From that logic, he's dying, putting a bullet through his chest isn't going to change anything is it?
And I've already made my thoughts clear on the crap the police have to deal with.
Alexander Blackman
- Thread starter Diddums
- Start date
From that logic, he's dying, putting a bullet through his chest isn't going to change anything is it?
And I've already made my thoughts clear on the crap the police have to deal with.
No, training is there to deal with the reality. Shooting an unarmed, incapacitated soldier is illegal, morally reprehensible and cowardly, doesn't matter which way you paint it.
How is it cowardly?
And again training doesn't equal reality. If it did why do you think during any war it's more likely to be the inexperienced soldiers that are killed? The ones that have received the same training as everyone else...
It's the same with driving. Sure you have lessons but they really don't prepare you for life on the roads, that's why the more inexperienced you are the more likely you are to have an accident.
The man he shot was no threat, unarmed, critically injured.
Isis or any other terrorist do it and everyone is rightly outraged, a soldier representing a civilized western army does it and we are debating if he was right or wrong. How can that be so? I feel it has significantly more to do with who he killed rather than the act.
How is that cowardly? Brutal but not cowardly...I'm not sure you know what a coward is!
It depends on the situation, to be honest.
If the guy on the ground was mortally wounded with no real hope/chance of survival, I'd like to think we should do the moral thing of a bullet to his head. No point sitting around giving first aid when you might get attacked back and you can't really leave a guy on the ground to die..
Dragging him across a field, shooting him in the chest and then bragging, however, I can't see that going down well.
If the guy on the ground was mortally wounded with no real hope/chance of survival, I'd like to think we should do the moral thing of a bullet to his head. No point sitting around giving first aid when you might get attacked back and you can't really leave a guy on the ground to die..
Dragging him across a field, shooting him in the chest and then bragging, however, I can't see that going down well.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,252
- Location
- Southampton
It makes lots of difference
Taliban recruitment comes from propaganda surrounding subjects like indiscriminate bombing, executions, mutilations of dead fighters, killing of women and children, disrespecting religion and customs, etc by our forces.
Lots of that stuff is made up / untrue / spin etc, but actual events like this just add more fuel to the fire. We were (and still are) trying to minimize the accidents, mistakes and heavy handiness in these places so that we don't increase the insurgency - you create more enemies with this stuff, the whole point of the campaign is to restore law and order, if you are not going to do that yourself then you have already lost
We can discuss things like "did he deserve to be killed" or the effects of PTSD on veterans or making snap decisions that lead to bad outcomes under lots of pressure or stress from the comfort of safety and our homes when we don't have the full information and id agree with you on all of it
but executing a dying insurgent for no tactical reason, (we are not talking about a scenario where the guy could escape or something and compromise you somehow) when you know its wrong, and you are being filmed - its just not defensible really
Even like the guy above me is saying - if you want to take the moral argument that you are doing the guy a favour, dont get filmed doing it! he knew what would happen, he even says so himself
Last edited:
How does it add more fuel to the fire? They execute unarmed civilians regularly! They execute foreign troops as a matter of course.
They can't exactly say "look at these barbarians, join us and fight the infidel" when it's what they do on a day to day basis can they?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,252
- Location
- Southampton
You are assuming that all Taliban are fanatical jihadists - a lot of the recruitment comes from the perceived injustices caused by our troops (As i said, most of it is purely just propaganda)
its the whole point of counter insurgency - From the COIN field manual:
"Ethics is a common public diplomacy aspect that is emphasized in COIN warfare. Insurgents win their war by attacking internal will and the international opposition. In order to combat these tactics the counterinsurgency operations need to treat their prisoners and detainees humanely and according to American values and principles. By doing this, COIN operations show the host nation’s population that they can be trusted and that they are concerned about the well being of the population in order to be successful in warfare."
Last edited:
So then what difference does it make if they have that made-up propaganda that they're buying in to it anyway?
If they already believe the soldiers are monstrous enough to go to war against them they ain't gonna change their mind because someone didn't shoot their dying mate are they?
How likely are they likely to go 'ah well they let Ahmed bleed out slowly so they must be nice. We'll stop trying to kill them'.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,252
- Location
- Southampton
You don't think a video of our soldiers executing prisoners wouldn't be an affective recruitment tool?
Anyway it not my policy - go argue with David Petraeus about it if you dont like it
The point is - it was his orders and the mission he was fighting for, and thats before you even get into the whole Geneva convention stuff
Depends on who you are fighting.....
This is war where one side is not playing by the rules. Nor will they/have EVER played by the rules. IMO the rule book needs to be thrown out of the window or at the very least pick and choose what we like from it.
Hence why Russia is doing quite well in Syria.........
WAR is the worst thing humanity can ever ever do, there is nothing more twisted, upsetting, pain inflicting MAN can do. Anything to shorten the attrition should be on the table (mass extinction aside)
Last edited:
They moved him out of the view of a camera that was mounted to a balloon for surveillance.
Just to get give some idea of what the insurgent was peppered with:
The Apache can fire 625 of these armour-piercing rounds per minute, yet it was deemed ok to unleash a completely disproportionate response to these two attackers firing pot shots at the barracks.
Wasn't the court hearing about Blackman being bailed over the Christmas period, and nothing to do with letting him off?
The Apache can fire 625 of these armour-piercing rounds per minute, yet it was deemed ok to unleash a completely disproportionate response to these two attackers firing pot shots at the barracks.
Wasn't the court hearing about Blackman being bailed over the Christmas period, and nothing to do with letting him off?
Yes, he wanted bail to work on his appeal against his sentence.
Why should we allow a convicted murderer bail to be at home at Christmas time, just because he happens to be a marine?
Just to get give some idea of what the insurgent was peppered with:
The Apache can fire 625 of these armour-piercing rounds per minute, yet it was deemed ok to unleash a completely disproportionate response to these two attackers firing pot shots at the barracks.
Wasn't the court hearing about Blackman being bailed over the Christmas period, and nothing to do with letting him off?
Won't somebody think of the poor Taliban
Oh don't worry, I'm not losing any sleep over a dead Taliban.Won't somebody think of the poor Taliban
Reminds me of when they tried to ban the UK using thermobaric weapons in Afghanistan originally.
This, why on earth would you let a convicted murderer out on bail?
They've fast tracked the appeal process which is good enough, surely.