to stop administration of first aid and then shot him quoted Shakespeare, he had been disarmed , offered no threat to them and then he even stated he broke Geneva Convention and for them to not say anything and all in a calm controlled manner as shown in the video on his helmut - they are facts. If he had let the man die then nothing would have happened to him and the Taliban more likely would have died anyway but decided to end his life there and then wasn't a choice for Marine A to make 

If he was suffering from PTSD then it should have been manslaughter and time served prob down to 5 years and then you can explain his actions but not justify them for me - the links on the website and the case all concentrate on him suffering from PTSD not that he was acting in a humane way to end someone's life
		
Click to expand...

I had incorrectly believed his defence had been the humane shooting until I took the time to read the link you posted and all the information on that site.

That site also clearly goes into his defence and the lack of support and backing the MOD gave him, was over 2 years for the incident to come to light and even then it was through fluke.

Like I have previously posted, Military personnel should not have immunity to behave how they like, but on a battlefield against a known enemy our soldiers need the protection.

Maybe other forumers may disagree but to me he wasn't just some bloke caught in a fire fight who had rights, he was a member of the Taliban who had gone out that day to kill British and allied soldiers and for that he has no sympathy from me and Sgt Blackman, for whatever reason, did the world a favour.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 17, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			I had incorrectly believed his defence had been the humane shooting until I took the time to read the link you posted and all the information on that site.

That site also clearly goes into his defence and the lack of support and backing the MOD gave him, was over 2 years for the incident to come to light and even then it was through fluke.

Like I have previously posted, Military personnel should not have immunity to behave how they like, but on a battlefield against a known enemy our soldiers need the protection.

Maybe other forumers may disagree but to me he wasn't just some bloke caught in a fire fight who had rights, he was a member of the Taliban who had gone out that day to kill British and allied soldiers and for that he has no sympathy from me and Sgt Blackman, for whatever reason, did the world a favour.
		
Click to expand...

The government and MOD havent backed or protected the Forces for years - more than happy to wash their hands of any dirty laundry and leave someone to fend for themselves - it's the reasons why charities like H4H and Combat Stress centres were started because the government did nothing about PTSD. 

As for it being a fluke that it came out ? What difference does that make ? 

Yes the world is a better place without a terrorist and he was out to kill but that doesn't make what happened right


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 17, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The government and MOD havent backed or protected the Forces for years - more than happy to wash their hands of any dirty laundry and leave someone to fend for themselves - it's the reasons why charities like H4H and Combat Stress centres were started because the government did nothing about PTSD. 

As for it being a fluke that it came out ? What difference does that make ? 

Yes the world is a better place without a terrorist and he was out to kill but that doesn't make what happened right
		
Click to expand...

Are you aware how it came to light?

One less terrorist makes it OK to me, if it is acceptable for friends or family of known terrorists to be killed and taken as collateral damage during precision strikes on cars or homes then I can live with Sgt Blackmans actions.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 17, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Are you aware how it came to light?

One less terrorist makes it OK to me, if it is acceptable for friends or family of known terrorists to be killed and taken as collateral damage during precision strikes on cars or homes then I can live with Sgt Blackmans actions.
		
Click to expand...

The police found footage on laptop of colleague - how it was found doesn't matter Paul


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 17, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The police found footage on his laptop - how it was found doesn't matter Paul
		
Click to expand...

Sort of, a Marine sold his laptop, the buyer put it in for repair and the shop found the footage and called the police.
My point is, all the questions about why they moved him away from the surveillance camera or what had happened on the ground, nobody at the time gave a sh1t, and 2 years later he is hung out to dry.
It's OK saying we have to take the morale high ground, but this has caused us more harm than good, it should've been dealt with internally, by going public it's put more lives at risk.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 17, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Sort of, a Marine sold his laptop, the buyer put it in for repair and the shop found the footage and called the police.
My point is, all the questions about why they moved him away from the surveillance camera or what had happened on the ground, nobody at the time gave a sh1t, and 2 years later he is hung out to dry.
It's OK saying we have to take the morale high ground, but this has caused us more harm than good, it should've been dealt with internally, by going public it's put more lives at risk.
		
Click to expand...

Did anybody know what happened beyond the people on the ground ? Was it hidden away to ensure that no one was prosecuted because they knew exactly what they did was wrong ? How it was found , how long it took etc is irrelevant and is attempting to take focus away from the actions of the Marine. 

None of what you are saying changes his actions Paul ? And how has it put more lives at risk ? It's not right to hide it all away behind closed doors. 

Paul you keep searching for justification - it's not there. If it was a justified killing he wouldn't have been found guilty


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 17, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Did anybody know what happened beyond the people on the ground ? Was it hidden away to ensure that no one was prosecuted because they knew exactly what they did was wrong ? How it was found , how long it took etc is irrelevant and is attempting to take focus away from the actions of the Marine. 

None of what you are saying changes his actions Paul ? And how has it put more lives at risk ? It's not right to hide it all away behind closed doors. 

Paul you keep searching for justification - it's not there. If it was a justified killing he wouldn't have been found guilty
		
Click to expand...

Sorry Phil, you're wrong, I'm not looking for any justification, to me he is a hero who did nothing wrong and has been treated disgracefully.

You are the one who brought up the moving the bloke away from the surveillance balloon, hence me asking if anyone at the time saw an issue.

I never saw close combat, very close to a couple of bomb blasts and 1 or 2 close calls, even the laundry went further forward than me&#128515; but 7 years as a Welfare Officer dealing with families of dead and injured serviceman and 10 years as an RBL Caseworker has certainly impacted on how I see things.


----------



## Val (Dec 17, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			I had incorrectly believed his defence had been the humane shooting until I took the time to read the link you posted and all the information on that site.

That site also clearly goes into his defence and the lack of support and backing the MOD gave him, was over 2 years for the incident to come to light and even then it was through fluke.

Like I have previously posted, Military personnel should not have immunity to behave how they like, but on a battlefield against a known enemy our soldiers need the protection.

Maybe other forumers may disagree but to me he wasn't just some bloke caught in a fire fight who had rights, he was a member of the Taliban who had gone out that day to kill British and allied soldiers and for that he has no sympathy from me and Sgt Blackman, for whatever reason, did the world a favour.
		
Click to expand...

Paul, I 100% agree with your thoughts and sentiment BUT it doesn't give Sgt Blackman the right to become executioner. He made a grave error of judgement.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 17, 2016)

Val said:



			Paul, I 100% agree with your thoughts and sentiment BUT it doesn't give Sgt Blackman the right to become executioner. He made a grave error of judgement.
		
Click to expand...

Fair point Val, but for me the only thing he could be guilty of, is the grave error of judgement, not murder.


----------



## Val (Dec 17, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Fair point Val, but for me the only thing he could be guilty of, is the grave error of judgement, not murder.
		
Click to expand...

Grave error for sure but bottom line is he shot an unarmed injured man, he really does deserve the punishment. What the punishment maybe is the debate. I don't believe the man is anything other than a hero but this episode has really soured his name and career.


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 17, 2016)

One Planer said:



			Is Paul allowed a personal opinion?
		
Click to expand...

Yes!

But if that clashes with the Army'd official position, he should consider either whether he should be a member. Or, if retired, whether he should continue to receive any payment (pension or otherwise) from it! 

The link LPP provides shows a clear breach of all sorts of Army regs! I have great sympathy for those putting their lives on the line to protect innocent civilians (and UK's interests) in a weird conflict zone! I believe the punishment was rather harsh - and an appeal based on PTSD should be considered sympathetically! Remember that a huge number of PTSD sufferers were actually 'shot at dawn' only a century (2 'proper' wars) ago!


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 17, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Sorry Phil, you're wrong (imo)..
		
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 17, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			Yes!

But if that clashes with the Army'd official position, he should consider either whether he should be a member. Or, if retired, whether he should continue to receive any payment (pension or otherwise) from it!
		
Click to expand...

The days of blindly following orders regardless of what they are finished a long time a go, it failed in WW1 and it didn't work as a defence for the SS at the end of WW2.

We are allowed to think and have opinions.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 17, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			Fixed that for you! 

Click to expand...

Unfortunately you didn't as it was fact, not an opinion, but then again I'm not sure if you believe I can think for myself.


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 17, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Unfortunately you didn't as it was fact, not an opinion, but then again I'm not sure if you believe I can think for myself.
		
Click to expand...

What absolute hypocritical drivel!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 17, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			What absolute hypocritical drivel!
		
Click to expand...

Really? Read the posts, he said I was looking for justification for Sgt Blackman's actions, I assured him I'm not, how is that hypocritical?


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 17, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Really? Read the posts, he said I was looking for justification for Sgt Blackman's actions, I assured him I'm not, how is that hypocritical?
		
Click to expand...

You 'fixed' my post as opinion (and yes, it was - but, I believe, also factual! But declare your (opinion) post to be fact!  The words 'To me' clearly indicate 'opinion'!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 17, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			You 'fixed' my post as opinion, but declare your (opinion) post to be fact!
		
Click to expand...

Because you answered with one word and no justification, if you'd of explained yourself so people can understand what you mean then we can agree/disagree/debate/comment, therefore in the absence of any back up to that one word we are left in no-mans land.


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 17, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Because you answered with one word and no justification, if you'd of explained yourself so people can understand what you mean then we can agree/disagree/debate/comment, therefore in the absence of any back up to that one word we are left in no-mans land.
		
Click to expand...

No! You were simply wrong! No further justification was needed!

Read the ruling of the court and you will see a better explanation than I could give, by a General, so someone you would obey if he gave you an order! 

The punishment may be arguable - I believe it could well warrant further examination - but the ruling is quite clear!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 17, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			No! You were simply wrong! No further justification was needed!

Read the ruling of the court and you will see a better explanation than I could give, by a General, so someone you would obey if he gave you an order! 

The punishment may be arguable - I believe it could well warrant further examination - but the ruling is quite clear!
		
Click to expand...

So if you'd of given that reason initially then i wouldn't of guessed you were providing no more than an opinion of your own.
really wouldn't be much of a forum if we all gave one word answers and had to guess what a poster meant by it.

As for obeying orders blindly, we don't and are not trained to, there is such a thing as an illegal order, we are not robots!

And the Judge Advocate General is civilian, not a Military General.


----------



## Foxholer (Dec 17, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			So if you'd of given that reason initially then i wouldn't of guessed you were providing no more than an opinion of your own.
really wouldn't be much of a forum if we all gave one word answers and had to guess what a poster meant by it.

As for obeying orders blindly, we don't and are not trained to, there is such a thing as an illegal order, we are not robots!

And the Judge Advocate General is civilian, not a Military General.
		
Click to expand...

Read the ruling! You were simply wrong!

Man up and admit it!

You may not like it, but far superior folk to you and me have determined those are the facts!

Mitigation is a separate issue! Though the initial court didn't allow much of that - but that's often the military way!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 17, 2016)

Foxholer said:



			You were simply wrong imo!
		
Click to expand...

Fixed this one as well :whoo:


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 18, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Fixed this one as well :whoo:
		
Click to expand...

You dare to challenge the Oracle on all matters . Better off talking to the wall.


----------



## Sweep (Dec 18, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Now we are going into different territory there because let's be honest we were in their country so seperating by cause isn't a line we would be entitled to take 

For me what makes us better is because we act humanely and within the laws set out - we aren't looking to kill for a cause we are always looking to protect
		
Click to expand...

Why were we in their country?
Were we there for a cause?
Was it war or not?


----------



## Robobum (Dec 21, 2016)

Bail refused. Not read the reasoning behind that decision yet, but is he a danger to public? Likely to abscond?

Weird.

And we are meant to be proud to serve our country? Glad I'm out&#128078;


----------



## Papas1982 (Dec 21, 2016)

Robobum said:



			Bail refused. Not read the reasoning behind that decision yet, but is he a danger to public? Likely to abscond?

Weird.

And we are meant to be proud to serve our country? Glad I'm out&#62542;
		
Click to expand...

if they believe there is some truth to the ptsd then it kinda makes sense. He'd probably be considered a danger.


----------



## guest100718 (Dec 21, 2016)

Robobum said:



			Bail refused. Not read the reasoning behind that decision yet, but is he a danger to public? Likely to abscond?

Weird.

And we are meant to be proud to serve our country? Glad I'm out&#128078;
		
Click to expand...

you could read the news for the reasons


----------



## Blue in Munich (Dec 21, 2016)

guest100718 said:



			you could read the news for the reasons
		
Click to expand...

