Royal Marine found guilty of Afghanistan murder

[Ady87]

Do you think so? Al has been diagnosed with a mental disorder that meant his ability to "form a rational judgment" was "substantially impaired", yet the majority on here (who have never been anywhere near the front line) all know better and he is a murderer.

It's all very well to sit in your armchairs and pass judgement, we all know what should have been done, the reality is that it is hell on the frontline and on his sixth tour Al cracked, due to circumstances beyond his control. The verdict is not giving the Armed Forces carte blanche to shoot anyone at will, but saying that in this one particular case there were exceptional stressors, which made the murder conviction incorrect.

What were the exceptional stressors? Is this not something front line military generally go through? Does it qualify as exceptional when it is the norm for the task being asked?

We are on about the video where he weighs up the situation, shoots a man point blank and then has a bit of a joke about it with the other lads including not mentioning it to anyone? If it was impulsive you'd expect a change in the tone of his voice or something, but there was nothing, it was pre-meditated. It looked like he had done it before.

It's hard not to tar everyone with the same brush but so many of these Britain First lot advocating the execution of Islamic extremists on facebook and the like are ex-forces or the kind of lads that would join the forces. Very sweeping generalisation I know, but there is a bit of a correlation in my experience alone. Was this not this guys opportunity to take justice in to his own hands and seek retribution on behalf of the lives lost out there?

 

[oates]

So you're against people being grouped together despite not saying the thing you're accusing them of. So as I was grouped into 'keyboard warriors' by said person earlier in this thread (on account of not serving) 'who all know better and he is a murderer' can you show me the post where I call Blackman a murderer please?

I'm not necessarily against people that thick per se. we need people that thick.

I'm saying that you can't ask someone to justify something someone else has said when they do not subscribe to that view in the first place. Do you really not see that?

 

[DOTA]

Yeah, I'm saying that one idiot reads something that someone has said and then tries to make another person who does not subscribe to that view, has not said it and possibly cannot be found saying it on any of the social media she uses or reads, justify what the idiot has read in the first place. is that enough of a connection social media wise?

I'm not really looking for a 'connection' to social media. I'm curious about the statement you made about using the press and social media to gauge what the most vocal arguments are.

I'm not going to spend all day asking, so I shall assume (as much as you hate assumptions) it was a throwaway comment that you aren't really interested in discussing.

 

[oates]

I'm not really looking for a 'connection' to social media. I'm curious about the statement you made about using the press and social media to gauge what the most vocal arguments are.

I'm not going to spend all day asking, so I shall assume (as much as you hate assumptions) it was a throwaway comment that you aren't really interested in discussing.

I'm sorry you can't see the connection.

I'll try one more time.

Group A reads/sees Group B's comments - Group B's comments are controversial because the media like that but Group A cannot understand that just because Group B seems powerful and 'vocal' or 'loud', that there isn't a Group C and D also interacting who are less extreme but less controversial, still vocal though.

But in demanding someone from Group C justifies someone from Group B's controversial statements is idiotic because being the demander assuming that every supporter believes the Group B argument to be right is also stoopid.

 

[DOTA]

I'm sorry you can't see the connection.

I'll try one more time.

Group A reads/sees Group B's comments - Group B's comments are controversial because the media like that but Group A cannot understand that just because Group B seems powerful and 'vocal' or 'loud', that there isn't a Group C and D also interacting who are less extreme but less controversial, still vocal though.

But in demanding someone from Group C justifies someone from Group B's controversial statements is idiotic because being the demander assuming that every supporter believes the Group B argument to be right is also stoopid.

Okay.

But social media allows us to view A,B,C and D's comments and gauge which is the most vocal.

 

[Red Diva]

I think you were too busy telling people who had an negative opinion on Marine A that they were keyboard warriors because they hadn't served. I also note that you didn't answer my question on whether you still believed 'very few' of his supporters think he's innocent.

What were the exceptional stressors? Is this not something front line military generally go through? Does it qualify as exceptional when it is the norm for the task being asked?

We are on about the video where he weighs up the situation, shoots a man point blank and then has a bit of a joke about it with the other lads including not mentioning it to anyone? If it was impulsive you'd expect a change in the tone of his voice or something, but there was nothing, it was pre-meditated. It looked like he had done it before.

It's hard not to tar everyone with the same brush but so many of these Britain First lot advocating the execution of Islamic extremists on facebook and the like are ex-forces or the kind of lads that would join the forces. Very sweeping generalisation I know, but there is a bit of a correlation in my experience alone. Was this not this guys opportunity to take justice in to his own hands and seek retribution on behalf of the lives lost out there?

Words fail me!

 

[Dobba]

Words fail me!

Hi again. Is that supposed to be an answer to my question, this time? Because since I asked, the BBC put a video on their website of an ex-Marine being interviewed and saying what Marine A did was absolutely right.

 

[oates]

Okay.

But social media allows us to view A,B,C and D's comments and gauge which is the most vocal.

Well perhaps some people just see one type of comment as more objucetionable then if you believe that to always be the case. That you cover all comments made across all media then I can't really argue what you believe is most vocal. I'm not against suggesting that some people prefer to see the most objectionable more though.

In any case, just because someone has a comprehensive knowledge of the case and more then most about the situation should mean that they have to justify the most objectionable of arguments when they do not subscribe to those views. Do you disagree?

 

[Ady87]

Words fail me!

Okay, so you bold the "He looked like he had done it before" comment. Can you tell me why words fail you in that regard? When you observe someone carrying out a certain action, there is a reason people say "you've done this before, haven't you?". In this case, it's because he shot a man, walked away and nobody seemed to bat an eyelid, figuratively speaking. What is so outlandish about this remark?

 

[oates]

Hi again. Is that supposed to be an answer to my question, this time? Because since I asked, the BBC put a video on their website of an ex-Marine being interviewed and saying what Marine A did was absolutely right.

And we're off again lol

 

[Dobba]

And we're off again lol

You were complaining about unrelated replies to comments a while ago. Make your mind up.

 

[Red Diva]

Fine, but your opinions on this matter are - understandably - biased.

Well it's not my opinions per se, but the opinions of 3 eminent psychiatrists and ultimately the Courts Martial Appeal Judges?

 

[SteveJ]

Well it's not my opinions per se, but the opinions of 3 eminent psychiatrists and ultimately the Courts Martial Appeal Judges?

Fair enough, RD.

 

[DOTA]

Well perhaps some people just see one type of comment as more objucetionable then if you believe that to always be the case. That you cover all comments made across all media then I can't really argue what you believe is most vocal. I'm not against suggesting that some people prefer to see the most objectionable more though.

In any case, just because someone has a comprehensive knowledge of the case and more then most about the situation should mean that they have to justify the most objectionable of arguments when they do not subscribe to those views. Do you disagree?

Nah, I think Dobba was being a bit silly there, in response to Red Diva being a bit silly and ridiculing his post without offering any critique.

 

[oates]

You were complaining about unrelated replies to comments a while ago. Make your mind up.

No, still related but here's you telling @Red Diva that she only didn't call him a hero because she was too busy with other things - why is it you feel it is right to acuse someone of having an opinion that she doesn't but rudely claim she would have if she had more time?

Where have I called him a hero or advocated buying him a drink? This comment has absolutely nothing to do with me laughing at your statement

I think you were too busy telling people who had an negative opinion on Marine A that they were keyboard warriors because they hadn't served. I also note that you didn't answer my question on whether you still believed 'very few' of his supporters think he's innocent.

 

[Dobba]

Nah, I think Dobba was being a bit silly there, in response to Red Diva being a bit a silly and ridiculing his post without offering any critique.

Thank goodness for you, seriously.

No, still related but here's you telling @Red Diva that she only didn't call him a hero because she was too busy with other things - why is it you feel it is right to acuse someone of having an opinion that she doesn't but rudely claim she would have if she had more time?

Yes. Almost as if it was a reaction to me being told I had an opinion that I didnt because I hadn't served. By jove, I think he's got it!

 

[oates]

Nah, I think Dobba was being a bit silly there, in response to Red Diva being a bit silly and ridiculing his post without offering any critique.

Can you show me where Red Diva was being silly?

 

[oates]

Yes. Almost as if it was a reaction to me being told I had an opinion that I didnt because I hadn't served. By jove, I think he's got it!

You were butthurt that @Red Diva asked you if you had served suggesting that you may not have the strongest grip on reality?

Ahhhh! I'm getting it, you were sulking and thought you'd an idiot. Fair enough.

 

[Dobba]

You were butthurt that @Red Diva asked you if you had served suggesting that you may not have the strongest grip on reality?

Is that a mental illness jibe? Reading things into comments that people haven't actually said is fun I can see why you did it.

You almost got there. You seem to have no qualms with opinions of those who haven't served being grouped together, quite literally in a post you've not long quoted, yet seem absolutely outraged by someone using that same logic to group the opinions of those who have (or know someone who has) together.

 

[oates]

Is that a mental illness jibe?

No, it's okay I get it, you were butthurt because you didn't understand the situation - ie, have the strongest grip, and thought you could justify demanding that she try to make other people's arguments for them.

It's all perfectly clear now, no problem.

 

[Randall Flagg]

I really cannot make my mind up what the right or wrong answer to this is. Not a decision i would like to have to make that is for sure.

But I am not so sure the poster below should be branded a racist for calling the man killed scum. Or have I missed something here?

He's a manslaughter'r. If you can call the scum he killed a man even, which no doubt you would.

