Marine Alexander Blackman

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:04 pm

A Royal Marine jailed for killing a wounded Taliban fighter in Afghanistan is to be freed within weeks.

Sgt Alexander Blackman received a life sentence in 2013, but his murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter after a high-profile campaign.

I am shocked and amazed by this verdict.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:34 pm

Why haven't you looked at the case in any kind of detail?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Mar 28, 2017 12:58 pm

gmc;1507836 wrote: Why haven't you looked at the case in any kind of detail?

I have seen the news and the voice recordings, the marine shot a wounded guy as he lay on the ground wounded.

Here is the transcript

It's the manslaughter and diminished responsibility I can't see.

theia · Post by **theia** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 2:19 am

Bruv;1507845 wrote: I have seen the news and the voice recordings, the marine shot a wounded guy as he lay on the ground wounded.

Here is the transcript

It's the manslaughter and diminished responsibility I can't see.

I must admit I'm in two minds over this. The Geneva Convention was broken and I wonder what sort of precedent this current judgment will create. Did the marine claim diminished responsibility during his original trial? The other side of this is that it must have been a hellish situation for all involved in the fighting.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:23 am

This guy had been trying to kill them. My understanding is that to evaciate him would have meant putting the helicopter and rescue team at risk the talban being known to wait for the opportunity to shoot them down. If they'd just killed him without hesitation no one would have known. The sergeant had been there for six months in constant combat maybe he thought better he do it than one of the teenage marines with him or he was just so wound up at the risk rescuing evacuating him as a casualty posed to others of his comrades whatever the reason I don;t think he should be tried for murder. We expect our soldiers to kill in combat - if sniper shoots somebody who doesn't even know there is one there is that warfare, bomers drop bombs without warning we use drones to kill before those being attacked even know there is one there sneaky tactics or premeditated murder? We apply double standards and pretend all is or the best and our troops only kill bad people and never ever shoot somebody they shouldn't. Tut tutting over the actions of one combat stressed marine wound up in the heat of combat I find a bit pathetic and delusional. Do you really think troops waste any time debating whether to kill someone wounded calling for help who from past experience might be concealing a weapon and trying to lure people closer.

If a rescue teanm had been killed trying to rescue a wounded taliban fighter I can just imagine the daily mail headline and how the families of those killed would have reacted. Maybe he shouldn't have done it but I don't know what I would have done and I don't think he should have been put on trial.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:19 am

The dead guy was an Afghan in Afghanistan, history may show him as a freedom fighter.

Putting the rights and wrongs of the war aside, and trying to put myself in those soldiers place, it sounds to me like a vengeance killing. The guy was injured, and under their control, why the need to kill him, evacuate the troops and leave him there.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:01 am

Quite frankly, there is no such thing as a War Crime. War is a Crime - full stop. When there are rules the whole concept of war becomes too sterile. Soldiers killing soldiers in remote countries. Apart from news footage we don't get to experience it. How many people know who we are currently at war with? How many people could even find those countries on a map? How can any opponent be considered a War Criminal when they are no signatories to the Geneva Convention - the rules don't apply to them anyway, and you cannot fight a war when only one side has to keep to the rules. Imagine a game of football being based on the same principle. One side has to abide by all the non-fouling, no hands etiquette, whilst the other can pick up the ball & carry it through the goal whilst bashing anyone who comes close to him with a big stick.

The reality of war is that you have to fight on a level playing ground. It's kill or be killed. When war is made too easy & too faceless there's no reason to avoid it in the first place. It's currently more a matter of corporate economy. We have a nice business deal selling arms to the Saudis who, in turn, use them to arm ISIS. They then need replenishing after they use them on our own forces, so we are happy to sell some more arms to Saudi - and so it goes on & on. It all comes down to money. No-one really cares about whether the soldier was right to do what he did or not. It's all a matter of self-righteous indignation of all those who weren't there & don't even know what it's all about.

magentaflame · Post by **magentaflame** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:11 pm

Well that makes the killings of pows in war okay then. My lai massacre was okay then . Any other atrocities by so called disaplined soldiers anyone can think of?

magentaflame · Post by **magentaflame** » Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:14 pm

I thought the selling of arms was a private enterprise?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 31, 2017 6:27 am

magentaflame;1507934 wrote: Well that makes the killings of pows in war okay then. My lai massacre was okay then . Any other atrocities by so called disaplined soldiers anyone can think of?

This wasn'r a POW he was someone who had been engaged in combat and who still posed a threat and it was just minutes after the heat of combat. My lai was a massacre because unarmed civilians had been rounded up and slaughtered just as the massacres in ruanda and bosnia were massacres. I can think of numerous examples from many nations and many wars the issue was actions a marine blackman that other soldier commit atrocities is not germaine. I suspect there were many instances where enemy combatants aren't given a chance to surrender even if they are trying to in modern conflict and in the past. In fact if you read soldiers memoirs it's quite obvious they didn't piss about.