You couldn't at the time that post was made.


----------



## richy (Dec 21, 2016)

Fish said:



			You didn't do enough front line tours to make that statement, the regiment and position you were in in the RAF for 22 years meant you did token/minimum tours and mainly in much safer areas as you weren't trained well enough to get really dirty, but when people like Marine A and other frontline regiments do tours 10/1 more than you within the same period I think you'll find that the 99% you state is nowhere near realistic, it wasn't 99% in the 4 full tours of NI I did during some of the worst troubles, it wasn't in the Falklands, Bosnia, Iraq and many more, some my government wouldn't even admit to sending me/us, so please, lets not read from the book in some ideological fantasy just because you did 22 years, of what I would think was mainly behind a desk!   



Not much.....even our light infantry regiments/battalions do much more than the RAF on the ground and even that is somewhat protected to the areas they are deployed for their own safety, even the cooks have to go out on tour, they've done 22 years also and have to do so much time on the ground to warrant their tour medal, but obviously nothing like the guys they feed, so in the grand scheme of things, the term of service means squat!
		
Click to expand...

100% agree


----------



## richy (Dec 21, 2016)

Fish said:



			This statement though say's otherwise, it gives the impression to those not knowing the roles of RAF personnel who were mainly in administration or training/computer roles that they played just as much an equal role and did as many tours in hot spots than those in other regiments like Marine A, which in simple terms is, utter garbage!

Now if you were in the RAF Regiment now that would be different, but I know you weren't just by looking at you and the opinions you give, I've met some of them and they were proper soldiers, akin to the Para's & Marine's.

A cook could come on here and make the same unqualified statement and attempt to back it up by stating they've done 22 years, that's no different to you IMO.

I'm not belittling anyone, but don't start turning into Walter Mitty!
		
Click to expand...

100% agree again. Well apart from the RAF reg bit.


----------



## richy (Dec 21, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			One of things our military prides itself in is following the Rules of Engagement and Geneva Convention 

Marine A broke both 

The Taliban fighter was on the floor injured and caused no immediate threat to life - first aid should have been administered to the best of their abilities and then he should have been evacuated to further first aid and then dealt with properly by the authorities 

Marine A was clearly guilty of manslaughter at the very least 

Rules of Engagement and Geneva Convention doesn't cover "what if he then later in life goes onto kill" - that's not a justification for what he did 

The public and the red tops have jumped on the bandwagon with demands he be released etc and it's wrong - he committed a crime and should serve the punishment for that crime 

Aside from that I do have a problem with certain lawyers chasing cases looking to earn big money
		
Click to expand...

Phil, how many times have you actually had to use the ROE in a real time situation? I bet it's zero


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 21, 2016)

richy said:



			Phil, how many times have you actually had to use the ROE in a real time situation? I bet it's zero
		
Click to expand...

What I have or haven't done in my career in the RAF is both irrelevant to the thread and also none of your business.


----------



## richy (Dec 21, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			What I have or haven't done in my career in the RAF is both irrelevant to the thread and also none of your business.
		
Click to expand...

That's all the answer I need


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Dec 21, 2016)

Can we move away from individuals military experience please


----------



## richy (Dec 21, 2016)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Can we move away from individuals military experience please
		
Click to expand...

Can we also not claim to know how we'd react if we were in the same situation that marine A was in? Regardless of the number of ROE briefings you've attended sitting in a classroom!!


----------



## Val (Dec 21, 2016)

richy said:



			Phil, how many times have you actually had to use the ROE in a real time situation? I bet it's zero
		
Click to expand...

And for a high majority of serving personnel (current and retired) it's zero but they are there and there to stop this very scenario


----------



## richy (Dec 21, 2016)

Val said:



			And for a high majority of serving personnel (current and retired) it's zero but they are there and there to stop this very scenario
		
Click to expand...

But no one knows how'll they'll react when the adrenaline is pumping and you're coming under fire. 

For all we know marine A could've said he'd of never done what he did but until you're in the thick of it, you just don't know. 
To have the holier than thou attitude with something so sensitive is completely deluded.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Dec 21, 2016)

Agree to disagree and move on please


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 21, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			What I have or haven't done in my career in the RAF is both irrelevant to the thread and also none of your business.
		
Click to expand...

It is when you claim to have served under the ROE for 22 years.   If you were a non combatant CrabFat then just say so but please don't use your own military career as a beacon of perfection in comparison to a Royal Marine Commando on the front line.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 22, 2016)

SocketRocket said:



			It is when you claim to have served under the ROE for 22 years.   If you were a non combatant CrabFat then just say so but please don't use your own military career as a beacon of perfection in comparison to a Royal Marine Commando on the front line.
		
Click to expand...

Please see the mod message 



PhilTheFragger said:



			Can we move away from individuals military experience please
		
Click to expand...


You appear to get away with being agressive and point scoring towards posters on the EU thread but as previously stated it's pretty low to use this thread as some vehicle to point score or carry on a personal vendetta.

I have given my opinion on the situation and it's an opinion based both on what the facts are and also how the rules are - what I did in my career has nothing to do with the facts and doesn't change what happened and is not the discussion


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Dec 22, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Please see the mod message 




You appear to get away with being agressive and point scoring towards posters on the EU thread but as previously stated it's pretty low to use this thread as some vehicle to point score or carry on a personal vendetta.

I have given my opinion on the situation and it's an opinion based both on what the facts are and also how the rules are - what I did in my career has nothing to do with the facts and doesn't change what happened and is not the discussion
		
Click to expand...

Please see the mod message

And the " low" comment is a bit rich especially after your "coward" comment which many saw as very low indeed.

So it's time for everybody to stop the personal digs ( last warning) &#9888;&#65039;


----------



## Val (Dec 22, 2016)

richy said:



			But no one knows how'll they'll react when the adrenaline is pumping and you're coming under fire. 

For all we know marine A could've said he'd of never done what he did but until you're in the thick of it, you just don't know. 
To have the holier than thou attitude with something so sensitive is completely deluded.
		
Click to expand...

I don't have a holier than thou attitude, if you know the story you'all know he wasn't under fire or in danger when he shot the guy. 

Would I have done the same? I've no idea, bottom line is he broke all rules and shot an unarmed and injured man. I was defensive of Sgt Blackman before I knew more of the story but now I believe he should face the punishment for the crime he committed.


----------



## user2010 (Dec 22, 2016)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Please see the mod message

*And the " low" comment is a bit rich especially after your "coward" comment which many saw as very low indeed.
*
So it's time for everybody to stop the personal digs ( last warning) &#9888;&#65039;
		
Click to expand...




Told!:thup::thup:


----------



## richy (Dec 22, 2016)

Val said:



			I don't have a holier than thou attitude, if you know the story you'all know he wasn't under fire or in danger when he shot the guy. 

Would I have done the same? I've no idea, bottom line is he broke all rules and shot an unarmed and injured man. I was defensive of Sgt Blackman before I knew more of the story but now I believe he should face the punishment for the crime he committed.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't mean you. Apologies if it seemed it did


----------



## MadAdey (Dec 22, 2016)

It's very easy to make assumptions when you don't know what someone did in the armed forces. Air Force, Army or Navy who knows what they did. Maybe I got myself on interpreter duties that meant going out into these villages in Afghanistan, alongside the army meeting with local people. I was in the RAF, do you know how many times I nearly got taken out? You don't, so don't make assumptions to what someone faced during their time in the armed services without facts.

Anyway, next time the army are on the battle field, pressed in by enemy fire, remember it's the Air Force that sends that nice shiny aircraft to bail your ass out.


----------



## Hobbit (Dec 22, 2016)

Taking a broader view, our troops were sent to Afghan partly because of lawlessness. A determination made in some part as a comparison to the relatively ordered and lawful society we enjoy. We can't pick and choose when we apply our law/rules. 

Guilty? That's already been determined. Mitigating circumstances, quite possibly. But we have a structured judiciary which has a framework which though not perfect is the bedrock of our society. 

To ignore our rules would lead us down a path no one should want to tread. Disagree with the judgement, fine. But respect it.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Dec 22, 2016)

I accept he did wrong, and we cant be above the law...anywhere. However I don't think his sentence should be the same for a normal civie who kills, whether murder or manslaughter. Make an example of him by all means, but we should respect amd understand the duress he was under at that time and situation and that for me means a heavily reduced sentence.
I think he has suffered enough.


----------



## SocketRocket (Dec 22, 2016)

If we train people to have the ability to kill without question it should not be a surprise if they kill without question.


----------



## guest100718 (Dec 22, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			I accept he did wrong, and we cant be above the law...anywhere. However I don't think his sentence should be the same for a normal civie who kills, whether murder or manslaughter. Make an example of him by all means, but we should respect amd understand the duress he was under at that time and situation and that for me means a heavily reduced sentence.
I think he has suffered enough.
		
Click to expand...

8 years sounds pretty lenient for murder


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Dec 22, 2016)

guest100718 said:



			8 years sounds pretty lenient for murder
		
Click to expand...


But a drink driver who kills gets less...how is that fair?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 22, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			It's very easy to make assumptions when you don't know what someone did in the armed forces. Air Force, Army or Navy who knows what they did. Maybe I got myself on interpreter duties that meant going out into these villages in Afghanistan, alongside the army meeting with local people. I was in the RAF, do you know how many times I nearly got taken out? You don't, so don't make assumptions to what someone faced during their time in the armed services without facts.

*Anyway, next time the army are on the battle field, pressed in by enemy fire, remember it's the Air Force that sends that nice shiny aircraft to bail your ass out.*

Click to expand...

I rather you remember the majority of people commenting on here don't have Military service and those that do fully understand the role all three services take and the importance of all service personnel, regardless of trade.

Please don't start the inter service rubbish.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 22, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			I accept he did wrong, and we cant be above the law...anywhere. However I don't think his sentence should be the same for a normal civie who kills, whether murder or manslaughter. Make an example of him by all means, but we should respect amd understand the duress he was under at that time and situation and that for me means a heavily reduced sentence.
I think he has suffered enough.
		
Click to expand...

Believe it prob should have been manslaughter but that will depend on PTSD - clearly if he was suffering from PTSD then that's mitigating circumstances that should be taken into consideration for the charge and the sentence


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 22, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			I rather you remember the majority of people commenting on here don't have Military service and those that do fully understand the role all three services take and the importance of all service personnel, regardless of trade.

Please don't start the inter service rubbish.
		
Click to expand...

I think the comment was more banter as your normally get within the forces


----------



## NWJocko (Dec 22, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Believe it prob should have been manslaughter but that will depend on PTSD - clearly if he was suffering from PTSD then that's mitigating circumstances that should be taken into consideration for the charge and the sentence
		
Click to expand...

TBH (and I'm no legal expert obviously) part of what I struggle with this is the application of "Murder" to a war situation......  Surely every killing in a war zone is premeditated to an extent, i.e. you shoot with the intention to kill (according to rules etc).  What about Special Forces who set out specifically to kill a particular target in an operation?

I think this muddies the waters (in terms of general public understanding at least) in this case as civilian terminology/expectations/definitions around charge and sentence etc are being considered in a civilian context rather than the circumstances in which this happened.

I've no answers as to how to resolve that right enough but phrases like "8 years is lenient for Murder" I struggle with in this context.....


----------



## MadAdey (Dec 22, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			I rather you remember the majority of people commenting on here don't have Military service and those that do fully understand the role all three services take and the importance of all service personnel, regardless of trade.

Please don't start the inter service rubbish.
		
Click to expand...

It's not me starting it, I'm just pointing out that because you served in a certain branch doesn't mean you saw more action than a person from another.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 22, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			It's not me starting it, I'm just pointing out that because you served in a certain branch doesn't mean you saw more action than a person from another.
		
Click to expand...

That was one person to one person, no one else, certainly not a catch all statement like yours.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 22, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I think the comment was more banter as your normally get within the forces
		
Click to expand...

As you can see from his reply Phil, it wasn't banter.


----------



## guest100718 (Dec 22, 2016)

Bunkermagnet said:



			But a drink driver who kills gets less...how is that fair?
		
Click to expand...

.
could get less. and its not the same crime is it.


