Marine A - Right or wrong?

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