Alexander Blackman

Who said that? not me. Adding and twisting words..AGAIN.

I said it what on earth are you getting defensive about that.
Lol

You is anyone collectively not me.
7bn or whatever people we are
 
Last edited:
however the point that makes it clear to me, is he literally states 'I just broke the geneva convention'

Congratulations. Sealed. No defence.

This pretty much. You can argue all sorts of things if he hadn't have said that and leniency could be given without devaluing laws but the second he said this, he fully acknowledges that the rules are second to his opinion and actions. This is the reason why it cant be swept under the rug or defended.
 
You do know that when in a debate someone answers you with the word "YOU" they are talking to..well me.

But now I know you've lost the debate as you've started calling members names which against the rules.

Hold on a moment. You broke a forum rule. Are you going to ask a mod to ban you?
I mean you do want all solders and forum members to follow the rules..don't you? ;)

Eurgh... can't believe I've had to lower my IQ this much, but here goes anyway:

1: "You" can mean anyone.
2: If someone calls someone else a name, they automatically lose? Is this like playing duck duck goose?
3: Where did I call you a name?
4: Go run to the mods, I'm sure they'll have a great attitude towards your non-complaint.
 
This pretty much. You can argue all sorts of things if he hadn't have said that and leniency could be given without devaluing laws but the second he said this, he fully acknowledges that the rules are second to his opinion and actions. This is the reason why it cant be swept under the rug or defended.

Is he using an insanity defence?

If not then surely you can knowingly break a law and still have mitigating circumstances any way.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with what he's done but I can entirely understand it and I certainly think I may have done something similar.
 
I said it what on earth are you getting defensive about that.
Lol

You is anyone collectively not me.
7bn or whatever people we are

"You is used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing." ;)

You quoted my post so you was talking to me :)
Back on topic
 
Eurgh... can't believe I've had to lower my IQ this much, but here goes anyway:.

See post 85 for the real answer. We haven't you banned yourself for calling members names?
So you don't follow the rules either...thought not.
 
It was really stupid of him (to both do it and to do it in that manner). He was an SNCO who should have known a lot better.

Reality is the taliban fighter had been shot by an apache, he would have died pretty soon anyway (it has beeen argued that the fighter was in fact dead already, which makes the SNCO's actions even stupider). If they'd done nothing he'd be dead anyway (though they'd also be at fault), if they gave him some morphine and whacked on a few FFDs he'd probably be dead anyway too - but they'd have done the right thing.

If it was done in the heat of the moment = manslaughter. It was premeditated, remove prisoner from surveillance camera coverage then shoot him, = murder.

It wasn't surveillance camera footage it was footage from the helmet cam of one of the patrol members.
 
Ok, I'm really struggling here, throw me a bone:

We haven't you banned yourself for calling members names?

What does this mean? And why would I ban myself? Do you think I'm a mod or something?

So you don't follow the rules either...thought not.

No. No I don't. In fact it's getting so bad that yesterday I caught myself entering a Sainsbury's through an exit only door. I think I might have a problem :(
 
This is exactly the point I was making to my wife too. It's very easy for us to sit in our nice comfortable homes and pass judgement but the fact is we don't know what we'd have done in that situation. The fact is that the law is the law, no getting around it, but his actions *might* have been excuseable, that guy might have just been waving an assault rifle at them seconds prior, we don't know.

Might? They were in a firefight with him. Not that that is any excuse.
 
It's very easy for us to sit in our nice comfortable homes and pass judgement but the fact is we don't know what we'd have done in that situation.

This is where sympathy for those involved comes in and is perfectly acceptable as we are, mostly, reasonable people and it makes us question what we would do.

However, as mentioned, he states he just broke the Geneva convention. If he broke down and wept for the horror of war then it might be a bit of a grey area and was he acting under extreme stress - or did he just execute someone?

I swear we have some people in here who were defending the prison rioters

Judging by the picture of the two lads with nicked riot gear, they were having the time of their lives. :)
 
Murdered a captured prisoner so he's got nothing to complain about.

He wasn't a prisoner, he was an injured taliban fighter they came across after a firefight/contact. They could have taken him prisoner (well realistically they'd be taking a dead body back as soon as they tried to move him) but instead the SGT broke the rules and tried showing off.
 
People seem to think that the army will fall apart because this guy was held to account under the law(both our law and the Geneva Convention). That current or potential soliders will become demoralised, fearful and lose hope. Ironically this will more likely strengthen the army as potential troops will know that they are being held to the highest standard under the law.

Love your enemy but don't fall to their level of depravity.
 
By the same token, should any british soldiers ever be caught by an opposing army you'll be more than happy for them to be shot indiscriminately?

The Taliban are not an army they are a bunch of cowardly extremist ****bags who do not deserve any protection. But no doubt youll send them a letter of apology for our troops killing them as thats the do gooder thing to do right?:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top Bottom