----------



## Val (Dec 22, 2016)

pauldj42 said:



			Please don't start the inter service rubbish.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, because us sappers can always pull an ace  The ace being nobody can do anything without us :rofl:


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 22, 2016)

Val said:



			I agree, because us sappers can always pull an ace  The ace being nobody can do anything without us :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

Ha Ha, some seem to have forgotten their history. :thup:


----------



## Fish (Dec 22, 2016)

Val said:



			I agree, because us sappers can always pull a spanner & spade out and chuck it &#128540;
		
Click to expand...

&#128077;
&#128514;&#128514;&#128514;


----------



## Robobum (Dec 22, 2016)

NWJocko said:



			TBH (and I'm no legal expert obviously) part of what I struggle with this is the application of "Murder" to a war situation......  Surely every killing in a war zone is premeditated to an extent, i.e. you shoot with the intention to kill (according to rules etc).  What about Special Forces who set out specifically to kill a particular target in an operation?

I think this muddies the waters (in terms of general public understanding at least) in this case as civilian terminology/expectations/definitions around charge and sentence etc are being considered in a civilian context rather than the circumstances in which this happened.

I've no answers as to how to resolve that right enough but phrases like "8 years is lenient for Murder" I struggle with in this context.....
		
Click to expand...

Here here


----------



## adam6177 (Dec 22, 2016)

Seems I'm a little late on this one....but in my opinion this should never have even gone to trial.


----------



## Val (Dec 22, 2016)

Fish said:



			&#62541;
&#62978;&#62978;&#62978;
		
Click to expand...

Jealousy, im sure you watched in awe whlist our mob made life easy for you grunts in NI


----------



## Fish (Dec 22, 2016)

Val said:



			Jealousy, im sure you watched in awe whlist our mob made life easy for you grunts in NI
		
Click to expand...

I had cause to call a few Pioneers out to assist us in every tour I did, invaluable at times :thup:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 22, 2016)

NWJocko said:



			TBH (and I'm no legal expert obviously) part of what I struggle with this is the application of "Murder" to a war situation......  Surely every killing in a war zone is premeditated to an extent, i.e. you shoot with the intention to kill (according to rules etc).  What about Special Forces who set out specifically to kill a particular target in an operation?

I think this muddies the waters (in terms of general public understanding at least) in this case as civilian terminology/expectations/definitions around charge and sentence etc are being considered in a civilian context rather than the circumstances in which this happened.

I've no answers as to how to resolve that right enough but phrases like "8 years is lenient for Murder" I struggle with in this context.....
		
Click to expand...

In regards special forces and also drone targets etc - they would have gone through lawyers etc to ensure they are legal targets and there is no repercussions on the legal front 

It is a minefield and it's why each person has their green and white card drummed into them - they say any action you do you have to ensure you are able to justify your action in a court of law 

When it comes to war zones or conflict zones the guys get acclimatised to the situation and can judge when they can fire their weapon 

In regards Marine a - was what he did premeditated? Or was it a spur of the moment reactionary ? Was it something that he had planned to do when the chance came along ? . The court seemed to believe it was premeditated and some of what he says and does would back that up. But believe myself that it wasn't premeditated and that he momentary snapped and took advantage of a situation to maybe exact a bit of revenge ? So for me that's manslaughter


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 22, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			Anyway, next time the army are on the battle field, pressed in by enemy fire, remember it's the Air Force that sends that nice shiny aircraft to bail your ass out.
		
Click to expand...

Providing it's between the hours of 0800-1600, not a weekend, raining, cold or wet :whoo:


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 22, 2016)

Just trying to bit a bit of context on the whole political/legal case that always seems to come the way of the armed forces,

Known terrorists that took the life of more SF pers in NI UK and Europe than were lost in the last two conflicts and were responsible for the death and maiming of god knows how many innocent civilians get free get out of jail cards.

Members of the armed forces are pursued, some 40 years after a full investigation into an incident and others including the good Sgt are hung out to dry by the establishment.

I was in the Citadel in Plymouth yesterday and to see the outrage of present serving soldiers was an eye opener even though they understand fully the rights and wrongs of this case.

No other country treats its AF this way.


----------



## guest100718 (Dec 22, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			Just trying to bit a bit of context on the whole political/legal case that always seems to come the way of the armed forces,

Known terrorists that took the life of more SF pers in NI UK and Europe than were lost in the last two conflicts and were responsible for the death and maiming of god knows how many innocent civilians get free get out of jail cards.

Members of the armed forces are pursued, some 40 years after a full investigation into an incident and others including the good Sgt are hung out to dry by the establishment.

I was in the Citadel in Plymouth yesterday and to see the outrage of present serving soldiers was an eye opener even though they understand fully the rights and wrongs of this case.

No other country treats its AF this way.
		
Click to expand...

And no one should be above the law which seem to be the view of some one here, nor is the fact that somethng happened a long time ago reason not to look into it now.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 22, 2016)

guest100718 said:



			And no one should be above the law which seem to be the view of some one here, nor is the fact that somethng happened a long time ago reason not to look into it now.
		
Click to expand...

The NI issues regarding those now being arrested have all been dealt with by a full legal process and the individuals concerned were cleared af any wrong doing.

The get out of free jail letters issued by our political and legal masters and the same could have been done in this case.


----------



## guest100718 (Dec 22, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			The NI issues regarding those now being arrested have all been dealt with by a full legal process and the individuals concerned were cleared af any wrong doing.

The get out of free jail letters issued by our political and legal masters and the same could have been done in this case.
		
Click to expand...

I know all about NI


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Dec 22, 2016)

guest100718 said:



			And no one should be above the law which seem to be the view of some one here, nor is the fact that somethng happened a long time ago reason not to look into it now.
		
Click to expand...

Which is fine in principle, just not in reality.


----------



## Fish (Dec 22, 2016)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It is a minefield and it's why each person has their green and white card drummed into them - they say any action you do you have to ensure you are able to justify your action in a court of law 

*When it comes to war zones or conflict zones the guys get acclimatised to the situation and can judge when they can fire their weapon*

Click to expand...

That's a hell of a general comment and you certainly can't qualify it in any way, I never felt 'acclimatised' whilst in any war or conflict zone, irrelevant if it was my 1st, 2nd or 3rd tour to the same country or area.  So, when you say 'the guys', who are you referring to?  I would never make such a comment towards any of my troops or platoons, in fact I would be encouraging quite the opposite as its complacency that gets you killed!  There's a delicate balance when faced with a shoot don't shoot situation and personally I'd rather be on the edge when making that decision, not _acclimatised_ where I may feel too comfortable and take too long making that decisive decision putting myself and everyone else around me at risk, this is why there are amendments to many ROE when serving in various countries as they have to be adopted for each operation and conflict, they can't just be a legal document to suit lawyers, IMO!  You may feel acclimatised if your firing and receiving fire from great distances but when you're that close in OP's or simply that close you can smell them, acclimatisation is something I would strongly not advise!       

This isn't a pop Phil, I'm speaking as someone who has had to make quick snap calls and the last thing I think about is any legal consequence or anything that may or may have been drummed into me at basic training or pre-tour training camps if we had time, I would always put my men and myself safe first, anything and everything else is/was secondary.   

You also mention the White Card, I didn't mention this colour card before as it was born from the US Marines (beirut) in the early 80's along with the Blue card, but you make it sound like it's a general ROE colour card, is it, I wasn't aware it was rolled out amongst all the services, especially as they were both written and adapted specifically for a specific conflict.  I certainly didn't come across it/them and I was very active throughout the 80's and operated under very different colour or predetermined drafted ROE orders but I wasn't aware we had a joint white ROE, unless it's new or just for the RAF!?


----------



## Matty (Dec 22, 2016)

He did the right thing morally for the wrong reason legally. Unfortunately for him, the legal angle takes precedent over the moral one.


----------



## guest100718 (Dec 22, 2016)

Nice touch showing the join the army ad on mobile ...


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 22, 2016)

guest100718 said:



			I know all about NI
		
Click to expand...

You'll be the only one, I tripped up there a few times and I never got it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Dec 22, 2016)

Fish said:



			That's a hell of a general comment and you certainly can't qualify it in any way, I never felt 'acclimatised' whilst in any war or conflict zone, irrelevant if it was my 1st, 2nd or 3rd tour to the same country or area.  So, when you say 'the guys', who are you referring to?  I would never make such a comment towards any of my troops or platoons, in fact I would be encouraging quite the opposite as its complacency that gets you killed!  There's a delicate balance when faced with a shoot don't shoot situation and personally I'd rather be on the edge when making that decision, not _acclimatised_ where I may feel too comfortable and take too long making that decisive decision putting myself and everyone else around me at risk, this is why there are amendments to many ROE when serving in various countries as they have to be adopted for each operation and conflict, they can't just be a legal document to suit lawyers, IMO!  You may feel acclimatised if your firing and receiving fire from great distances but when you're that close in OP's or simply that close you can smell them, acclimatisation is something I would strongly not advise!       

This isn't a pop Phil, I'm speaking as someone who has had to make quick snap calls and the last thing I think about is any legal consequence or anything that may or may have been drummed into me at basic training or pre-tour training camps if we had time, I would always put my men and myself safe first, anything and everything else is/was secondary.   

You also mention the White Card, I didn't mention this colour card before as it was born from the US Marines (beirut) in the early 80's along with the Blue card, but you make it sound like it's a general ROE colour card, is it, I wasn't aware it was rolled out amongst all the services, especially as they were both written and adapted specifically for a specific conflict.  I certainly didn't come across it/them and I was very active throughout the 80's and operated under very different colour or predetermined drafted ROE orders but I wasn't aware we had a joint white ROE, unless it's new or just for the RAF!?
		
Click to expand...

Acclimatised = knowing from experience and the best training possible how to deal when faced with all situations and knowing through experience and again the best training possible when to fire your weapon. Not complacency or getting comfortable but basically having trust in the Armed Forces to do the right thing at the right time to the best of their ability.

White card was your RoE - it was adapted for different situations and always went hand in hand with your Green Card which was your authority to carry firearms.


----------



## MadAdey (Dec 22, 2016)

Old Skier said:



			Providing it's between the hours of 0800-1600, not a weekend, raining, cold or wet :whoo:
		
Click to expand...

Maybe we'll hang on to 16:30 as long as you book in writing 48 hours in advance and I don't have a tee time &#128514;


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 22, 2016)

MadAdey said:



			Maybe we'll hang on to 16:30 as long as you book in writing 48 hours in advance and I don't have a tee time &#62978;
		
Click to expand...

Nope after 1600 all airdams automatic redirect to Navy as they could see in the dark.


----------



## Old Skier (Dec 22, 2016)

For the very old


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 15, 2017)

Great news for Sgt Blackman and his family, Murder conviction downgraded to Manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Sentence to be reviewed at a date tba.

Hopefully walk free with time served.


----------



## Old Skier (Mar 15, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Great news for Sgt Blackman and his family, Murder conviction downgraded to Manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Sentence to be reviewed at a date tba.

Hopefully walk free with time served.
		
Click to expand...

All taking to long IMHO and I hope but doubt a time served sentence. Always looked like setting an example.


----------



## AmandaJR (Mar 15, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Great news for Sgt Blackman and his family, Murder conviction downgraded to Manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

Sentence to be reviewed at a date tba.

Hopefully walk free with time served.
		
Click to expand...

Great to hear this on the radio this morning. I too hope the revised sentence will mean he's already served his time and is freed.


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 15, 2017)

A worrying result. A cold blooded murder carried out to appease both his own blood lust and to impress those around him. His own words proved he knew what he was doing and how wrong it was. Pathetic decision.


----------



## Beezerk (Mar 15, 2017)

Kellfire said:



			A worrying result. A cold blooded murder carried out to appease both his own blood lust and to impress those around him. His own words proved he knew what he was doing and how wrong it was. Pathetic decision.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed.


----------



## patricks148 (Mar 15, 2017)

TBH i wouldn't want to judge him, i can't even imagine what it would be like being in that situation.


----------



## Khamelion (Mar 15, 2017)

patricks148 said:



			TBH i wouldn't want to judge him, i can't even imagine what it would be like being in that situation.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly, I've never served and I'm thankful for men like Marine A who is willing to serve his country when called. I can't even start to comprehend what it would be like to be in that situation, almost every day.


----------



## richy (Mar 15, 2017)

patricks148 said:



			TBH i wouldn't want to judge him, i can't even imagine what it would be like being in that situation.
		
Click to expand...




Khamelion said:



			Exactly, I've never served and I'm thankful for men like Marine A who is willing to serve his country when called. I can't even start to comprehend what it would be like to be in that situation, almost every day.
		
Click to expand...

Bang on. 

Easy to judge sitting safe and sound at home when you've not even been close to being in a similar situation.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Mar 15, 2017)

patricks148 said:



			TBH i wouldn't want to judge him, i can't even imagine what it would be like being in that situation.
		
Click to expand...




Khamelion said:



			Exactly, I've never served and I'm thankful for men like Marine A who is willing to serve his country when called. I can't even start to comprehend what it would be like to be in that situation, almost every day.
		
Click to expand...




richy said:



			Bang on. 

Easy to judge sitting safe and sound at home when you've not even been close to being in a similar situation.
		
Click to expand...

Add me to that list; when I've been there & faced it I'm fit to sit in judgement.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 15, 2017)

Blue in Munich said:



			Add me to that list; when I've been there & faced it I'm fit to sit in judgement.
		
Click to expand...

I have no issue with anyone having an opinion on his actions, it's because of people like him in the Forces and people like yourself in the Police protecting our Country that we are able to express those opinions, one of the first things we'd lose is freedom of speech if we let our enemies win.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Mar 15, 2017)

Blue in Munich said:



			Add me to that list; when I've been there & faced it I'm fit to sit in judgement.
		
Click to expand...

yes agree with this very hard to form a judgment unless you have been there.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 15, 2017)

A manslaughter charge is prob the correct way it should have gone with an evaluation of PTSD. At the end of the day the one person who knows if it was all deliberate and murder is himself - the actions and words he did will always be very suspect. Not sure how long he has served already but expect he will get out and don't think that sits right.


----------



## williamalex1 (Mar 15, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			A manslaughter charge is prob the correct way it should have gone with an evaluation of PTSD. At the end of the day the one person who knows if it was all deliberate and murder is himself - the actions and words he did will always be very suspect. Not sure how long he has served already but expect he will get out and don't think that sits right.
		
Click to expand...

What about pilots or drone controllers who decided to drop bombs and kill innocent civilians, should they be charged too ?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 15, 2017)

williamalex1 said:



			What about pilots or drone controllers who decided to drop bombs and kill innocent civilians, should they be charged too ?
		
Click to expand...

If the innocent civilians have be deliberately targeted and the pilot has made that decision himself then yes he should be charged 

As for the collateral damage issue when innocent civilians get caught up in attacks on areas or buildings which have terrorist threats well the pilot is just following orders


----------



## Snelly (Mar 15, 2017)

You must be a very insightful person to glean this from the available evidence.


----------



## Old Skier (Mar 15, 2017)

Snelly said:



			You must be a very insightful person to glean this from the available evidence.
		
Click to expand...

He's not. There  are to many people involved and procedures to follow for one man to take such action unless he loses it completely, which I suppose is always a possibility.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Mar 15, 2017)

I wonder if we would have so much compassion if the tables were turned and it was the Marine who was deliberately shot in cold blood


----------



## patricks148 (Mar 15, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			I wonder if we would have so much compassion if the tables were turned and it was the Marine who was deliberately shot in cold blood
		
Click to expand...

What about the filmed executions carried out by Al Qaeda and the Taliban, perfectly innocent aid workers etc


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 15, 2017)

Panorama Special tonight at 10:40 on BBC 1, Marine A - Guilty As Charged?


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 15, 2017)

I'm totally unqualified to comment on the rights or wrongs of his or the Court's decision!

But my gut tells me it made the right one today, even if a bad one was made by 'in the field'!


----------



## chrisd (Mar 15, 2017)

Blue in Munich said:



			Add me to that list; when I've been there & faced it I'm fit to sit in judgement.
		
Click to expand...

Another one for this list!


----------



## Val (Mar 15, 2017)

I'll add my tuppence here, I'm glad that it's been overturned by as we should be looking after our heroes but the only person to blame for the whole thing is Sgt Blackman himself. He broke the rules of engagement and paid the consequences although I don't believe for a minute he should have been charged with murder.

And whilst we have gone as far as this, maybe now is the time to stop persecuting various NI vets who carried out their duties to the best of their abilities without overstepping the mark.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 15, 2017)

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2017/03/15/the-marine-a-judgment-a-handy-10-point-guide/


----------



## Alex1975 (Mar 16, 2017)

Kellfire said:



			A worrying result. A cold blooded murder carried out to appease both his own blood lust and to impress those around him. His own words proved he knew what he was doing and how wrong it was. Pathetic decision.
		
Click to expand...


Is this the thing I saw a little while ago where this is all on video and after the guy shoots the enemy dead he tells his mates... "we just broke the Geneva Convention so lets keep this to our selves" ? 

If so, ye this was cold blooded murder.


----------



## Coffey (Mar 16, 2017)

Alex1975 said:



			Is this the thing I saw a little while ago where this is all on video and after the guy shoots the enemy dead he tells his mates... "we just broke the Geneva Convention so lets keep this to our selves" ? 

If so, ye this was cold blooded murder.
		
Click to expand...

Yep thats the one


----------



## Alex1975 (Mar 16, 2017)

Coffey said:



			Yep thats the one
		
Click to expand...


So he waited for helicopters to clear so that they could not see him gun down an incapacitated man yet he had a camera on his person or one of the other soldiers with him did. He then shot the man dead and clearly stated that he knew he had just broken the Geneva Convention by murdering the man and then encouraged the rest of the team to lie or conceal the murder.

I fail to see how people on here are saying they are not in a position to judge? Its as clear as the nose on your face, its premeditated, cold blooded murder.


----------



## Beezerk (Mar 16, 2017)

Alex1975 said:



			So he waited for helicopters to clear so that they could not see him gun down an incapacitated man yet he had a camera on his person or one of the other soldiers with him did. He then shot the man dead and clearly stated that he knew he had just broken the Geneva Convention by murdering the man and then encouraged the rest of the team to lie or conceal the murder.

I fail to see how people on here are saying they are not in a position to judge? Its as clear as the nose on your face, its premeditated, cold blooded murder.
		
Click to expand...

That's how I see it as well, he seemed very clear of mind at the moments before, during and after. 
I get the "walk a mile in his shoes" argument but at the same time that just makes it a one way discusion, it's ok to back him, but not ok to be against him.
I heard the defendants barrister on the radio yesterday, came across as a grade A tw@t, started to get all anti PC when challenged about having sympathy for the Taliban bloke who was murdered/slaughtered/manslaughtered.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 16, 2017)

Alex1975 said:



			So he waited for helicopters to clear so that they could not see him gun down an incapacitated man yet he had a camera on his person or one of the other soldiers with him did. He then shot the man dead and clearly stated that he knew he had just broken the Geneva Convention by murdering the man and then encouraged the rest of the team to lie or conceal the murder.

I fail to see how people on here are saying they are not in a position to judge? Its as clear as the nose on your face, its premeditated, cold blooded murder.
		
Click to expand...

You, like everyone else is entitled to an opinion and it woukd be a sad world if we all agreed on everything, but instead of making such a judgement over a subject you clearly have limited knowledge of, why not take the time to watch the Panorama programme from last night or read the link I posted above.
Maybe, just maybe it's not as clear cut as you believe, he's now been found guilty of manslaughter by diminished responsibility, so legally it certainly wasn't murder.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 16, 2017)

Beezerk said:



			That's how I see it as well, he seemed very clear of mind at the moments before, during and after. 
I get the "walk a mile in his shoes" argument but at the same time that just makes it a one way discusion, it's ok to back him, but not ok to be against him.
I heard the defendants barrister on the radio yesterday, came across as a grade A tw@t, started to get all anti PC when challenged about having sympathy for the Taliban bloke who was murdered/slaughtered/manslaughtered.
		
Click to expand...

Of course it's ok to be against him, it's a free world, but surely any discussion should be reasoned both ways, people using terminology like "blood lust" etc is pure fiction,
maybe we should stick to facts rather than speculation.


----------



## Hobbit (Mar 16, 2017)

I've not seen the programme, and have no intention of watching it. 

But a question with regards to the judgement handed down. How can a diagnosis of diminished responsibility be given x months/years later?


----------



## Alex1975 (Mar 16, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			You, like everyone else is entitled to an opinion and it woukd be a sad world if we all agreed on everything, but instead of making such a judgement over a subject you clearly have limited knowledge of, why not take the time to watch the Panorama programme from last night or read the link I posted above.
Maybe, just maybe it's not as clear cut as you believe, he's now been found guilty of manslaughter by diminished responsibility, so legally it certainly wasn't murder.
		
Click to expand...


Yep yep 100%. I tried to find the Panorama program last night but did not manage too, I will be looking it out. However if "diminished responsibility" is all that come out of it, ill be just thinking the same as I wrote previously. Premeditated Murder! He planned to kill the man, he waited to do so and then did so... he then made it clear on film that he knew what he had just done. Pretty clear cut?!


----------



## SaintHacker (Mar 16, 2017)

Alex1975 said:



			Is this the thing I saw a little while ago where this is all on video and after the guy shoots the enemy dead he tells his mates... "we just broke the Geneva Convention so lets keep this to our selves" ? 

If so, ye this was cold blooded murder.
		
Click to expand...

You should read the blog in the link above


----------



## Beezerk (Mar 16, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			I've not seen the programme, and have no intention of watching it. 

But a question with regards to the judgement handed down. How can a diagnosis of diminished responsibility be given x months/years later?
		
Click to expand...

His barrister said said he "could" have had some form of mental impairment, just a loophole as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 16, 2017)

Alex1975 said:



			Yep yep 100%. I tried to find the Panorama program last night but did not manage too, I will be looking it out. However if "diminished responsibility" is all that come out of it, ill be just thinking the same as I wrote previously. Premeditated Murder! He planned to kill the man, he waited to do so and then did so... he then made it clear on film that he knew what he had just done. Pretty clear cut?!
		
Click to expand...

So again not waiting to see the programme or read the evidence, just your decision based on the media!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 16, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			I've not seen the programme, and have no intention of watching it. 

But a question with regards to the judgement handed down. How can a diagnosis of diminished responsibility be given x months/years later?
		
Click to expand...

Have a read of the secret barrister link I put up Bri, it mentions that in there, that link does not take sides or support anyones viewpoint.


----------



## Beezerk (Mar 16, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			So again not waiting to see the programme or read the evidence, just your decision based on the media!
		
Click to expand...

Yet you want us to watch the media to base an opinion?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 16, 2017)

He should have been assessed for PTSD before the original charge or trial and it should have been manslaughter because of the PTSD that it appears he was suffering from.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 16, 2017)

Beezerk said:



			Yet you want us to watch the media to base an opinion? 

Click to expand...

I suggested watching the programme and reading the link, at least then his opinion is informed, rather than his initial post of not even knowing what this thread was about.


----------



## Beezerk (Mar 16, 2017)

He'll be getting a bravery award next...


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 16, 2017)

Beezerk said:



			He'll be getting a bravery award next...
		
Click to expand...

Because he fully deserves one, him and hundreds like him.


----------



## Beezerk (Mar 16, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Because he fully deserves one, him and hundreds like him.
		
Click to expand...

For doing the profession he chose to do, yeah right. Anyway, enough of winding you up


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 16, 2017)

Beezerk said:



			For doing the profession he chose to do, yeah right. Anyway, enough of winding you up 

Click to expand...

It doesn't wind me up mate, I'd be the first to defend your right to your opinion. 

I only get wound up when people pass judgement or tell us why how the bloke was feeling etc without at least educating themselves on facts about the subject. :thup:


----------



## Alex1975 (Mar 16, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			It doesn't wind me up mate, I'd be the first to defend your right to your opinion. 

I only get wound up when people pass judgement or tell us why how the bloke was feeling etc without at least educating themselves on facts about the subject. :thup:
		
Click to expand...


If you commit cold blooded murder and its on film.... I'm not sure what any blog or tv program has any relevance.... Its still murder and the guy tells us live that he knows so. Anything else is someone trying to make money out of it.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 16, 2017)

Alex1975 said:



			If you commit cold blooded murder and its on film.... I'm not sure what any blog or tv program has any relevance.... Its still murder and the guy tells us live that he knows so. Anything else is someone trying to make money out of it.
		
Click to expand...

You maybe a decent guy, but if you're not willing to at least try and educate yourself on the subject you just come across as ignorant, sorry if that offends you.


----------



## Alex1975 (Mar 16, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			You maybe a decent guy, but if you're not willing to at least try and educate yourself on the subject you just come across as ignorant, sorry if that offends you.
		
Click to expand...


Not at all, you come across as a lovey as your trying to defend a murderer. Your asking me to go and seek out other peoples opinions but I am a grow up with my own mind and in this case am not seeking others opinions as I have seen a video of how this unfolded. Can I ask, have you seen the video of the murder?


----------



## Khamelion (Mar 16, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			I've not seen the programme, and have no intention of watching it. 

But a question with regards to the judgement handed down. How can a diagnosis of diminished responsibility be given x months/years later?
		
Click to expand...

Because in the move to get a re-trial, the judicial report states _"Possible incompetence by the former defence team (in particular in relation to its failure properly to investigate the appellantâ€™s mental health and so discover the potential partial defence)."_

Read the judicial report Paragraph 7 points i ii and iii




SaintHacker said:



			You should read the blog in the link above
		
Click to expand...




Beezerk said:



			His barrister said said he "could" have had some form of mental impairment, just a loophole as far as I'm concerned.
		
Click to expand...




Beezerk said:



			Yet you want us to watch the media to base an opinion? 

Click to expand...




Alex1975 said:



			If you commit cold blooded murder and its on film.... I'm not sure what any blog or tv program has any relevance.... Its still murder and the guy tells us live that he knows so. Anything else is someone trying to make money out of it.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly as SH writes, read the judicial report before passing comment or judging. The link is in the blog, paragraphs 17 to 22 detail the events.

You cannot condone the actions that Marine A took, he acknowledges and accepts that he did intend to kill the wounded man, but because the circumstances of his mental state was not fully questioned at trial, no psychiatric report was presented as evidence but because of the psychiatric report used in sentencing and subsequent psychiatric evidence there was sufficient grounds for an appeal.

Edit - It's easy to sit and type one thing or another in regard to this situation, but none of us know, apart from what is written, what his mental state was, what he was going through? What pressures he had on him, the report states "He had not been trained in Trauma Risk Management" Para 99 point ii.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 16, 2017)

Alex1975 said:



			Not at all, you come across as a lovey as your trying to defend a murderer. Your asking me to go and seek out other peoples opinions but I am a grow up with my own mind and in this case am not seeking others opinions as I have seen a video of how this unfolded. Can I ask, have you seen the video of the murder?
		
Click to expand...

:thup: No worries mate, you have your opinion and I'll not answer anymore of your posts.


----------



## Alex1975 (Mar 16, 2017)

Khamelion said:



			Because in the move to get a re-trial, the judicial report states _"Possible incompetence by the former defence team (in particular in relation to its failure properly to investigate the appellantâ€™s mental health and so discover the potential partial defence)."_

Read the judicial report Paragraph 7 points i ii and iii










Exactly as SH writes, read the judicial report before passing comment or judging. The link is in the blog, paragraphs 17 to 22 detail the events.

You cannot condone the actions that Marine A took, he acknowledges and accepts that he did intend to kill the wounded man, but because the circumstances of his mental state was not fully questioned at trial, no psychiatric report was presented as evidence and because of the psychiatric report used in sentencing and subsequent psychiatric evidence there was sufficient grounds for an appeal.
		
Click to expand...

Is he going to be spending significant time in a psychiatric hospital then, like 20 years or so until we know he is safe to re-joined society?


----------



## Beezerk (Mar 16, 2017)

Khamelion said:



			Because in the move to get a re-trial, the judicial report states _"Possible incompetence by the former defence team (in particular in relation to its failure properly to investigate the appellantâ€™s mental health and so discover the potential partial defence)."_

Read the judicial report Paragraph 7 points i ii and iii










Exactly as SH writes, read the judicial report before passing comment or judging. The link is in the blog, paragraphs 17 to 22 detail the events.
		
Click to expand...

I've read some of the blog but I ain't got the patience to read it all, I'm actually paraphrasing what Marine A's barristers said on the radio during an interview yesterday, he "could" have had some form of mental issue at the time of the killing.
Read the blog all you want, I'd rather hear what the guy in the courtroom had to say.


----------



## Khamelion (Mar 16, 2017)

Beezerk said:



			I've read some of the blog but I ain't got the patience to read it all, I'm actually paraphrasing what Marine A's barristers said on the radio during an interview yesterday, he "could" have had some form of mental issue at the time of the killing.
Read the blog all you want, I'd rather hear what the guy in the courtroom had to say.
		
Click to expand...

It's not the blog from the Secret Barrister, it is the report from the Royal Courts of Justice  Full Judicial Report


----------



## Khamelion (Mar 16, 2017)

Alex1975 said:



			Is he going to be spending significant time in a psychiatric hospital then, like 20 years or so until we know he is safe to re-joined society?
		
Click to expand...

I have no idea, I'm not a psychiatrist. I'm no more informed to pass judgement on his mental state as you are to pass judgement on his conviction.


----------



## Beezerk (Mar 16, 2017)

Khamelion said:



			It's not the blog from the Secret Barrister, it is the report from the Royal Courts of Justice  Full Judicial Report

Click to expand...

Who the heck is the secret barrister and what's he got to do with this?


----------



## Fish (Mar 16, 2017)

Alex1975 said:



			Is he going to be spending significant time in a psychiatric hospital then, like 20 years or so until we know he is safe to re-joined society?
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but even by your standards that's just a pathetic post!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 16, 2017)

The Panorama Program didn't really shed any different light into the situation 

He colleagues will always defend him and he wasn't the only one who wanted to kill him. The words of the Colonel his CO were very good

The reason for shooting him for me is key 

Was it 

To get revenge for any actions he had ( the Insurgent ) done 

Or 

To save them having the medivac him out which would have put others under harms way. If it's the second one why didn't they just walk away and let him naturally die ? 

A lot of the reaction from the public etc is reactionary because of who it was that Marine A shot - his comrades will always back him 

But ultimately what is the reaction whenever someone from the Taliban or Al Qeada or ISIS executes a British soldier in cold blood ? Should we change those standards when it's one of our own ?

Marine A spent 6 months in awful conditions , seeing mates killed and being put under constant daily strain - he reacted to that in the end and he knew what he was doing , he has admitted it and it's all there in pictures and his voice. 
If he didn't want revenge then the only way to explain imo how he reacted was that he was suffering some psychological issues that affected his decision making. 

Whilst I did a lot of work in Newport Combat Stress Centre you talk to some of them and they mention that at times they know exactly what they are doing but they don't understand why they are doing it - that could be exactly the situation he was facing. I'm sure it's something he will live with for the rest of his life.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 16, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The Panorama Program didn't really shed any different light into the situation 

He colleagues will always defend him and he wasn't the only one who wanted to kill him. The words of the Colonel his CO were very good

The reason for shooting him for me is key 

Was it 

To get revenge for any actions he had ( the Insurgent ) done 

Or 

To save them having the medivac him out which would have put others under harms way. If it's the second one why didn't they just walk away and let him naturally die ? 

A lot of the reaction from the public etc is reactionary because of who it was that Marine A shot - his comrades will always back him 

But ultimately what is the reaction whenever someone from the Taliban or Al Qeada or ISIS executes a British soldier in cold blood ? Should we change those standards when it's one of our own ?

Marine A spent 6 months in awful conditions , seeing mates killed and being put under constant daily strain - he reacted to that in the end and he knew what he was doing , he has admitted it and it's all there in pictures and his voice. 
If he didn't want revenge then the only way to explain imo how he reacted was that he was suffering some psychological issues that affected his decision making. 

Whilst I did a lot of work in Newport Combat Stress Centre you talk to some of them and they mention that at times they know exactly what they are doing but they don't understand why they are doing it - that could be exactly the situation he was facing. I'm sure it's something he will live with for the rest of his life.
		
Click to expand...

The Panorama programme is/was relevant to the person watching it, if you were aware of the facts then agreed, there wasn't much new stuff, if you are clueless then it gave a lot.

The reaction how we react to Isis etc is irrelevant, this is about one of our Servicemen and how we as a Nation look after them, you yourself have constantly posted on this thread you believed it should've been manslaughter.

There was another reason given for why he may off shot the scumbag in the Panorama programme and that reason is very believable.


----------



## Old Skier (Mar 16, 2017)

Alex1975 said:



			Can I ask, have you seen the video of the murder?
		
Click to expand...

Can I ask if you have as the actual video of the killing has never been in the public domain.


----------



## Hobbit (Mar 16, 2017)

Khamelion said:



			Because in the move to get a re-trial, the judicial report states _"Possible incompetence by the former defence team (in particular in relation to its failure properly to investigate the appellantâ€™s mental health and so discover the potential partial defence)._
.
		
Click to expand...

The reason I've stayed out of this thread in the past, and the reason I only asked a question is that I purposely haven't watched anything or read anything. 

The court reports will be massive, comprehensive documents. The defence documents will run into volumes. The intellectual level of questioning, even before anything gets to court is at a level I don't even come close to. Add to that I'm not skilled in that field, or that of any highly professional medics that would make the assessments.

I don't care whether or not it was frontline, but I do care about justice. And that I leave to experts.

BTW, the #1 daughter is one of the UK's leading barristers. She would laugh her socks off at some of the rubbish in this thread... secret barristers and blogs. Really?

Let experts do expert jobs. That's why plumbers aren't brain surgeons.


----------



## Val (Mar 16, 2017)

Fish said:



			I'm sorry but even by your standards that's just a pathetic post!
		
Click to expand...

For such a serious topic that post made me laugh


----------



## Old Skier (Mar 16, 2017)

It's wind up Thursday


----------



## patricks148 (Mar 16, 2017)

Old Skier said:



			It's wind up Thursday
		
Click to expand...

count me out of S a D Friday:rofl::rofl:


----------



## chrisd (Mar 16, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			That's why plumbers aren't brain surgeons.
		
Click to expand...

Ive got a plumber in my kitchen right now and he's earning more than a brain surgeon!


----------



## williamalex1 (Mar 16, 2017)

chrisd said:



			Ive got a plumber in my kitchen right now and he's earning more than a brain surgeon!
		
Click to expand...

Is he doing a Homer :rofl:


----------



## chrisd (Mar 16, 2017)

williamalex1 said:



			Is he doing a Homer :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

???


----------



## williamalex1 (Mar 16, 2017)

chrisd said:



			???
		
Click to expand...

PM sent , :smirk:


----------



## richy (Mar 16, 2017)

Beezerk said:



			He'll be getting a bravery award next...
		
Click to expand...

We're gonna have fun in a few weeks


----------



## Beezerk (Mar 16, 2017)

richy said:



			We're gonna have fun in a few weeks 

Click to expand...

Am I getting a medal? &#128513;


----------



## richy (Mar 16, 2017)

Beezerk said:



			Am I getting a medal? &#128513;
		
Click to expand...

Dinner or silver?


----------



## lobthewedge (Mar 16, 2017)

The way I see it is the guy was under severe strain, pressure that few of us on a golf forum could ever contemplate from the comfort of our sofas.

For months he endured a war zone, he encountered death and destruction on a daily basis, was asked to kill in the morning while told to win hearts and minds in the afternoon, all the while having to guess friend from foe.

He, along with those other brave marines, were used as target practice. Ordered to walk out and act as human bait for the Taliban while the engineers attempted to clear the i.e.d's from the roads, villages and fields they had to patrol.

The enemy he killed had moments before been trying to kill him and his, he had already taken a hit from a helicopter round, was in a pretty bad way and in all likelihood would have succumbed to his wounds.

The other choice he had open to him was to call in a medical evacuation. This would have involved either an aircraft or wheeled convoy being mobilised and having to travel and land within extremely hostile territory, presenting bigger, easier and more valuable targets for the enemy to exploit. 

He effectively robbed the enemy of this opportunity, didn't play into their hands and ensured the safety of those around him. Bare in mind that minutes before they were finding live grenades still in the pockets of this person who wouldn't have thought twice about pulling one of those pins.

Did he go about it the right way, no. His comments on film after the shooting don't come across well, but in my opinion the end result was the right one. Just a pity the sorry individual didn't succumb sooner and save him the decision.


----------



## sawtooth (Mar 16, 2017)

That's one less person now who was willing to kill british soldiers and innocent civilians.

I personally wouldn't have brought any charges against the soldier as he was doing his job IMO.


----------



## Hobbit (Mar 17, 2017)

sawtooth said:



			That's one less person now who was willing to kill british soldiers and innocent civilians.

I personally wouldn't have brought any charges against the soldier as he was doing his job IMO.
		
Click to expand...

It is possible to do a job badly.


----------



## Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			It is possible to do a job badly.
		
Click to expand...

What's football managers got to do with it &#128540;&#128514;&#128514;&#128514;


----------



## richy (Mar 17, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			It is possible to do a job badly.
		
Click to expand...

All his lads got back to the FOB safely that day so I wouldn't say he did His job badly


----------



## chrisd (Mar 17, 2017)

sawtooth said:



			That's one less person now who was willing to kill british soldiers and innocent civilians.

I personally wouldn't have brought any charges against the soldier as he was doing his job IMO.
		
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree Sean, if the opposition isn't sticking to the Geneva Convention im not sure I'd be too inclined to imprison our guys.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 17, 2017)

chrisd said:



			I'm inclined to agree Sean, if the opposition isn't sticking to the Geneva Convention im not sure I'd be too inclined to imprison our guys.
		
Click to expand...

Following the Geneva Convention sets us apart from them , its what gives our troops the moral high ground. Many people through history have been tried for war crimes and the Geneva Convention is there to stop that happening. The old saying two wrongs don't make a right - if the troops don't follow the rules and they are caught then they are bang to rights.


----------



## spongebob59 (Mar 17, 2017)

If he was in a mental state to make that judgement, which clearly they are saying he wasn't.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 17, 2017)

chrisd said:



			I'm inclined to agree Sean, if the opposition isn't sticking to the Geneva Convention im not sure I'd be too inclined to imprison our guys.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on Chris, It was written over 60 years ago and is now used as a stick to beat our Forces rather than protecting them, all well and good when everybody plays by the rules, but in reality, sometimes you fight fire with fire.


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 17, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			...It was written over 60 years ago...
		
Click to expand...

And is still totally relevant to 'the proper approach' today! They actually originate nearly 100 years earlier too!The fact that 'the other side' does not abide by them is only relevant in that it indicates the sort of reason why 'the good guys' are there!



pauldj42 said:



			...... and is now used as a stick to beat our Forces rather than protecting them...
		
Click to expand...

Twaddle! When 'our forces' are being 'beaten by the stick of the Geneva Convention', it means they have breached some pretty fundamental elements of what makes humans 'human(e)' - even in a war! Sticking to the GC, when the other side may not be, gives 'the good guys' the moral high ground. When the other side knows that they will be treated humanely, the fear of 'nothing to lose, so may as well fight to the death' does not exist, which can actually reduce casualties on both sides!


----------



## MegaSteve (Mar 17, 2017)

War is 'ugly' and 'ugly stuff' happens... Not sure how you can use everyday values to measure this ugliness....

The efforts of Bomber Command were quickly swept under the carpet after WW2 because what they did didn't fit in with the 'moral high ground'...


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 17, 2017)

Foxholer said:



			And is still totally relevant to 'the proper approach' today! They actually originate nearly 100 years earlier too!The fact that 'the other side' does not abide by them is only relevant in that it indicates the sort of reason why 'the good guys' are there!


Twaddle! When 'our forces' are being 'beaten by the stick of the Geneva Convention', it means they have breached some pretty fundamental elements of what makes humans 'human(e)' - even in a war! Sticking to the GC, when the other side may not be, gives 'the good guys' the moral high ground. When the other side knows that they will be treated humanely, the fear of 'nothing to lose, so may as well fight to the death' does not exist, which can actually reduce casualties on both sides!
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure you believe that, I don't. As far as I'm concerned we should totally and utterley rip up the GC when facing an enemy such as the Taliban and ISIS.

Different types of warfare need different rules.


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 17, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			I'm sure you believe that, I don't. As far as I'm concerned we should totally and utterley rip up the GC when facing an enemy such as the Taliban and ISIS.

Different types of warfare need different rules.
		
Click to expand...

Then I hope, for all our sakes, that you are never actively involved in areas covered by the GC!


----------



## Alex1975 (Mar 17, 2017)

Foxholer said:



			And is still totally relevant to 'the proper approach' today! They actually originate nearly 100 years earlier too!The fact that 'the other side' does not abide by them is only relevant in that it indicates the sort of reason why 'the good guys' are there!


Twaddle! When 'our forces' are being 'beaten by the stick of the Geneva Convention', it means they have breached some pretty fundamental elements of what makes humans 'human(e)' - even in a war! Sticking to the GC, when the other side may not be, gives 'the good guys' the moral high ground. When the other side knows that they will be treated humanely, the fear of 'nothing to lose, so may as well fight to the death' does not exist, which can actually reduce casualties on both sides!
		
Click to expand...

:thup: What is right is right!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 17, 2017)

Foxholer said:



			Then I hope, for all our sakes, that you are never actively involved in areas covered by the GC!
		
Click to expand...

After 36 years serving my Country proudly I can assure you I know more about this subject than you.

I have experienced at first hand the GC and I take great offence at you questioning my professionalism and integrity.


----------



## Val (Mar 17, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			After 36 years serving my Country proudly I can assure you I know more about this subject than you.

I have experienced at first hand the GC and I take great offence at you questioning my professionalism and integrity.
		
Click to expand...

Well said, you had impeccable service and have my utmost respect


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 17, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			After 36 years serving my Country proudly I can assure you I know more about this subject than you...
		
Click to expand...

I'm not questioning your knowledge..just the conclusion!



pauldj42 said:



			...
I have experienced at first hand the GC and I take great offence at you questioning my professionalism and integrity.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not questioning either of those either...just your belief!

Try asking your (ex) commanding officers whether they believe the GC is still something that the UK Armed Forces should adhere to! I'm as certain as I can be that their response would be different to yours!


----------



## Hobbit (Mar 17, 2017)

richy said:



			All his lads got back to the FOB safely that day so I wouldn't say he did His job badly
		
Click to expand...

A didn't say he did his job badly or otherwise. I said it is possible to do a job badly. A general observation of life, not of this case. I refuse to accuse him of anything, or say he's blameless. That's for experts.


----------



## Hobbit (Mar 17, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			After 36 years serving my Country proudly I can assure you I know more about this subject than you.

I have experienced at first hand the GC and I take great offence at you questioning my professionalism and integrity.
		
Click to expand...




Val said:



			Well said, you had impeccable service and have my utmost respect
		
Click to expand...

Well said Val. And I'll add my thanks for your service too.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 17, 2017)

Foxholer said:



			Try asking your (ex) commanding officers whether they believe the GC is still something that the UK Armed Forces should adhere to! I'm as certain as I can be that their response would be different to yours!
		
Click to expand...

Are you really that naive not to believe that in difficult times difficult decisions have to made in, of course sat at home hoping everybody will play by the rules is what we all want, playing by the rules against an enemy whose only aim is to wipe you and your culture and everything you stand for off the face of this earth is pointless.

The reality is different, are there no circumstances that you can envisage somebody crossing a line they wish they didn't have to.

As for speaking to former CO's and their response to this particular incident, I am certain what some would say publicly is different to what they'd say privately.

My belief about the CG is tailored to this particular threat as already stated and is what this particular thread is about.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 17, 2017)

There has to be rules and laws to abide by - any time someone's life is taken then it needs to be the last resort. The GC along with Rules of Engagement allow our troops to ensure they are covered both legally and morally when they are involved in combat. There should be never a situation where shooting an unarmed injured man is legally the correct thing to do. We need to ensure that we are seperated from the insurgents to be safely in the knowledge that we are morally above them and also legally. 

Remove any sort of laws and restrictions and I wouldn't like to hazard a guess at what would happen. We are always horrified when others ignore the GC and carry out war crimes and genocide. I will always remember seeing a mass grave in Kosovo and that sight will never leave my memory- that was the act of someone ignoring the GC , would we really want to see our troops doing that ? 

The GC provides the back up for our troops and it is fit for purpose, we can never ever allow that to be removed , never. If we allow our troops to act how they wish then what makes them any different from a terrorist


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 17, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Are you really that naive not to believe that in difficult times difficult decisions have to made in, of course sat at home hoping everybody will play by the rules is what we all want, playing by the rules against an enemy whose only aim is to wipe you and your culture and everything you stand for off the face of this earth is pointless.
...
		
Click to expand...

Not naive - just a different set of values!



pauldj42 said:



			...
The reality is different, are there no circumstances that you can envisage somebody crossing a line they wish they didn't have to.
...
		
Click to expand...

The GC (along with other laws) provides the rules that establish the boundaries! If they get crossed, then there should be consequences - which is exactly what happened in this case!



pauldj42 said:



			...
My belief about the CG is tailored to this particular threat as already stated and is what this particular thread is about.
		
Click to expand...

Mine applies to both this event, for which Marine A has still been found Guilty (of Manslaughter), and to armed conflict in general!


----------



## Alex1975 (Mar 17, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			There has to be rules and laws to abide by - any time someone's life is taken then it needs to be the last resort. The GC along with Rules of Engagement allow our troops to ensure they are covered both legally and morally when they are involved in combat. There should be never a situation where shooting an unarmed injured man is legally the correct thing to do. We need to ensure that we are seperated from the insurgents to be safely in the knowledge that we are morally above them and also legally. 

Remove any sort of laws and restrictions and I wouldn't like to hazard a guess at what would happen. We are always horrified when others ignore the GC and carry out war crimes and genocide. I will always remember seeing a mass grave in Kosovo and that sight will never leave my memory- that was the act of someone ignoring the GC , would we really want to see our troops doing that ? 

The GC provides the back up for our troops and it is fit for purpose, we can never ever allow that to be removed , never. If we allow our troops to act how they wish then what makes them any different from a terrorist
		
Click to expand...


Respect!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 17, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			There has to be rules and laws to abide by - any time someone's life is taken then it needs to be the last resort. The GC along with Rules of Engagement allow our troops to ensure they are covered both legally and morally when they are involved in combat. There should be never a situation where shooting an unarmed injured man is legally the correct thing to do. We need to ensure that we are seperated from the insurgents to be safely in the knowledge that we are morally above them and also legally. 

Remove any sort of laws and restrictions and I wouldn't like to hazard a guess at what would happen. We are always horrified when others ignore the GC and carry out war crimes and genocide. I will always remember seeing a mass grave in Kosovo and that sight will never leave my memory- that was the act of someone ignoring the GC , would we really want to see our troops doing that ? 

The GC provides the back up for our troops and it is fit for purpose, we can never ever allow that to be removed , never. If we allow our troops to act how they wish then what makes them any different from a terrorist
		
Click to expand...

Why not discuss this particular incident and one known Taliban fighter who, along with a.n. other, had been positively identified as attacking the patrol, had been positively identified as a legitimate target to be engaged by an Apache, who was moving into position to attack the patrol for a second time, was attacked by an Apache with the aim to kill him, he was then wounded (to what extent we'll never know) and when reached was found carrying weapons.
The choices Sgt Blackman was then left with are in comprehensible to most of us, he could've called in for med evac either by road or air and risk not only him and his patrol but also the personnel coming in to med evac.

He could've just left him and walked away and die a slow death or risk him recovering and carry out future tasks.

What he actually did is what splits opinion, personally to me, having witnessed at first hand, mates being killed by the Taliban, mates left without limbs and mental scars that they may not recover from and personally informed a family their Son had been killed and told other families their son's and daughter were badly injured, he finished off what the Apache failed to do, he killed an enemy fighter on the battlefield.

In this and only this I do not care what the GC says and what we sign up to and 100% accept what Sgt Blackman did.

Please do not confuse my feelings over this particular incident and my belief and understanding of the Geneva Convention.


----------



## lobthewedge (Mar 17, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Why not discuss this particular incident and one known Taliban fighter who, along with a.n. other, had been positively identified as attacking the patrol, had been positively identified as a legitimate target to be engaged by an Apache, who was moving into position to attack the patrol for a second time, was attacked by an Apache with the aim to kill him, he was then wounded (to what extent we'll never know) and when reached was found carrying weapons.
The choices Sgt Blackman was then left with are in comprehensible to most of us, he could've called in for med evac either by road or air and risk not only him and his patrol but also the personnel coming in to med evac.

He could've just left him and walked away and die a slow death or risk him recovering and carry out future tasks.

What he actually did is what splits opinion, personally to me, having witnessed at first hand, mates being killed by the Taliban, mates left without limbs and mental scars that they may not recover from and personally informed a family their Son had been killed and told other families their son's and daughter were badly injured, he finished off what the Apache failed to do, he killed an enemy fighter on the battlefield.

In this and only this I do not care what the GC says and what we sign up to and 100% accept what Sgt Blackman did.

Please do not confuse my feelings over this particular incident and my belief and understanding of the Geneva Convention.
		
Click to expand...

Well said.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 17, 2017)

lobthewedge said:



			Well said.
		
Click to expand...

So ignore the laws and rules and Geneva Convention? Allow people to kill an unarmed injured captured solider ? 

He knew he had broken the law - legally he was wrong. The law has convicted him, he knew what he was doing. 

I have also seen people I work with lose limbs and had people I work with killed - by people who ignore those rules and the GC. 

If a Taliban fighter shot and killed a capture injured unarmed soldier then the reaction would be one of disgust and horror and wanting justice. 

The Taliban fighter was injured and they disarmed him and he was at that time posing no threat to them, Sgt Blackman legally did not have the right to "finish the job" or become judge and jury and sentence him to death. 

Sgt Blackman broke the law and GC - he has been rightly convicted of that - the only issue is and has been - was it murder in cold blood or was it manslaughter with him suffering from PTSD which would go in some way to explaining his reaction. 

The facts of it all are quite clear , as is the law and the GC


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 17, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So ignore the laws and rules and Geneva Convention? Allow people to kill an unarmed injured captured solider ? 

He knew he had broken the law - legally he was wrong. The law has convicted him, he knew what he was doing. 

I have also seen people I work with lose limbs and had people I work with killed - by people who ignore those rules and the GC. 

If a Taliban fighter shot and killed a capture injured unarmed soldier then the reaction would be one of disgust and horror and wanting justice. 

The Taliban fighter was injured and they disarmed him and he was at that time posing no threat to them, Sgt Blackman legally did not have the right to "finish the job" or become judge and jury and sentence him to death. 

Sgt Blackman broke the law and GC - he has been rightly convicted of that - the only issue is and has been - was it murder in cold blood or was it manslaughter with him suffering from PTSD which would go in some way to explaining his reaction. 

The facts of it all are quite clear , as is the law and the GC
		
Click to expand...

So you are applying these rules to a man you admit was suffering from PTSD, so he was sick and therefore needed looking after, not locking up,


----------



## Three (Mar 17, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So ignore the laws and rules and Geneva Convention? Allow people to kill an unarmed injured captured solider ? /QUOTE]

"Soldier": No. 
"Taliban " piece of scum? : Absolutely.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## lobthewedge (Mar 17, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So ignore the laws and rules and Geneva Convention? Allow people to kill an unarmed injured captured solider ? 

He knew he had broken the law - legally he was wrong. The law has convicted him, he knew what he was doing. 

I have also seen people I work with lose limbs and had people I work with killed - by people who ignore those rules and the GC. 

If a Taliban fighter shot and killed a capture injured unarmed soldier then the reaction would be one of disgust and horror and wanting justice. 

The Taliban fighter was injured and they disarmed him and he was at that time posing no threat to them, Sgt Blackman legally did not have the right to "finish the job" or become judge and jury and sentence him to death. 

Sgt Blackman broke the law and GC - he has been rightly convicted of that - the only issue is and has been - was it murder in cold blood or was it manslaughter with him suffering from PTSD which would go in some way to explaining his reaction. 

The facts of it all are quite clear , as is the law and the GC
		
Click to expand...

Not disputing what he did or where that leaves him in relation to the law or the GC.  But I can disagree with the law and say that in my view he was justified in what he did.

Like I said in my post from last night, the only other option he had open to him was to call in a medical evacuation.  This would have put more British lives at risk and given the enemy the opportunity they were looking for, to have a larger and more valuable target handed to them on a plate.  

I am no soldier, but surely from a tactical point of view the end result was the correct one?  One less enemy and the minimum of risk to British lives.

Say a medical team was scrambled that day, was subsequently ambushed and all personnel were slaughtered by the insurgents.  Are the comrades and families of the fallen meant to feel better because we stuck to the GC, kept the moral high ground and tried to do the right thing?  Or should they question the objective of the doomed mission in the first place?


----------



## Norrin Radd (Mar 17, 2017)

anyone remember the movie Full metal jacket ,
 the scene where the sniper is picking one of the yanks off slowly killing him with shot after shot.
 when they get the sniper they find SHE was injured and one of them shot her because her injuries were deemed to be fatal and that she would die anyway . 
rather than walk away and leave her to die one of them had the balls to put her out of her misery .
now isnt that what our brave Sgt just did for real .
 i bet nobody questioned the scene in the film ,but here we are wanting blood and justice for a scumbag that was up for killing  our own ,who knows how many he had already killed and what atrocities he was capable of if they had just left him .


----------



## guest100718 (Mar 17, 2017)

Norrin Radd said:



			anyone remember the movie Full metal jacket ,
 the scene where the sniper is picking one of the yanks off slowly killing him with shot after shot.
 when they get the sniper they find SHE was injured and one of them shot her because her injuries were deemed to be fatal and that she would die anyway . 
rather than walk away and leave her to die one of them had the balls to put her out of her misery .
now isnt that what our brave Sgt just did for real .
 i bet nobody questioned the scene in the film ,but here we are wanting blood and justice for a scumbag that was up for killing  our own ,who knows how many he had already killed and what atrocities he was capable of if they had just left him .
		
Click to expand...

Full metal jacket was made up stuff


----------



## Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So ignore the laws and rules and Geneva Convention? Allow people to kill an unarmed injured captured solider ? 

He knew he had broken the law - legally he was wrong. The law has convicted him, he knew what he was doing. 

I have also seen people I work with lose limbs and had people I work with killed - by people who ignore those rules and the GC. 

If a Taliban fighter shot and killed a capture injured unarmed soldier then the reaction would be one of disgust and horror and wanting justice. 

The Taliban fighter was injured and they disarmed him and he was at that time posing no threat to them, Sgt Blackman legally did not have the right to "finish the job" or become judge and jury and sentence him to death. 

Sgt Blackman broke the law and GC - he has been rightly convicted of that - the only issue is and has been - was it murder in cold blood or was it manslaughter with him suffering from PTSD which would go in some way to explaining his reaction. 

The facts of it all are quite clear , as is the law and the GC
		
Click to expand...

How dare you call the terrorist a soldier!!

Do you really live in a perfect life and bubble, with everything?  

The more I read your posts the more I understand and know the lack of actual 'real' active service you've experienced, I don't care about where you were on tour in the RAF as I know that there are soft areas to patrol in any country for non-combat tourists and still earn your medal/s, but until you have been involved in a real firefight and been around dead, disfigured and wounded soldiers of your own troops or regiments and had to bag & tag them and then hours later be in another firefight keeping your stuff together only then to come across a mortally wounded terrorist who had opened fire on you and although is now injured could still be vested or have grenades and especially if you can't see his hands, he's getting tapped pure & simple. You can stand there and consult the GC if you like, you can pause and assess the situation if you like to take your moral high ground, but I can guarantee that people like you are more dangerous to me and my brick/troop and you would never go out with me again and you'd be best peeling spuds for when we are all get back to base, hopefully. 

It's a dirty war, no uniforms are worn by the terrorists, no rules are excercised by the terrorists, they will take you with them given half a chance, until you have experienced that first hand and smelt that death up close you can shove your tree hugging by the book opinion because it's 1 less terrorist in this world who will never take another British life and who may well have taken many before he was grounded. 

We are now being recalled over incidents in NI also, known terrorists who died at the hands of British soldiers doing their jobs and even acting under their rules of engagement at the time are being brought to task and having to defend their actions some 40 years ago!  

The worlds gone mad!! 

Some of the crap being spouted is what I expect from the Corbyn or old Dave Nellist brigade, I know which side of the fence I sit on and I know which would survive longer in any situation, but hey, let's play fair because it's the right thing to do, even though it nay kill you and those your their to protect. 

Kill or be killed, your choice, you can take your moral high ground to your grave.


----------



## Old Skier (Mar 17, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Following the Geneva Convention sets us apart from them , its what gives our troops the moral high ground. Many people through history have been tried for war crimes and the Geneva Convention is there to stop that happening. The old saying two wrongs don't make a right - if the troops don't follow the rules and they are caught then they are bang to rights.
		
Click to expand...

The only people in the past tried for war crimes have been those on the losing side. There were cases in WW2 were recce troops and tank crews were known to have shot enemy prisoners as there other choice was to let them run of and fight another day. It was happening on both sides.

The Malayan campaign was one of the worlds most successful anti insurgent campaigns. It was well know that British troops adopted similar tactics as the terrorists they were fighting, tactics which today's politically correct would never tolerate.

The marine was wrong but not one person knows how they would react under the exact same circumstances endured by him and those in the FOB during that particular tour.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 17, 2017)

Fish said:



			How dare you call the terrorist a soldier!!

Do you really live in a perfect life and bubble, with everything?  

The more I read your posts the more I understand and know the lack of actual 'real' active service you've experienced, I don't care about where you were on tour in the RAF as I know that there are soft areas to patrol in any country for non-combat tourists and still earn your medal/s, but until you have been involved in a real firefight and been around dead, disfigured and wounded soldiers of your own troops or regiments and had to bag & tag them and then hours later be in another firefight keeping your **** together only then to come across a mortally wounded terrorist who had opened fire on you and although is now injured could still be vested or have grenades and especially if you can't see his hands, he's getting tapped pure & simple. You can stand there and consult the GC if you like, you can pause and assess the situation if you like to take your moral high ground, but I can guarantee that people like you are more dangerous to me and my brick/troop and you would never go out with me again and you'd be best peeling spuds for when we are all get back to base, hopefully. 

It's a dirty war, no uniforms are worn by the terrorists, no rules are excercised by the terrorists, they will take you with them given half a chance, until you have experienced that first hand and smelt that death up close you can shove your tree hugging by the book opinion because it's 1 less terrorist in this world who will never take another British life and who may well have taken many before he was grounded. 

We are now being recalled over incidents in NI also, known terrorists who died at the hands of British soldiers doing their jobs and even acting under their rules of engagement at the time are being brought to task and having to defend their actions some 40 years ago!  

The worlds gone mad!! 

Some of the crap being spouted is what I expect from the Corbyn or old Dave Nellist brigade, I know which side of the fence I sit on and I know which would survive longer in any situation, but hey, let's play fair because it's the right thing to do, even though it nay kill you and those your their to protect. 

Kill or be killed, your choice, you can take your moral high ground to your grave.
		
Click to expand...

Not for the first time in this thread I will respectfully ask you to not make any judgements on my own military career- you do not and will not know where I have been or what I have done so please stop judging my career on some preconceived idea from when you were in the military in the 80's. 

I must certainly don't ever disrespect or attempt to discredit anyone else military service on here and i ask you politely and respectively to do the same 

Disagree with my opinion as much as you want but don't use my military career as some false backing to disprove my opinion.


----------



## Old Skier (Mar 17, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			disprove my opinion.
		
Click to expand...

An opinion cannot be disproved - just saying.


----------



## Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Not for the first time in this thread I will respectfully ask you to not make any judgements on my own military career- you do not and will not know where I have been or what I have done so please stop judging my career on some preconceived idea from when you were in the military in the 80's.
		
Click to expand...

70's, 80's & 90's actually but let's not let facts get in the way!

And from all my tours over that period and reading your posts and opinions on this, it's certainly my opinion you never had any real firefighting combat situations otherwise you wouldn't have this PC, lefty, do-gooder attitude that you have, so I think it is relevant to mention your military career as you've mentioned it when it suits in some threads so you can't pick & choose when it doesn't suit, so I treat your opinions on this no different to a man on the street with little or no experience of those full frontal in your face situations because you haven't experienced them first hand, there's nothing wrong with that, but your opinion as an ex-serviceman I find distasteful but excusable to a degree because the odd safe tour doesn't make your opinions valid imo.


----------



## Old Skier (Mar 17, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			As for speaking to former CO's and their response to this particular incident, I am certain what some would say publicly is different to what they'd say privately
		
Click to expand...

Persactly and you can go much higher up the COC than that.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 17, 2017)

Fish said:



			70's, 80's & 90's actually but let's not let facts get in the way!

