| Marine A 23:09 - Dec 5 with 7997 views | QPRDave |
What the hell are these 3 Judges in the High Court thinking of?
To release the name of this Soldier is a complete disgrace and betrayal to him and
the other service men dead and alive who have served and are serving right now.
To say that other convicted murderers are named so this fella should also be named is
ludicrous. This is not a normal murder if that's what they want to call it.
The bloke is paid to kill. He was tried by Court Martial, not a civilian court, so how can these judges rule on this?
Complete joke and these 3 morons have put this brave man and his family in danger, probably for the rest of their lives.........Maybe these 3 Judges should have their anonymity
removed, so we all know who the idiots are. [Post edited 5 Dec 2013 23:55]
|  | | |  |
| Marine A on 21:36 - Dec 7 with 1082 views | terryb |
Now I understand why QPR Report keeps to football related topics & away from politics.
Still, I felt I had to join in as I find it hard to understand how anyone can defend the actions of this man. He personally chose to shoot an injured human being that could not defend himself, How is that anything else but murder. In my view he is very lucky to have only been given ten years before he can apply for parole.
Was the victim a participant in this battle? I'm sure that he was fighting for his side as our troops are meant to be fighting for us. For us, not for some politicians who decide to waltz into Afghanistan & attempt to conquer the country & it's population. Something that no one has managed for centuries, including the full forces of the USSR.
It may well be that the majority of the Afghan people were opposed to the Taliban & wanted an end to the terror that they may have imposed. However, an invasion by other armed forces would only drive those same people to fight side by side with those oppressors.
Contrary to recent dictum, not all members/employees (which is what they are) of the armed forces are "brave heros". They mainly joined to be paid the "Queens shilling" & a small minority (I expect very small) joined because they hoped to be involved in battle & enjoy killing.
Surely it is the perfect job for a psychopath?
Edited as I wrote small majority when I meant minority. [Post edited 7 Dec 2013 21:52]
|  | | |
| Marine A on 21:39 - Dec 7 with 1082 views | middlesexhoop |
| Marine A on 18:56 - Dec 7 by NW5Hoop |
It's not just liberal do-gooders in their armchairs who said this was murder. It was also the army and the country's most senior military judge. Hence the court martial and the conviction. |
As I said earlier it is easy in hindsight - be it on your sofa or in the cold clinical environment of a court room. The country's most senior military judge is basically a barrister who joined the navy to practice law there, dealing with military discipline matters - he has also ruled previously on such weighty matters as the rugby bloodgate nonsense forbthe RFU - not someone I imagine has seen much in the way of frontline action. I haven't previously mentioned 'liberal do-gooders' they're your words .... | | | |
| Marine A on 21:48 - Dec 7 with 1064 views | middlesexhoop |
| Marine A on 21:36 - Dec 7 by terryb |
Now I understand why QPR Report keeps to football related topics & away from politics.
Still, I felt I had to join in as I find it hard to understand how anyone can defend the actions of this man. He personally chose to shoot an injured human being that could not defend himself, How is that anything else but murder. In my view he is very lucky to have only been given ten years before he can apply for parole.
Was the victim a participant in this battle? I'm sure that he was fighting for his side as our troops are meant to be fighting for us. For us, not for some politicians who decide to waltz into Afghanistan & attempt to conquer the country & it's population. Something that no one has managed for centuries, including the full forces of the USSR.
It may well be that the majority of the Afghan people were opposed to the Taliban & wanted an end to the terror that they may have imposed. However, an invasion by other armed forces would only drive those same people to fight side by side with those oppressors.
Contrary to recent dictum, not all members/employees (which is what they are) of the armed forces are "brave heros". They mainly joined to be paid the "Queens shilling" & a small minority (I expect very small) joined because they hoped to be involved in battle & enjoy killing.
Surely it is the perfect job for a psychopath?
Edited as I wrote small majority when I meant minority. [Post edited 7 Dec 2013 21:52]
|
What qualifies you to know the motivation for people joining the armed forces and to refer to them as psychopaths? Shame on you, What has the reason for being in Afghanistan got to do with any of this? From memory we went in because bin laden and his terrorist associates were planning mass murder in well established training camps - plans that resulted in the death of thousands of innocent people at 911 and subsequently here in 2005. The 'victim' as you call him was an enmy combatant who would have killed those Royal Marines without a Second thought if the roles had been reversed. | | | |
| Marine A on 21:53 - Dec 7 with 1059 views | QPRDave |
| Marine A on 21:36 - Dec 7 by terryb |
Now I understand why QPR Report keeps to football related topics & away from politics.