Most racists would try and be subtle about it, good on you for wearing it on your sleeve.

 

[Aboutreika18]

I really cannot make my mind up what the right or wrong answer to this is. Not a decision i would like to have to make that is for sure.

But I am not so sure the poster below should be branded a racist for calling the man killed scum. Or have I missed something here?

That's just Fearless' usual anti-Arab/Islamic diatribe, cloaked behind whataboutism.

 

[Ady87]

Yeah, Fearless has previous. This isn't an isolated remark.

 

[Randall Flagg]

fair enough. Obviously my point would have been that rightly or wrongly people will view someone they deem a criminal, terrorist or just all round bad guy as scum

 

[Red Diva]

Hi again. Is that supposed to be an answer to my question, this time? Because since I asked, the BBC put a video on their website of an ex-Marine being interviewed and saying what Marine A did was absolutely right.

No I don't know how your quote ended up there. I was replying to Ady's comment that it looked like he had done it before.

The interview with the Marine was part of a number of interviews with Marines who were on that tour with Al, filmed for a Panarama programme, broadcast a few weeks ago. He was talking about the grave danger to personnel of bringing in the Casevac Helicoptor or sending medical transport down a frequently mined road, for a dead or dying man. So it isn't really that much of a surprise to me he feels as he does.

 

[oates]

Is that a mental illness jibe? Reading things into comments that people haven't actually said is fun I can see why you did it.

You almost got there. You seem to have no qualms with opinions of those who haven't served being grouped together, quite literally in a post you've not long quoted, yet seem absolutely outraged by someone using that same logic to group the opinions of those who have (or know someone who has) together.

Sorry Dobba, having just a little trouble keeping up with your posts since you don't just edit spelling but go back after I have answered the original post and then add more sentences. Is this the sort of normal etiquette on CE. I most ask someone.

Anyway, yes, I almost made the connection that you think it is perfectly okay to demand that someone argue someone else's argument for them when they don't believe that argument, yes, we've been here before I think, many times. So. Many. Times.

But anyway, if you'd just said that you were butthurt at being quite justifiably ridiculed, (in my opinion) in the first place this would all have been so much simpler and I could have just added my laughter to @Red Diva 's. There, there.

 

[Red Diva]

I really cannot make my mind up what the right or wrong answer to this is. Not a decision i would like to have to make that is for sure.

But I am not so sure the poster below should be branded a racist for calling the man killed scum. Or have I missed something here?

Exactly Randall. I don't believe he called him scum due to the colour of his skin, but because he was Taliban and all that entails.

 

[Dobba]

The interview with the Marine was part of a number of interviews with Marines who were on that tour with Al, filmed for a Panarama programme, broadcast a few weeks ago. He was talking about the grave danger to personnel of bringing in the Casevac Helicoptor or sending medical transport down a frequently mined road, for a dead or dying man. So it isn't really that much of a surprise me he feels as he does.

Not much of a surprise that to a, thankfully ex, Marine the rules have 'when you feel like it' get out clauses? And you complained about me saying there is a group that would justify anything?

 

[Silva]

fair enough. Obviously my point would have been that rightly or wrongly people will view someone they deem a criminal, terrorist or just all round bad guy as scum

Exactly Randall. I don't believe he called him scum due to the colour of his skin, but because he was Taliban and all that entails.

He's saying he's not a person. You know, like the nazi's did. And it's not the first time he's used that kind of language.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

This is getting out of hand. Time out.

Cooler heads, please prevail. Let your indignation of the result be polite. It's all just opinions. None of us had anything to do with the decision.

 

[11101]

Conversely, if a soldier isn't capable of upholding strict western standards and doing his job within the Geneva convention then he shouldn't have signed up in the first place. Taking the law into your own hands and killing an already neutralised target should never be acceptable. Its propaganda ammunition.

Being in a war situation doesn't give you the excuse to murder someone in cold blood.

You know how you'd react if dropped on the front line for 6 months? Impressive.

 

[Mockney]

You know how you'd react if dropped on the front line for 6 months? Impressive.

If we could invalid every criticism of our military with such an argument, we wouldn't be able to have this conversation to begin with.

 

[11101]

If we could invalide every criticism of our military with such an argument, we wouldn't be able to have this conversation to begin with.

There's a middle ground, which is the decision the court reached.

Soldiers cannot go around executing people freely, but in the heat of battle when an enemy combatant who five minutes earlier was trying to kill you presents themselves, you can't be expected to think like a normal civilian.

 

[oates]

There's a middle ground, which is the decision the court reached.

Soldiers cannot go around executing people freely, but in the heat of battle when an enemy combatant who five minutes earlier was trying to kill you presents themselves, you can't be expected to think like a normal civilian.

