Topic: Marine A, aka Sgt. Alexander Blackman.

[Red-Soldier]

Very poor decision in my opinion.

Going on what I know, it seems he did murder the victim, but, perhaps him being a British soldier, means he can get away with it.

[Graeme]

Said it at the time, not condoning or defending his actions but a few minutes earlier a helicopter gunner was shooting this guy which was fair game but then Blackman shooting him wasn't. At what point did killing him go from acceptable to unacceptable?

[Peabee]

Said it at the time, not condoning or defending his actions but a few minutes earlier a helicopter gunner was shooting this guy which was fair game but then Blackman shooting him wasn't. At what point did killing him go from acceptable to unacceptable?

When the victim is lying on the floor injured, and you shoot him at point blank range rather than taking him captive. 

[Redman0151]

Said it at the time, not condoning or defending his actions but a few minutes earlier a helicopter gunner was shooting this guy which was fair game but then Blackman shooting him wasn't. At what point did killing him go from acceptable to unacceptable?

That's why the Geneva Conventions exist. So everybody knows when it's right and when it's not right to kill somebody.

Quoting Shakespeare before killing a disarmed, wounded man and then telling your squad that you've gone against the Geneva convention and not to tell anybody what happened is absolutely not right.

[puroresu_kid]

I'm not surprised.

People only want to see 'fair' war when its British Troops on the receiving end.  When its the enemy many people, media and MP's even are quite content with British Troops doing what they want.

The whole 'support the troops' 'help for heroes' and its ilk can go do one.

[classycarra]

I'm not surprised.

People only want to see 'fair' war when its British Troops on the receiving end.  When its the enemy many people, media and MP's even are quite content with British Troops doing what they want.

The whole 'support the troops' 'help for heroes' and its ilk can go do one.

There's a lot of generalising about 'people' there. Funnily enough, this thread doesn't conform with your stereotyping

[zebenzui]

There's a lot of generalising about 'people' there. Funnily enough, this thread doesn't conform with your stereotyping

Unfortunately, when I brought up the story at my work, there was near universal indifference or support for the killing. Anecdotal, for sure, but the public campaign in support of Blackman, and the hordes of internet comments (which are always populated by scum anyway, to be fair) aligned with that campaign really makes for grim reading.

[J_Kopite]

I'm not surprised.

People only want to see 'fair' war when its British Troops on the receiving end.  When its the enemy many people, media and MP's even are quite content with British Troops doing what they want.

The whole 'support the troops' 'help for heroes' and its ilk can go do one.

Who are 'people'?

[classycarra]

Unfortunately, when I brought up the story at my work, there was near universal indifference or support for the killing. Anecdotal, for sure, but the public campaign in support of Blackman, and the hordes of internet comments (which are always populated by scum anyway, to be fair) aligned with that campaign really makes for grim reading.

If people aren't too familiar with the evidence presented during the case, but hear of a Taliban fighter being killed I think that indifference is a relatively human response. It was an active warzone after all. We hear  about people dying around the world on the news everyday, so some people might not invest much emotion in caring that a voluntary Taliban fighter was killed by a British soldier.

Yes there are some more nasty types out there too, whose views I find abhorrent, but I wouldn't say that all those who are indifferent are on the same level

[zebenzui]

If people aren't too familiar with the evidence presented during the case, but hear of a Taliban fighter being killed I think that indifference is a relatively human response. It was an active warzone after all. We hear  about people dying around the world on the news everyday, so some people might not invest much emotion in caring that a voluntary Taliban fighter was killed by a British soldier.

Yes there are some more nasty types out there too, whose views I find abhorrent, but I wouldn't say that all those who are indifferent are on the same level

I can assure you my colleagues, at least, had sufficient details supplied to them to come to an informed decision on whether Blackman broke the rules of armed conflict.

And you can (rightly) contest the generalising of the 'people' in this thread, but I personally find it very disappointing that the reaction to the blatantly premeditated killing of an unarmed, wounded enemy combatant committed by a British soldier did not engender near-universal disgust.

Also I can't tell if you were just summarising the presumed misinformed public position in the parts I bolded, or if that is your genuine interpretation of what happened.

[Commie Bobbie]

I'm not surprised.

People only want to see 'fair' war when its British Troops on the receiving end.  When its the enemy many people, media and MP's even are quite content with British Troops doing what they want.

The whole 'support the troops' 'help for heroes' and its ilk can go do one.

I think that's a very fair analysis of how the British public and politicians think. Thanks in no small part to the nonsense spewed out by certain elements of the media. 

