Marine A - Right or wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted Member 1156
  • Start date Start date
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top