To my mind we all want the best out of our service personnel, we'd all like to think we can lead the way in things like Truth and Justice but many of us must wonder what good we're even doing let alone what right we have to interfere in any other country's Self Determination. I for one feel distinctly unqualified to pass judgement on anyone who has been sent into conflict by a government that has no right to call itself any better then any other and I'm only surprised that any without experience of serving are so quick to or find it easy to judge anyone let down so desperately by their lords and masters in back up, lack of troops, or proper equipment. Even if he hadn't been diagnosed as suffering from a mental illness I would have thought that it wasn't beyond the ken of intelligent people to realise that he was frightened for his men, carried out more watches to let them rest as they had long been short handed, not eating well and probably exhausted and give him the compassion we should give to people doing a job we're not prepared to do ourselves.

Another company during six months in Helmand province, engaged in more than 800 firefights and were the target of more than 200 improvised explosive devices. Ten men in the company were killed and 50 were wounded. A company consists of normally 2 or more platoons and 100 to 250 men. That is by any means a lot of action when compared with previous conflicts, there may be worse but not many if at all.

There's something definitely wrong if we expect our soldiers to be what we we so easily call well balanced when you realise that there are at least 2,500 former service personnel currently doing time in our prisons.

Blackman is a convicted criminal, he killed someone and had been imprisoned for it and that will always be on his record, he doesn't escape that.

 

[Duafc]

To my mind we all want the best out of our service personnel, we'd all like to think we can lead the way in things like Truth and Justice but many of us must wonder what good we're even doing let alone what right we have to interfere in any other country's Self Determination. I for one feel distinctly unqualified to pass judgement on anyone who has been sent into conflict by a government that has no right to call itself any better then any other and I'm only surprised that any without experience of serving are so quick to or find it easy to judge anyone let down so desperately by their lords and masters in back up, lack of troops, or proper equipment. Even if he hadn't been diagnosed as suffering from a mental illness I would have thought that it wasn't beyond the ken of intelligent people to realise that he was frightened for his men, carried out more watches to let them rest as they had long been short handed, not eating well and probably exhausted and give him the compassion we should give to people doing a job we're not prepared to do ourselves.

Another company during six months in Helmand province, engaged in more than 800 firefights and were the target of more than 200 improvised explosive devices. Ten men in the company were killed and 50 were wounded. A company consists of normally 2 or more platoons and 100 to 250 men. That is by any means a lot of action when compared with previous conflicts, there may be worse but not many if at all.

There's something definitely wrong if we expect our soldiers to be what we we so easily call well balanced when you realise that there are at least 2,500 former service personnel currently doing time in our prisons.

Blackman is a convicted criminal, he killed someone and had been imprisoned for it and that will always be on his record, he doesn't escape that.

I thoroughly concur.

 

[Bubz27]

I have a problem with him saying he always thought the guy was already dead. Why ask if anyone wants to give him first aid then?
I think he's lying.

I heard one of his friends on the radio say

"When you're surrounded by a lot of lunacy, a little bit of lunacy isn't so bad."

What do we think of that?

Also imo, whatever the verdict, he shouldn't be being treated as some hero.

 

[Sassy Colin]

I found it unnerving seeing the pics of the crowd of marines cheering outside the courtroom after the verdict. It was like they had won the cup, people are strange.

 

[Dobba]

I found it unnerving seeing the pics of the crowd of marines cheering outside the courtroom after the verdict. It was like they had won the cup, people are strange.

Who among us can honestly say they haven't cheered the release of a convicted war criminal whose crime only came to light due to a bodycamera being checked, as him and his mates had agreed to keep quiet about what they'd done?

 

[11101]

I heard one of his friends on the radio say

"When you're surrounded by a lot of lunacy, a little bit of lunacy isn't so bad."

What do we think of that?

To be expected.

I wonder what those who say our troops in combat must act like regular citizens would think if we had an invading army on our doorstep? Would they be prepared to accept a few blurred lines between right and wrong? Of course they would.

Thankfully it's not something we are likely to ever have to face but for those actually on the front lines that's pretty much daily life for them, and we attempt to judge them based on what we think from our safe lives miles from harm.

I've said it before but if we are going to send troops to war zones thousands of miles from home we have to expect them to act like they're in a war zone. If we don't like it then bring them back.

 

[Dobba]

To be expected.

I wonder what those who say our troops in combat must act like regular citizens would think if we had an invading army on our doorstep? Would they be prepared to accept a few blurred lines between right and wrong? Of course they would.

Thankfully it's not something we are likely to ever have to face but for those actually on the front lines that's pretty much daily life for them, and we attempt to judge them based on what we think from our safe lives miles from harm.

I've said it before but if we are going to send troops to war zones thousands of miles from home we have to expect them to act like they're in a war zone. If we don't like it then bring them back.

Just where do people like me get the idea that some would forgive soldiers for anything? It's a mystery...