Val
Ryder Cup Winner
Well said, you had impeccable service and have my utmost respect
Well said, you had impeccable service and have my utmost respect
Foxholer
Blackballed
I'm not questioning your knowledge..just the conclusion!
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!
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.
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
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.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
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
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
Blackballed
Not naive - just a different set of values!
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!
Mine applies to both this event, for which Marine A has still been found Guilty (of Manslaughter), and to armed conflict in general!
Last edited:
Alex1975
Tour Winner
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
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
Challenge Tour Pro
Well said.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
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
D
Deleted member 16999
Guest
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,
Last edited by a moderator:
Three
Tour Rookie
lobthewedge
Challenge Tour Pro
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
Tour Winner
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 .
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 .
G
guest100718
Guest
Full metal jacket was made up stuff
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Old Skier
Tour Winner
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.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
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
Tour Winner
An opinion cannot be disproved - just saying.