And from all my tours over that period and reading your posts and opinions on this, it's certainly my opinion you never had any real firefighting combat situations otherwise you wouldn't have this PC, lefty, do-gooder attitude that you have, so I think it is relevant to mention your military career as you've mentioned it when it suits in some threads so you can't pick & choose when it doesn't suit, so I treat your opinions on this no different to a man on the street with little or no experience of those full frontal in your face situations because you haven't experienced them first hand, there's nothing wrong with that, but your opinion as an ex-serviceman I find distasteful but excusable to a degree because the odd safe tour doesn't make your opinions valid imo.
		
Click to expand...

I show respect to your service in the Military please i ask politely that you do the same to others.


----------



## Old Skier (Mar 17, 2017)

Time out


----------



## Foxholer (Mar 17, 2017)

Old Skier said:



*The only people in the past tried for war crimes have been those on the losing side.* There were cases in WW2 were recce troops and tank crews were known to have shot enemy prisoners as there other choice was to let them run of and fight another day. It was happening on both sides.

The Malayan campaign was one of the worlds most successful anti insurgent campaigns. It was well know that British troops adopted similar tactics as the terrorists they were fighting, tactics which today's politically correct would never tolerate.

The marine was wrong but not one person knows how they would react under the exact same circumstances endured by him and those in the FOB during that particular tour.
		
Click to expand...

While I agree with almost everything in your post, I believe the highlighted bit is incorrect! As I recall, many on *both sides* of the Yugoslav/Bosnian conflict were indicted for War Crimes! 

And I think 'politically correct' is a rather too .... well .... 'politically correct' description!!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 17, 2017)

Old Skier said:



			The only people in the past tried for war crimes have been those on the losing side. There were cases in WW2 were recce troops and tank crews were known to have shot enemy prisoners as there other choice was to let them run of and fight another day. It was happening on both sides.

The Malayan campaign was one of the worlds most successful anti insurgent campaigns. It was well know that British troops adopted similar tactics as the terrorists they were fighting, tactics which today's politically correct would never tolerate.

The marine was wrong but not one person knows how they would react under the exact same circumstances endured by him and those in the FOB during that particular tour.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who was the winning side in the Balkans but a number of people on all sides were tried and convicted of war crimes.


----------



## Old Skier (Mar 17, 2017)

Foxholer said:



			While I agree with almost everything in your post, I believe the highlighted bit is incorrect! As I recall, many on *both sides* of the Yugoslav/Bosnian conflict were indicted for War Crimes! !
		
Click to expand...

You may be correct but my recollection is only one side has been to The Hague .


----------



## Old Skier (Mar 17, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I'm not sure who was the winning side in the Balkans but a number of people on all sides were tried and convicted of war crimes.
		
Click to expand...

I can only think of two Bosnian Serbs but I'm willing to be corrected.

Dusko & Miroslav Tadic


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 17, 2017)

Old Skier said:



			I can only think of two Bosnian Serbs but I'm willing to be corrected.

Dusko & Miroslav Tadic
		
Click to expand...

Another i can remember is a Croat from Srebrenica Massacre - Erdemovic ? 

There is though loads convicted of war crimes during the Bosnian and Yugoslav Wars


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 17, 2017)

Old Skier said:



			I can only think of two Bosnian Serbs but I'm willing to be corrected.

Dusko & Miroslav Tadic
		
Click to expand...

Google is your friend, ICTY had 161 indictees of which 68% were Serb or Montenegrin


----------



## Old Skier (Mar 17, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Another i can remember is a Croat from Srebrenica Massacre - Erdemovic ? 

There is though loads convicted of war crimes during the Bosnian and Yugoslav Wars
		
Click to expand...

Yep, when you looking lots of nasties https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_convicted_war_criminals

Shame the Dutch commander isn't there.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Mar 17, 2017)

Old Skier said:



			Yep, when you looking lots of nasties https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_convicted_war_criminals

Shame the Dutch commander isn't there.
		
Click to expand...

Yep - not sur if they have included the us pilot from the Iraq War


----------



## SaintHacker (Mar 17, 2017)

In my opinion the Geneva Convention is no longer fit for purpose. Sure it did its job during previous conflicts, between 'proper' armed forces, but when you are faced with groups (I won't call them military as they are not) like the Taliban and ISIS the goalposts need moving. In previous wars an injured soldier would have been patched up, taken POW and repatriated at the end of the war, to go back to his family and live his life. The Taliban and other terrorist groups are different. I have no doubt that had Sgt Blackman done the 'right thing', that taliban terrorist would be back on the front line trying to kill as many 'infidels' as he could. Rightly or wrongly Sgt Blackman removed that threat. Personally I think he did the right thing.


----------



## Three (Mar 17, 2017)

SaintHacker said:



			In my opinion the Geneva Convention is no longer fit for purpose. Sure it did its job during previous conflicts, between 'proper' armed forces, but when you are faced with groups (I won't call them military as they are not) like the Taliban and ISIS the goalposts need moving. In previous wars an injured soldier would have been patched up, taken POW and repatriated at the end of the war, to go back to his family and live his life. The Taliban and other terrorist groups are different. I have no doubt that had Sgt Blackman done the 'right thing', that taliban terrorist would be back on the front line trying to kill as many 'infidels' as he could. Rightly or wrongly Sgt Blackman removed that threat. Personally I think he did the right thing.
		
Click to expand...

100%
&#128077;&#128077;


----------



## williamalex1 (Mar 17, 2017)

I remember in old war films like The Great Escape, if a soldier was captured by the enemy in a war zone not wearing a uniform or in disguise , he was classed as a spy and shot. True or false, fact or fiction.


----------



## sawtooth (Mar 17, 2017)

I know its only a film but I didn't blame Dirty Harry for doing what he did either.

District Attorney Rothko: You're lucky I'm not indicting you for assault with intent to commit murder.
Harry Callahan: What? 
District Attorney Rothko: Where the hell does it say that you've got a right to kick down doors, torture suspects, deny medical attention and legal counsel? Where have you been? Does Escobedo ring a bell? Miranda? I mean, you must have heard of the Fourth Amendment. *What I'm saying is that man had rights. 
*Harry Callahan: *Well, I'm all broken up about that man's rights.* 
Harry Callahan: You know, you're crazy if you think you've heard the last of this guy. He's gonna kill again. 
District Attorney Rothko: How do you know? 
Harry Callahan: 'Cause he likes it.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Mar 17, 2017)

SaintHacker said:



			In my opinion the Geneva Convention is no longer fit for purpose. Sure it did its job during previous conflicts, between 'proper' armed forces, but when you are faced with groups (I won't call them military as they are not) like the Taliban and ISIS the goalposts need moving. In previous wars an injured soldier would have been patched up, taken POW and repatriated at the end of the war, to go back to his family and live his life. The Taliban and other terrorist groups are different. I have no doubt that had Sgt Blackman done the 'right thing', that taliban terrorist would be back on the front line trying to kill as many 'infidels' as he could. Rightly or wrongly Sgt Blackman removed that threat. Personally I think he did the right thing.
		
Click to expand...

Spot on&#128077;&#127995;

Too many do gooders about now that don't live in the real world. 
Marine A did the right thing and now their is one less piece of scum on the planet.


----------



## Farmergeddon (Mar 17, 2017)

Terrorists only understand one thing, terror!  so terrorise them..  I also agree with Sainthacker the convention does not work when only one side sticks to it..


----------



## williamalex1 (Mar 17, 2017)

sawtooth said:



			I know its only a film but I didn't blame Dirty Harry for doing what he did either.

District Attorney Rothko: You're lucky I'm not indicting you for assault with intent to commit murder.
Harry Callahan: What? 
District Attorney Rothko: Where the hell does it say that you've got a right to kick down doors, torture suspects, deny medical attention and legal counsel? Where have you been? Does Escobedo ring a bell? Miranda? I mean, you must have heard of the Fourth Amendment. *What I'm saying is that man had rights. 
*Harry Callahan: *Well, I'm all broken up about that man's rights.* 
Harry Callahan: You know, you're crazy if you think you've heard the last of this guy. He's gonna kill again. 
District Attorney Rothko: How do you know? 
Harry Callahan: 'Cause he likes it.
		
Click to expand...

Ha,  i can remember his badge number. it was my pin number for a now DEFUNCT bank card.


----------



## Kellfire (Mar 17, 2017)

This thread is highlighting some dark traits in many people. 

Not condoning murder = "do gooder". 

Simple fact is that both sides in any war think they're in the right. The winner gets to dictate who that is. But to any member of the Taliban, we are most definitely as evil as we judge them to be.


----------



## Pin-seeker (Mar 17, 2017)

Kellfire said:



			This thread is highlighting some dark traits in many people. 

Not condoning murder = "do gooder". 

Simple fact is that both sides in any war think they're in the right. The winner gets to dictate who that is. But to any member of the Taliban, we are most definitely as evil as we judge them to be.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe that's because they're brainwashed lunatics that will stop at nothing to fight and die for their stupid beliefs


----------



## richy (Mar 18, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So ignore the laws and rules and Geneva Convention? Allow people to kill an unarmed injured captured solider ? 

He knew he had broken the law - legally he was wrong. The law has convicted him, he knew what he was doing. 

I have also seen people I work with lose limbs and had people I work with killed - by people who ignore those rules and the GC. 

If a Taliban fighter shot and killed a capture injured unarmed soldier then the reaction would be one of disgust and horror and wanting justice. 

The Taliban fighter was injured and they disarmed him and he was at that time posing no threat to them, Sgt Blackman legally did not have the right to "finish the job" or become judge and jury and sentence him to death. 

Sgt Blackman broke the law and GC - he has been rightly convicted of that - the only issue is and has been - was it murder in cold blood or was it manslaughter with him suffering from PTSD which would go in some way to explaining his reaction. 

The facts of it all are quite clear , as is the law and the GC
		
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true desk jockey


----------



## richy (Mar 18, 2017)

Ahh the 'moral high ground', that'll serve you well when you've had your limbs blown off or you've watched your mate die right in front of you. 

Some people on here are completely deluded!!!!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 18, 2017)

Kellfire said:



			This thread is highlighting some dark traits in many people. 

Not condoning murder = "do gooder". 

Simple fact is that both sides in any war think they're in the right. The winner gets to dictate who that is. But to any member of the Taliban, we are most definitely as evil as we judge them to be.
		
Click to expand...

And also ignorance by others.
I don't remember the Tories or Labour killing our professionals(teachers/lawyers etc) or banning children from school or denying women their rights or chopping off the hands of thieves and carrying out public executions as the Taliban did when they took power, but if you wish to carry on believing Sgt Blackman is a murderer fill your boots, just don't expect others to agree with you.
Not one person has condoned murder on here as all those backing Sgt Blackman don't believe it was murder and now our legal system agrees.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Mar 18, 2017)

I think the only ones on here who's opinion is valid are the ones who have been there.
Its impossible to say how you would react in any given situation.
The most mild mannered person changes when they are behind the wheel of a car .
My coach always told me in a boxing match if you have him on the ropes don't let him off because he can hit you then.
This soldier has seen the Taliban kill his mates so don't let him kill anymore.
It is a war.


----------



## Old Skier (Mar 18, 2017)

This man knows more than most.

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/ply...a-conviction/story-30206303-detail/story.html


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 18, 2017)

clubchamp98 said:



			I think the only ones on here who's opinion is valid are the ones who have been there.
Its impossible to say how you would react in any given situation.
The most mild mannered person changes when they are behind the wheel of a car .
My coach always told me in a boxing match if you have him on the ropes don't let him off because he can hit you then.
This soldier has seen the Taliban kill his mates so don't let him kill anymore.
It is a war.
		
Click to expand...

Personally I disagree, to me everyone has a right to an opinion, it's part of belonging to a democracy and you need to hear and at times, see both sides of an argument.
Even if we disagree with that opinion the person has the right to hold it.

If we start silencing free speech we are no better than some of those we've been fighting.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Mar 18, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Personally I disagree, to me everyone has a right to an opinion, it's part of belonging to a democracy and you need to hear and at times, see both sides of an argument.
Even if we disagree with that opinion the person has the right to hold it.

If we start silencing free speech we are no better than some of those we've been fighting.
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough but you can't say to a soldier " I know how you feel " because you don't unless you have been there.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Mar 18, 2017)

clubchamp98 said:



			Fair enough but you can't say to a soldier " I know how you feel " because you don't unless you have been there.
		
Click to expand...

But you can listen, support, and empathise.


----------