[Sammy5IsAlive]

Having done a bit of googling I think he is probably not guilty of Murder under English law (where diminished responsibility only requires substantial impairment) but guilty of a War Crime under International law (which requires that a person's capacity must be "destroyed" in order for them to have a defence).

That kind of fits with how I feel about the case - on an emotional level I have sympathy for him given the circumstances but on a rational level it is clear that soldiers need to be held to a higher standard of self-control than your everyday man off the street.

[WhoHe]

Sentenced to 7 years for manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility so will be out shortly as he has done 3 years. Think this was the obvious outcome once an appeal was launched.

[Red-Soldier]

Sentenced to 7 years for manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility so will be out shortly as he has done 3 years. Think this was the obvious outcome once an appeal was launched.

Not bad for killing someone in cold blood.

[Buck Pete]

Not bad for killing someone in cold blood.

I think there are farmers in godforsaken places such as Dorset and suchlike who have received lighter sentences for shooting smack heads who were robbing their farmhouses.

Watched the Naudet brothers documentary on 9/11 yesterday and had trouble sleeping last night thinking about it. This decision on the other hand I will sleep like a baby.

[Red-Soldier]

I think there are farmers in godforsaken places such as Dorset and suchlike who have received lighter sentences for shooting smack heads who were robbing their farmhouses.

Watched the Naudet brothers documentary on 9/11 yesterday and had trouble sleeping last night thinking about it. This decision on the other hand I will sleep like a baby.

Not sure which cases you are specifically refering to, but two wrongs don't make a right.

[CornerFlag]

I think there are farmers in godforsaken places such as Dorset and suchlike who have received lighter sentences for shooting smack heads who were robbing their farmhouses.

Watched the Naudet brothers documentary on 9/11 yesterday and had trouble sleeping last night thinking about it. This decision on the other hand I will sleep like a baby.

Oh, don't know of any incapacitated smackheads on the rob killed with a 9mm to the chest at close range myself.  But you know, good for you.

[The North Bank]

By admitting he was breaking the Geneva convention, he was  clearly aware that he was a committing a crime of murder. But this is exactly what we sent him there to do. That's why we arm soldiers with guns and not flowers.

[CornerFlag]

By admitting he was breaking the Geneva convention, he was  clearly aware that he was a crime of murder. But this is exactly what we sent him there to do. That's why we arm soldiers with guns and not flowers.

So you're exactly saying what we send them there to do is murder?

[The North Bank]

So you're exactly saying what we send them there to do is murder?

Yes, do you have a different take on it.
Do you think we are liberating the spirits of those we are killing?

[Red-Soldier]

By admitting he was breaking the Geneva convention, he was  clearly aware that he was a committing a crime of murder. But this is exactly what we sent him there to do. That's why we arm soldiers with guns and not flowers.

I don't think we sent soldiers their to murder people.

Do you know what Murder means?

[The North Bank]

I don't think we sent soldiers their to murder people.

Do you know what Murder means?

So what exactly are our soldiers doing there.

[youll never walk alone it]

People should watch farenheitt 911 if they want a restless night or 2, oh an btw shit decision to free him but totally not surprised.

[sminp]

I'm disgusted by this decision. The guy is a murderer and there's even a recording of him admitting it.

[nick_8589]

People should watch farenheitt 911 if they want a restless night or 2, oh an btw shit decision to free him but totally not surprised.

Well I'm gonna have sleepless nights now, I didn't realise people were still falling for that rubbish, it's literally just two hours of cut and paste editing quote mining and misleading assertions, Micheal Moore is as bad as Fox News for being blatantly full of shit.

[nick_8589]

Yes, do you have a different take on it.
Do you think we are liberating the spirits of those we are killing?

Can you not see the difference between killing someone in cold blood, when he presents zero threat to you and killing someone in a firefight when it's either them or you?

[Commie Bobbie]

Thing is, if this was roles reversed, and it was someone from the Taliban who had taken the actions of Mr Blackman, you could imagine Messrs Liddle, Dacre, Littlejohn and the rest of the fucking right-wing knob jockeys demanding blood.

Should've been left to rot.

[The North Bank]

Can you not see the difference between killing someone in cold blood, when he presents zero threat to you and killing someone in a firefight when it's either them or you?

