Alexander Blackman
- Thread starter Diddums
- Start date
You answered your own question. Because we are a civilised nation.
The above are all things that the Taliban are not. That is why we're fighting them and that is why we will win. As soon as we start to misunderstand that monumental difference between them and us (as this soldier did), that is the point where it all falls apart. That is why the Geneva convention exists and that is why we follow it. It's the same reason why we don't chop off the hands of thieves, or stone women for adultery. We are better than that.
What nobody has mentioned is the thought of what else this nasty piece of work may have done. If he was brazen enough to kill this guy on-camera, what has he done off-camera?
While i don't fully agree with stooping down to their level, they have been hacking off the heads of civilians, so they can hardly cry about a bullet to the chest on a poor little insurgent who was out to kill and maim as many of our soldiers as possible! They're the lowest of the low, and deserve everything they get. War is war, we may not like what goes on on the front lines, but we are at war here, i'm sure the soldiers getting shot at and seeing their comrades being blown to smithereens, don't like it either. So i can understand, why he did it, and if it was me, i'd pardon him, and even congratulate him for getting rid of one, which in many ways is a humane way, which isn't the dignity they give our side ! but unfortunately, the law decides, and that law seems to be backed by all the lefty wishy washy, limp wristed politically correct mamby pambys who sit behind a desk and have probably no idea of what its like to be in a real combat situation out in the desert, and they're the ones deciding his fate. Which is why ISIS and what not, are laughing on how soft the West has become.
How would this have been dealt with in WWI or WWII, or for that matter any war which is not subject to instant video documentation?
I cannot recall any historical incident of an allied soldier being convicted (which could have meant hanging or firing squad) back then for a similar offence. Not saying what he did was right, but there has to be some mitigation for the circumstances - easy for us keyboard warriors to judge right and wrong, but what would you have done in the circumstances, given the guy could have been booby trapped etc. Would there have been the same outcry if they'd just o/d him on morphine?
I cannot recall any historical incident of an allied soldier being convicted (which could have meant hanging or firing squad) back then for a similar offence. Not saying what he did was right, but there has to be some mitigation for the circumstances - easy for us keyboard warriors to judge right and wrong, but what would you have done in the circumstances, given the guy could have been booby trapped etc. Would there have been the same outcry if they'd just o/d him on morphine?
The government deserves to struggle to get enrollment to the armed forces after this nonsense. Who'd want to be a soldier, who's job is to eliminate the enemy, but um with a disclaimer, if its caught on video, then expect a murder trial. What a load of utter nonsense.
Hidden Roadside IED not cowardly? Ill let you tell that to the family of the next child that steps on one then.
You just ignored his example of 'cowardly' warfare.
Oh come, you know full well it's not because it's caught on video that it's suddenly a murder.
There are hundreds of videos of coalition forces engaging and killing the enemy, but funnily enough they did it legally and within the rules of engagement so they're not convicted murderers.
Simple.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 3,675
- Location
- Livingston
Take out his eye, find someone with aids to pee in his eye socket then put his eye back in.
Hail Satan!
Hail Satan!
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- Darwen
The Geneva Convention was only signed after WWII because of the atrocities that happened during war.
it was actually adopted in 1864.
Yes it has been changed after the wars, but the taking in of prisoners of war was well before the 1949 version you're probably referring too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,111
- Location
- Shepley
Shame the embedded quote doesn't work, but this perfectly sums up how you should approach conflict if you want to take any semblance of the moral high ground.
There was an article on this in the Daily Fail. The outrage was laughable. The same paper that would be foaming at the mouth of one of our boys was executed.
I felt embarrassed to hold the paper.
Edit - article already mentioned. Apologies, but it was balls.
I felt embarrassed to hold the paper.
Edit - article already mentioned. Apologies, but it was balls.
Exactly, this wasn't a minor rules of engagement infringement, it was a cold blooded execution/murder of an unarmed neutralized person.
Yes he was an enemy solider/combatant but we don't want to stoop to the level of those we are fighting against. They are still humans, not animals.
If this case was a questionable shooting of someone that may or may not have had a gun, but may have been a threat, then the response may be totally different. It wasn't though
Because the person killed was an enemy, and as such has different "rules" applied by our media and people... hypocrisy at its best.
Probably also doesn't help he was a Muslim, so in a fair few people's minds on here a second class citizen, or not even human...
Agreed. "Cowardly" is used way too much nowadays. Generally if someone does something you don't agree with (on both sides).
Because they have concrete examples of us doing it. They then use exactly the same argument you're using, but the other way round. Justifying their actions on the actions of ourselves.
We are supposed to be the good guys, so using the actions of the enemy to justify the same actions on our side is just not a reasonable argument to make.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 3,675
- Location
- Livingston
Completely agree.
For discussion sake it would be interesting to see how many of us would greet foreign armed soldiers say surrounding our local co-op, with the respect we expect local Afghani's to have for our guys.
M Muscles
A Are
R Required
I Intelligence
N Not
E Essential
For discussion sake it would be interesting to see how many of us would greet foreign armed soldiers say surrounding our local co-op, with the respect we expect local Afghani's to have for our guys.
M Muscles
A Are
R Required
I Intelligence
N Not
E Essential
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,495
- Location
- ST4
If only he'd have shouted "He's going for a detonator" rather than "Shuffle off this mortal coil, you ****" before putting it out of it's misery. He wouldn't be in prison now.
Which is irrelevant unless you want the British army to lower themselves to the same scourge as terrorists.
Anyone who thinks it is justified is no better than an ISIS terrorist.
Last edited: