Royal Marine

[Spiral]

Very sensitive subject and a sorry state of affairs to begin with. I'd urge anyone outraged by his conviction to consider the notion that we have a very strict set of rules of engagement for reasons not only virtuous but also pragmatic, and that punishing people for such crimes protects our other service men and women. Hear me out. An enemy combatant is more likely to surrender if they know they will be treated fairly. An enemy combatant willing to fight to the death would only endanger British personnel. The propaganda implications are huge. Granted I'm giving this second-hand, hearing stories from people who served in Afghan, there are cases where a lot of 'Taliban' fighters were in fact illiterate subsistence farmers living in poverty who were given a year's salary and a firearm by the Taliban warlords, lest they suffer the Taliban themselves, to fire at Coalition forces. A lot of these insurgents weren't attempting to bring about the end-times a-la ISIS recruits. The enemy nonetheless, but they weren't entirely beyond reason to surrender when they realise the battle is lost. It doesn't require a great stretch of the imagination to realise how a reputation of POW's being treated fairly by the British makes conflict zones we're involved in less of a bloodbath, resulting in fewer British casualties.

[Jakubclaret]

I think im pretty much done wirh this post but for what it's worth I agree with most that it was poor judgement to shoot the injured terrorist but given that to move the wounded terrorist would have put the junior soldiers llves in danger I would have left him to die. Let him suffer before death. You can understand why some would think it would be more humane to shoot him but Blackman didn't get any thanks for that.

I reiterate that I wish Sgt Blackman well in the future. As previously stated he will be damaged by that tour in more ways than one. He deserves to tell his story about the tour, about the shooting of the terrorist and about how he feels he was treated by the system following that incident.

I really wish you would because so far you've contributed the square root of bugger all of sod all of importance. Sometimes its better to say your bit let people reply then listen & articulate a reply constructively. Theres some pretty knowledgeable people posting i knew when to jump ship.

[DCWat]

"Healeywood is female??

I'm expecting some battle hardened super soldier....or an Sas type.

I'm feeling short changed "

Sexist

[box_of_frogs]

Has anybody else been tried for a war crime that involved only one person being killed before?

It wasn't a "war crime", he actually broke the Law of Armed Conflict (not the Geneva Convention).

[Imploding Turtle]

I'm not in favour of blanket pardons as some executions were justified. However, PTSD wasn't recognised at the time and some, IMO, were unfairly convicted. However, they were all executed to make them an example in order to stop mass desertions from the front line; a tactic that was crude but, generally, very effective.

We have moved on, because no military 'justice' was handed out to Lt Moor.

Ah, so are you are saying that senior staff should have taken responsibility for what happened at the front line instead of Soldier A? It sounds like it.

Good for you. Bleeding heart liberals; they are never seen in combat as they only appear in the aftermath in order to criticise those doing the fighting, when there is no danger to themselves.

What you described wasn't even desertion. Your post even calls it "retreating". You're basically saying that if soldiers retreat against an oncoming army it is justified to shoot them.

[BennyD]

They were falling back without orders to do so, being routed would probably be more accurate a description. Had they continued to do so, the left flank of Lt Moors unit would have been wide open so he took the decision to stop them. His life, probably, wasn't at threat from them but he came to the conclusion that shooting them was the one way he could reverse the rout, which it did. Under the circumstances, it was a gutsy call for an 18 year old junior officer.

[evensteadiereddie]

Yeah, really gutsy that.......

[Healeywoodclaret]

You got away lightly Wexford...she called me a 'delusional tw@tt' last week.

I don't think she has done much active service herself, she is getting it all second hand and third hand, much like the rest of us.

She will correct me if I'm wrong, to be sure.

Aww didums did I call you a delusional tw@t? !!!!
So opinionated for second and third hand aren'the we?

[Healeywoodclaret]

I really wish you would because so far you've contributed the square root of bugger all of sod all of importance. Sometimes its better to say your bit let people reply then listen & articulate a reply constructively. Theres some pretty knowledgeable people posting i knew when to jump ship.

And your contributions on various subjects amount to what?. ......you've guessed it! Sweet FA!

[Healeywoodclaret]

Healeywood is female??

I'm expecting some battle hardened super soldier....or an Sas type.

I'm feeling short changed

Rumbled? That's it I'm gonna have to change my username!

[quoonbeatz]

And it's clear from your drivel that you have no grasp on military personnel serving in war zones. Another armchair politician.

there's only one of us spouting drivel mate and its you, given you still seem unable to grasp simple facts of the case.

given that to move the wounded terrorist would have put the junior soldiers llves in danger I would have left him to die. Let him suffer before death. You can understand why some would think it would be more humane to shoot him but Blackman didn't get any thanks for that.

here's what actually happened (again, its all been widely reported):

"The patrol disarmed him and dragged him roughly to the edge of a field. He was sworn at and mocked before being dumped on a pile of chaff.
Once the Apache had gone and the marines had made sure they were out of sight of a British observation balloon, Blackman leaned in and shot the man in the chest."

so despite you thinking they didn't move him to protect the junior soldiers whose lives were in danger, they actually did move him and made sure they couldn't be seen whilst under no threat whatsoever.

cheers.

[hampsteadclaret]

158...you can call me whatever you like Mrs 'cos your opinion is not something I am remotely bothered about...you don't count...that is why I didn't reply to you last week.


'So opinionated '...hmmm..you may have missed the point of this forum, which is largely about people's opinions.

You may have a friend or family member in the armed forces - you seem to think that this means you're the only poster who can have any valid views on this issue...not so.

[Jakubclaret]

And your contributions on various subjects amount to what?. ......you've guessed it! Sweet FA!

It is what it is whatever is repeatedly said. I just dont go round the houses.

[Healeywoodclaret]

there's only one of us spouting drivel mate and its you, given you still seem unable to grasp simple facts of the case.



here's what actually happened (again, its all been widely reported):

"The patrol disarmed him and dragged him roughly to the edge of a field. He was sworn at and mocked before being dumped on a pile of chaff.
Once the Apache had gone and the marines had made sure they were out of sight of a British observation balloon, Blackman leaned in and shot the man in the chest."

so despite you thinking they didn't move him to protect the junior soldiers whose lives were in danger, they actually did move him and made sure they couldn't be seen whilst under no threat whatsoever.

cheers.

I was actually talking about moving him to a safe area. Doing so given that a safe area may have been miles away, this would have put the soldiers lives in danger. Sworn at and mocked? Good god I've heard it all now!
I'm done talking to you Goon.

[Healeywoodclaret]

158...you can call me whatever you like Mrs 'cos your opinion is not something I am remotely bothered about...you don't count...that is why I didn't reply to you last week.


'So opinionated '...hmmm..you may have missed the point of this forum, which is largely about people's opinions.

You may have a friend or family member in the armed forces - you seem to think that this means you're the only poster who can have any valid views on this issue...not so.

No your not my favourite poster on here either! Ha ha. However given that the forum is largely about people's opinions, some of the posts make me laugh out loud! If your opinion doesn't suit it results in insults. So this forum does amuse me sometimes. However some serious and sensitive subjects are discussed such as this one. And people have strong views. Get over yourself fella.

[DCWat]

You'll never rile Hampstead unless you get on to the four legged furry teeth on legs.

Sorry Hampstead

[hampsteadclaret]

No problem with that DC enjoy your weekend..
Did you see that story the other day..a couple of days ago...a Greek bloke I think who lived in London...he got attacked and chewed up and killed by his own dog in his own home...a S------------ -u-l Te----- I believe...I wasn't gonna mention it but you sort of prompted me there..
- should I put the link up?

I won't mention the breed 'cos it sends the head spinning round of a couple on here who won't have a bad word said this loveable creature..
You know they are posting when you see these phrases..

lovely family pet
lick you to death
wunt hurt a fly
trust em with the baby's life
placid and soft
do you want some 'Chum'?
the most loyal dog
- and so on..

Then when he's having a bad day..he has that odd look in his eyes and before long it's...

oh-oh better call the funeral directors..


Just a bit of fun, calm down.

[DCWat]

Have a good weekend yourself, Hampstead

Off topic, I appreciate but yes, post a link, i'd not seen this one.

I suspect we will still have the two common links 1) the dog breed and 2) the owner, by which I mean the sort of person that owns the dog.

My view is that the more common link is the sort of person that owns the dog than it is the breed. Staffy attacks are far less common than some breeds perceived to be all licks and no teeth.

[RattyClaret]

If anyone is interested the law of armed conflict that all British soldiers should follow are covered under jsp383 or for a more condensed version jsp 381. There is a white card issued to every soldier on the rules of engagement but I can't remember what it's called

We are brief on this once a year for yearly training and before any tour of duty and during operations too.

[claret wizard]

I used to give the rules of engagement briefing in my Regiment, I presented the Geneva Convention lecture each year. I always used to think that pretty much all of it would go out of the window at times of war. The problem with dissecting and analysing military operations after the fact is that they are no longer in the context of the engagement. I always thought it would be far more realistic for a court to try the case whilst they were being shot at, or if they make a mistake the courtroom blows up and see how that impacts the outcome. The very nature of the engagement means that people do things they normally wouldn't do, they can't be rationale because the situation isn't rationale. Months of combat, stress, deaths and near misses changes how people behave, and then extracting a few moments and going into the minutest detail in court out of that context is wrong. I only posted on this thread after reading this article on the BBC site http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39355775" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Like many ex forces I don't talk much about my experiences, maybe we should a little more so that people can understand more about why the whole sorry episode with this Marine, the Iraq war investigations and numerous other cases where the battlefield enters the courtroom should be treated differently.

[box_of_frogs]

If anyone is interested the law of armed conflict that all British soldiers should follow are covered under jsp383 or for a more condensed version jsp 381. There is a white card issued to every soldier on the rules of engagement but I can't remember what it's called

Think you're looking for JSP 398 - UK Manual of National Rules of Engagement.

[CnBtruntru]

I used to give the rules of engagement briefing in my Regiment, I presented the Geneva Convention lecture each year. I always used to think that pretty much all of it would go out of the window at times of war. The problem with dissecting and analysing military operations after the fact is that they are no longer in the context of the engagement. I always thought it would be far more realistic for a court to try the case whilst they were being shot at, or if they make a mistake the courtroom blows up and see how that impacts the outcome. The very nature of the engagement means that people do things they normally wouldn't do, they can't be rationale because the situation isn't rationale. Months of combat, stress, deaths and near misses changes how people behave, and then extracting a few moments and going into the minutest detail in court out of that context is wrong. I only posted on this thread after reading this article on the BBC site http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39355775" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Like many ex forces I don't talk much about my experiences, maybe we should a little more so that people can understand more about why the whole sorry episode with this Marine, the Iraq war investigations and numerous other cases where the battlefield enters the courtroom should be treated differently.

Totally agree with your post, what people who have never been there (War/Conflict) do not take into account are the events that have gone before this, being fired at every day while on patrol by snipers, roadside bombs exploding, colleague friend being maimed or even killed, all of these will effect the mental state of 99.9% of people on this planet and I am not saying he was right in what he did, but we cannot judge when we have never been in that position or know the 100% facts of the case. What I do think should happen is for all ex forces who have been in war zones should be given counselling and some form of after care service, now whether it already happens I do not know, but if it doesn't it should be obligatory as how many young men who are in the forces would admit to something being wrong, it's only when they leave and it all goes Tits up that anybody knows there was an issue.

[Sidney1st]

What I do think should happen is for all ex forces who have been in war zones should be given counselling and some form of after care service, now whether it already happens I do not know, but if it doesn't it should be obligatory as how many young men who are in the forces would admit to something being wrong, it's only when they leave and it all goes Tits up that anybody knows there was an issue.

I suspect they need more care whilst in the army too.

The defence for this soldier was based around his mental state at the time of the incident.

If he was that bad then in theory he shouldn't have been on the front line, possibly not even over there at all after x amount of time.