Because soldiers are robots who can assess every situation from the comfort of their own bedroom, what if the unarmed enemy just slaughtered your mates, before becoming unarmed. We send them to do nothing but kill, then we charge them with murder. Might make us feel better to pretend we are better than the savages we are sent to kill.
Id say over 80% of the enemy fighters we kill are not in a firefight, unless you call a 1000lb bomb dropped from the sky against militia men with 1960s soviet rifles a fire fight.
The hypocrisy is big on this  one, all those thousands of civilians get bombed to death and passed as collateral damage. Yet one unarmed fighter and all of a sudden we are asking what have become of us.

[nick_8589]

Because soldiers are robots who can assess every situation from the comfort of their own bedroom, what if the unarmed enemy just slaughtered your mates, before becoming unarmed. We send them to do nothing but kill, then we charge them with murder. Might make us feel better to pretend we are better than the savages we are sent to kill.
Id say over 80% of the enemy fighters we kill are not in a firefight, unless you call a 1000lb bomb dropped from the sky against militia men with 1960s soviet rifles a fire fight.
The hypocrisy is big on this  one, all those thousands of civilians get bombed to death and passed as collateral damage. Yet one unarmed fighter and all of a sudden we are asking what have become of us.

"What if he'd just slaughtered your mates" then killing him after that whilst understandable, would still be illegal, how is this so hard.

We're not talking about soldiers or the nature of war or the morals of collateral damage, this story is about one person who, had enough about him to know what he was doing was completely illegal under international and domestic law and attempted to cover it up.

Soldiers are still bound by the laws of the state no matter what situation they're in and this is murder as defined in law.

[puroresu_kid]

Thing is, if this was roles reversed, and it was someone from the Taliban who had taken the actions of Mr Blackman, you could imagine Messrs Liddle, Dacre, Littlejohn and the rest of the fucking right-wing knob jockeys demanding blood.

Should've been left to rot.

This.

The enemy doesn't count though.  As far as that ilk are concerned its free reign to do as one pleases to stop the 'terrorists'.

This killer deserved no sympathy whatsoever and has no moral high-ground over the enemy he claims he was fighting.

Seeing all those supporters on tv and his wife all over the news makes me want to puke.  This image they are trying to portray as Blackman as some hero who suffered a miscarriage of justice is disgusting.

[zero zero]

This.

The enemy doesn't count though.  As far as that ilk are concerned its free reign to do as one pleases to stop the 'terrorists'.

Why was he court-martialed and jailed then? Are you even aware of the thread you're posting in?

[nick_8589]

This.

The enemy doesn't count though.  As far as that ilk are concerned its free reign to do as one pleases to stop the 'terrorists'.

This killer deserved no sympathy whatsoever and has no moral high-ground over the enemy he claims he was fighting.

Seeing all those supporters on tv and his wife all over the news makes me want to puke.  This image they are trying to portray as Blackman as some hero who suffered a miscarriage of justice is disgusting.

Funnily enough it's the exact same logic ISIS and the taliban use, "the kufar aren't worth the same as us we can do what we like to them." Etc

[nick_8589]

Why was he court-martialed and jailed then? Are you even aware of the thread you're posting in?

I think you need to read his post again he wasn't defending sgt Blackman

[zero zero]

I think you need to read his post again he wasn't defending sgt Blackman

I'm sure he wasn't defending Sgt. Blackman (and neither am I). The concept of "free reign" doesn't exist with our Armed Forces as can be seen by the fact he was court-martialed.

[nick_8589]

I'm sure he wasn't defending Sgt. Blackman (and neither am I). The concept of "free reign" doesn't exist with our Armed Forces as can be seen by the fact he was court-martialed.

Yeah I get you, see my post further up, they still have to follow the law, but I think he made that in reference to what the Richard littlejohns of this world think rather than military policy.

[The North Bank]

He's just the one that got caught. War is littered with executions.

[zero zero]

Yeah I get you, see my post further up, they still have to follow the law, but I think he made that in reference to what the Richard littlejohns of this world think rather than military policy.

Gotcha. I'm just at the point where there's little to be gained by giving headspace when objectionable dickheads turn out to have objectional views.

[nick_8589]

He's just the one that got caught. War is littered with executions.

All the more reason to make sure people who do get caught face the consequences.

[nick_8589]

Gotcha. I'm just at the point where there's little to be gained by giving headspace when objectionable dickheads turn out to have objectional views.

I totally get this, it seems more and more that every subject seems completely polarised, it's hard not to switch off, it's the reason why I've just binned off most social media.

[Cliff Bastin]

I'm disgusted by this decision. The guy is a murderer and there's even a recording of him admitting it.

One mans murderer is another mans freedom fighter. Or so that is what we are told.