Still, I felt I had to join in as I find it hard to understand how anyone can defend the actions of this man. He personally chose to shoot an injured human being that could not defend himself, How is that anything else but murder. In my view he is very lucky to have only been given ten years before he can apply for parole.
Was the victim a participant in this battle? I'm sure that he was fighting for his side as our troops are meant to be fighting for us. For us, not for some politicians who decide to waltz into Afghanistan & attempt to conquer the country & it's population. Something that no one has managed for centuries, including the full forces of the USSR.
It may well be that the majority of the Afghan people were opposed to the Taliban & wanted an end to the terror that they may have imposed. However, an invasion by other armed forces would only drive those same people to fight side by side with those oppressors.
Contrary to recent dictum, not all members/employees (which is what they are) of the armed forces are "brave heros". They mainly joined to be paid the "Queens shilling" & a small minority (I expect very small) joined because they hoped to be involved in battle & enjoy killing.
Surely it is the perfect job for a psychopath?
Edited as I wrote small majority when I meant minority. [Post edited 7 Dec 2013 21:52]
|
Do you agree he should be named as well, as you brand him a murderer?
The main thing that is wrong and should never have happened in this case is
that troops are wired up with cameras. Who wants to see war images as they happen?
Yes the soldier was wrong he knows he shouldn't have done it, but this is not
something committed on the streets.
Would he have put himself and colleagues in danger by calling in help for this injured Taliban soldier?...Should he have just left him there to die? | | | |
| Marine A on 22:00 - Dec 7 with 1050 views | terryb |
And how would you have described it if a British soldier was shot coldly whilst being held as a prisoner?
No matter whom the forces belong to, to kill unarmed prisoners IS murder.
I also did not state that Marine A was a psychopath, I merely sugested that the armed forces is an ideal occupation for them.
Of course the vast majority of people serving in forces all over the world are no different to civilians & are normal decent folk. But like in Civvy Street some do not rate that description. | | | |
| Marine A on 22:10 - Dec 7 with 1035 views | HollowayRanger |
prime example of why this country is going to the DOGS |  |
| |
| Marine A on 22:15 - Dec 7 with 1032 views | middlesexhoop |
| Marine A on 22:00 - Dec 7 by terryb |
And how would you have described it if a British soldier was shot coldly whilst being held as a prisoner?
No matter whom the forces belong to, to kill unarmed prisoners IS murder.
I also did not state that Marine A was a psychopath, I merely sugested that the armed forces is an ideal occupation for them.
Of course the vast majority of people serving in forces all over the world are no different to civilians & are normal decent folk. But like in Civvy Street some do not rate that description. |
Let's have it right - he wasnt a prisoner he was an enemy combatant still on the battlefield, and he wasn't shot coldly he was shot in the aftermath of a heated battle during a tour of duty that cost 7 of sgt Blackmans comrades their lives. You can 'merely suggest' all you like but you made a generalisation about people that defend this country's interests year in year out 24 hours a day. Shame on you. | | | |
| Marine A on 22:24 - Dec 7 with 1022 views | terryb |
| Marine A on 21:53 - Dec 7 by QPRDave |
Do you agree he should be named as well, as you brand him a murderer?
The main thing that is wrong and should never have happened in this case is
that troops are wired up with cameras. Who wants to see war images as they happen?
Yes the soldier was wrong he knows he shouldn't have done it, but this is not
something committed on the streets.
Would he have put himself and colleagues in danger by calling in help for this injured Taliban soldier?...Should he have just left him there to die? |
No Dave the main thing wrong is not that the troops were wired up with cameras.
THE MAIN THING WRONG is that he shot and killed an injured prisoner.
Should he have been named. Yes, he should have been.
However, if his family are now in danger we should give them full protection, including if need be, new identities. This should also be offered to this man when he is released.
Of course the soldier knows he shouldn't have done it, but by his own words he knew that when he sentenced, without trial, the man to death.
Yes, leaving him may have ended up in death but that would have been vwery different to the course he took.
It is only a small step from accepting his actions to allowing victorious soldiers to rape, pillage & kill their prisoners.
These are all things that have happened repeatedly through history but it doesn't make it right. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Marine A on 23:10 - Dec 7 with 996 views | BromleyHoop |
| Marine A on 19:37 - Dec 7 by QPRDave |
...perhaps you'd like to explain to me how people like you can sit in a comfy armchair and criticise brave men for doing their job.
I ain't reading any ol b*llocks you are putting up ...you and the other lefty touchy feelies
are complaining about an unarmed man being taken out of the theatre of war...then i am asking why snipers are not being accused of the same ? [Post edited 7 Dec 2013 19:56]
|
Dave, I saw a glimmer of hope in an earlier post of yours. Yes he should have left him where he was.
Firstly it's not brave to shoot an unarmed, injured man.
Secondly, you really should read up on stuff because you have repeatedly demonstrated that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
Thirdly, what's your obsession with snipers? They are the same as any other soldier or pilot. If they see an armed combatant in their sights they are entitled to slot them. If they're not armed and are appararently a civilian then they're not. I don't really see why you seem to differentiate betwen snipers and any other soldier. They are all governed, in a civilised society, by the rules of war.
This is also the same with drone strikes. Drone strikes tend to be justified, hopefully, be accurate and recent intelligence that the persons in a moving vehicle, for example, are actively engaged in acts of war or terrorism. Under these circumstances it would be likely that a drone strike would be justified in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately, as was showed by some of the Wikileaks US Army footage, what constitues 'intelligence' is very, very limited.
ps. I don't consider myself a 'lefty' thanks. [Post edited 7 Dec 2013 23:13]
|  |
| |
| Marine A on 23:39 - Dec 7 with 979 views | QPRDave |
| Marine A on 23:10 - Dec 7 by BromleyHoop |
Dave, I saw a glimmer of hope in an earlier post of yours. Yes he should have left him where he was.
Firstly it's not brave to shoot an unarmed, injured man.
Secondly, you really should read up on stuff because you have repeatedly demonstrated that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
Thirdly, what's your obsession with snipers? They are the same as any other soldier or pilot. If they see an armed combatant in their sights they are entitled to slot them. If they're not armed and are appararently a civilian then they're not. I don't really see why you seem to differentiate betwen snipers and any other soldier. They are all governed, in a civilised society, by the rules of war.
This is also the same with drone strikes. Drone strikes tend to be justified, hopefully, be accurate and recent intelligence that the persons in a moving vehicle, for example, are actively engaged in acts of war or terrorism. Under these circumstances it would be likely that a drone strike would be justified in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately, as was showed by some of the Wikileaks US Army footage, what constitues 'intelligence' is very, very limited.
ps. I don't consider myself a 'lefty' thanks. [Post edited 7 Dec 2013 23:13]
|
The only reason i mention snipers or drones, is that they do take out unarmed enemy. The whole point of the sniper role is to position yourself, so as to be unseen and that is why i keep mentioning them. The enemy would not know they are there..ie not actively shooting at them so not in a combat situation....hope thats clearer.
It's you people who keep saying that the fella was unarmed so should not have been shot.
I see you say below you think its ok to kill unarmed men afterall (just noticed)
" Drone strikes tend to be justified, hopefully, be accurate and recent intelligence that the persons in a moving vehicle, for example, are actively engaged in acts of war or terrorism. Under these circumstances it would be likely that a drone strike would be justified in the eyes of the law."
Apologies for lefting you [Post edited 7 Dec 2013 23:44]
| | | |
| Marine A on 23:41 - Dec 7 with 978 views | QPRDave |
| Marine A on 23:10 - Dec 7 by BromleyHoop |
Dave, I saw a glimmer of hope in an earlier post of yours. Yes he should have left him where he was.
Firstly it's not brave to shoot an unarmed, injured man.
Secondly, you really should read up on stuff because you have repeatedly demonstrated that you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.
Thirdly, what's your obsession with snipers? They are the same as any other soldier or pilot. If they see an armed combatant in their sights they are entitled to slot them. If they're not armed and are appararently a civilian then they're not. I don't really see why you seem to differentiate betwen snipers and any other soldier. They are all governed, in a civilised society, by the rules of war.
This is also the same with drone strikes. Drone strikes tend to be justified, hopefully, be accurate and recent intelligence that the persons in a moving vehicle, for example, are actively engaged in acts of war or terrorism. Under these circumstances it would be likely that a drone strike would be justified in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately, as was showed by some of the Wikileaks US Army footage, what constitues 'intelligence' is very, very limited.
ps. I don't consider myself a 'lefty' thanks. [Post edited 7 Dec 2013 23:13]
|
sorry repeated myself [Post edited 7 Dec 2013 23:43]
| | | |
| Marine A on 23:52 - Dec 7 with 967 views | QPRDave |
| Marine A on 22:24 - Dec 7 by terryb |
No Dave the main thing wrong is not that the troops were wired up with cameras.
THE MAIN THING WRONG is that he shot and killed an injured prisoner.
Should he have been named. Yes, he should have been.
However, if his family are now in danger we should give them full protection, including if need be, new identities. This should also be offered to this man when he is released.
Of course the soldier knows he shouldn't have done it, but by his own words he knew that when he sentenced, without trial, the man to death.
Yes, leaving him may have ended up in death but that would have been vwery different to the course he took.
It is only a small step from accepting his actions to allowing victorious soldiers to rape, pillage & kill their prisoners.
These are all things that have happened repeatedly through history but it doesn't make it right. |
Oh that's good of you ...offering him as well as his family protection. Would it not be less expensive and less disruptive to not name him?...
Btw no he should not have been named he was tried by a military court ..un-named and imo the 3 wigged tw*ts in the high court should not be ruling on this.
At least you're not insisting they should receive treatment, and are happy to let them bleed to death | | | |
| Marine A on 00:01 - Dec 8 with 962 views | QPRDave |
| Marine A on 22:00 - Dec 7 by terryb |
And how would you have described it if a British soldier was shot coldly whilst being held as a prisoner?
No matter whom the forces belong to, to kill unarmed prisoners IS murder.
I also did not state that Marine A was a psychopath, I merely sugested that the armed forces is an ideal occupation for them.
Of course the vast majority of people serving in forces all over the world are no different to civilians & are normal decent folk. But like in Civvy Street some do not rate that description. |
And how would you have described it if a British soldier was shot coldly whilst being held as a prisoner
If only eh?...They are normally beheaded with a knife. Even on our own streets.
I also did not state that Marine A was a psychopath, I merely sugested that the armed forces is an ideal occupation for them.
No you just posted it on a thread about the man...
Of course the vast majority of people serving in forces all over the world are no different to civilians & are normal decent folk. But like in Civvy Street some do not rate that description.
What sort of affect do you think fighting an enemy using barbaric outdated acts has on soldiers?..and you flippantly label them psychos.
Anyway i'm argued out [Post edited 8 Dec 2013 0:06]
| | | |
| Marine A on 13:09 - Dec 8 with 918 views | NW5Hoop |
| Marine A on 21:39 - Dec 7 by middlesexhoop |
As I said earlier it is easy in hindsight - be it on your sofa or in the cold clinical environment of a court room. The country's most senior military judge is basically a barrister who joined the navy to practice law there, dealing with military discipline matters - he has also ruled previously on such weighty matters as the rugby bloodgate nonsense forbthe RFU - not someone I imagine has seen much in the way of frontline action. I haven't previously mentioned 'liberal do-gooders' they're your words .... |
I didn't say he was a soldier. I said he's our most senior military judge - the person most versed in matters of military law: his absence of combat experience is irrelevant to that. And it was the army who brought the court martial. Or do we no longer think the army is fit to decide its own disciplinary matters?
Someone elsewhere mentions the cameras. I understood these were brought in so commanding officers and strategists could see what was actually happening and issue orders accordingly, which seems perfectly sensible. They weren't brought in to trap wrongdoers. But if they film wrongdoing, I can't really see how you can pretend it isn't happening.
I think most people - handwringing do-gooders or not - have a lot of sympathy for Marine A. Of course those serving in combat zones have to suffer unimaginable horrors, it's not surprising some go off the deep end. But that doesn't mean we should shrug it off and say, "Well, it's war. Sh*t happens, eh?" | | | |
| Marine A on 13:19 - Dec 8 with 910 views | NW5Hoop |
Key par from the sentencing (and those who haven't read the full thing really should. Every single point from those saying he did nothing wrong, and those who judged him had no right to do so is addressed).
"Your actions have put at risk the lives of other British service personnel. You have provided ammunition to the terrorists whose propaganda portrays the British presence in Afghanistan as part of a war on Islam in which civilians are arbitrarily killed. That ammunition will no doubt be used in their programme of radicalisation. That could seriously undermine the reputation of British forces and ultimately the mission in Afghanistan. As I have already said, committing this sort of act could well provoke the
enemy to act more brutally towards British troops in retribution or reprisal." | | | |
| Marine A on 13:30 - Dec 8 with 906 views | middlesexhoop |
| Marine A on 13:19 - Dec 8 by NW5Hoop |
Key par from the sentencing (and those who haven't read the full thing really should. Every single point from those saying he did nothing wrong, and those who judged him had no right to do so is addressed).
"Your actions have put at risk the lives of other British service personnel. You have provided ammunition to the terrorists whose propaganda portrays the British presence in Afghanistan as part of a war on Islam in which civilians are arbitrarily killed. That ammunition will no doubt be used in their programme of radicalisation. That could seriously undermine the reputation of British forces and ultimately the mission in Afghanistan. As I have already said, committing this sort of act could well provoke the
enemy to act more brutally towards British troops in retribution or reprisal." |
As I previously stated its easy to make these judgements in the cold clinical environment of a court room. We will have to agree to disagree - I just find the rush by certain people - yourself included - to condemn the man undignified and distasteful particularly when most of those people have no experience of the kind of pressures these men and women operate under but are happy to accept the freedoms they safeguard without question. | | | |
| Marine A on 13:34 - Dec 8 with 904 views | LythamR |
| Marine A on 13:09 - Dec 8 by NW5Hoop |
I didn't say he was a soldier. I said he's our most senior military judge - the person most versed in matters of military law: his absence of combat experience is irrelevant to that. And it was the army who brought the court martial. Or do we no longer think the army is fit to decide its own disciplinary matters?
Someone elsewhere mentions the cameras. I understood these were brought in so commanding officers and strategists could see what was actually happening and issue orders accordingly, which seems perfectly sensible. They weren't brought in to trap wrongdoers. But if they film wrongdoing, I can't really see how you can pretend it isn't happening.
I think most people - handwringing do-gooders or not - have a lot of sympathy for Marine A. Of course those serving in combat zones have to suffer unimaginable horrors, it's not surprising some go off the deep end. But that doesn't mean we should shrug it off and say, "Well, it's war. Sh*t happens, eh?" |
The original post was about the revealing of the name. I think that should have been avoided but lets face it these things get out anyway in most cases, someone blabs eventually
the main argument in the thread seems to have been whether or not it was murder and or justified by the circumstances
it was clearly murder and there is no justification for it at all, our soldiers are out there representing our country and the rest of the world as moral guardians of the world and protectors of "Freedom and democracy" as such we have to be and appear to be above any dubious or questionable activity
all the arguments in defence of this act of murder seem to include justifications along the lines of "well they would do it to us" but that is not a reasonable argument on the basis of us acting as the worlds police force, we are not in a gang fight here.
We can only win or even justify being there at all) by being above reproach and winning the hearts and minds of the majority of the afghan population and thats partly why we have the cameras and audio on so we can show that what we are doing there is in accordance with prevailing laws (as well as improving command and control) |  | | |
| Marine A on 14:19 - Dec 8 with 893 views | NW5Hoop |
| Marine A on 13:30 - Dec 8 by middlesexhoop |
As I previously stated its easy to make these judgements in the cold clinical environment of a court room. We will have to agree to disagree - I just find the rush by certain people - yourself included - to condemn the man undignified and distasteful particularly when most of those people have no experience of the kind of pressures these men and women operate under but are happy to accept the freedoms they safeguard without question. |
I haven't condemned him or rushed to judgment. In fact I've said I've got a lot of sympathy for him, if you actually read what I've written. But it's still murder. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.