Marine A - Right or wrong?

[Old Skier]

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.

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]

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!

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]

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]

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.

i agree with this

 

[PhilTheFragger]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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]

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.

Thank you for putting it better than I ever could.

 

[Sweep]

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 ?

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]

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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]

I dont have an opinion

 

[pokerjoke]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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]

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

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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