I'm not sure they are comfortable with anti-white racists in Australia.

 

Only on Scoobynet coluld not condoning the kiling of 'darkies' in cold blood mean you are anti-white.

 

And continual slagging off of the British race. In fact, you'll probably be welcomed.

 

Your conclusion is wrong.

We are not at war with the country, we are at war with sadistic brain washed fools who wont reason or call a truce, they want death and violence.
We can never win that war because of people like you who want to capture them and give them a fair trial, meanwhile another nut case has taken his place in command, it will never end, it would take someone like hitler to conquer alqaida. Its sad but true imho

 

It was meant to be tongue in cheek, but anyhow, do you seriously think this is not policy when out on a mission, he was told over the radio to take DNA samples and photo's to identify him, BEFORE he shot him.

 

Surely your not going to rise to the mental brigade

 

They are just so much fun though, I sometimes do it just to see what nonsense they come up with next... they rarely let me down

 

You cannot be serious?

You are seriously comparing the murder of an unarmed soldier on the safe streets of a London to a member of the Taliban yielding an AK47 / Grenade in a warzone and stating both should be treated the same?

Are you the same kind of do gooder that phones the bbc for a swear word being broadcast before the watershed?

Absolutely ridiculous. No idea at all.

 

If, I quote, "id bite his throat out and pull his ******* eyeballs out before i shot him and same for the other ******* they deserve it" isn't as sadistic or violent as the "sadistic brain washed fools" you are led to believe the insurgents are, and I might add, make you sound ever so slightly unhinged, then my conclusion of you in this debate, backed up by your above comment, still stands.

 

Nail on head, this forum is getting weirder by the day, I sometimes wonder whether I have signed into Combat 18 rather than SN

 

Fair enough, maybe i am a bit unhinged but im just putting myself in a soldiers shoes, i believe in this case, the only way forward is to fight fire with fire, and when your programmed to kill and you lose your head just for a second who knows what a man could be capable of, im not a barbarian im a joiner with a wife and child....... the terrorists and insurgents woudnt think twice before torturing and killing me if i were a soldier and that gets me fired right up when i think about this particular incident, shame hes got jail really

 

War is war.

The enemy was the enemy.

Our chap got him before he was got by them. And then when the opportunity presented itself he finished him off properly. What was said was said, probably in the heat of the situation.

We have locked up someone who has put themselves on the line for us and for our country, and in my view he did he is only guilty of letting out some frustration verbally as he finished the guy off.

 

I really think you need to go and read the details of the case. Also bear in mind he was tried by military court and his comamnding officer said that while he was a good man what he had done in this instance was not forgiveable.

These are military men who have been there and done it passing the sentence not some do-gooder court as no doubt half of NSR believes!

 

Our government and the MOD will make a scapegoat if they have to. Remember Para Lee Clegg ?
Whether this Royal Marine was right or wrong is irrelevant really. Fact is his actions were filmed. The content of that film could cause political re prosecutions so to quell that an example had to be made. It's not the first time and wont be the last.

 

I'm familiar with the case.

The "enemy" was absolutely riddled with bullets, dying on the ground. He would most likely have died anyway. Emptying a clip into someone on the ground is not going to change that outcome.

Had Sgt Blackman kept his mount shut instead of saying what he said I don't think this would have gone anywhere. He is guilty of saying something stupid, whether or not he meant what he was saying is difficult to prove in my view I think it's very difficult to compare reason in a calm environment to that in the battlefield. But it was still there on camera for those well versed in the dark art of law to use against him.

Regardless of the technicalities of the case I don't think we have achieved anything by sentencing a good man to ten years in jail for killing the enemy when that is ultimately what he was there to do.

 

The Marine has been tried,convicted and sentenced. For me the decision to name him served no purpose as he had already been convicted and naming him could potentially put his family at risk.

 

I dont think naming him was really in the public interest and as you say could potentially put others in danger. A court martial in the uk can only sentence upto 18 months. If the crime warrants more than that then you're normally booted out the service and tried and jailed in the civilian system where you will not normally be afforded anonymity.
I'm sure we have not heard the last of this and there will be appeals,petitions to the house of lords ect. Para Lee Clegg was sentenced to life but after a few years had his sentence over turned and was re instated into the army.

 

You're possibly right. Or if he'd said words to the effect that he was finishing him off, to end his suffering rather than letting him die slowly, the outcome most likely would have been very different. As it stands, he said what he did, and the result is imprisonment. Whether he meant it, only he will truly know.

At the end of the day, soldiers are there to do a job and a sad part of that includes killing people. Yes, they will be programmed to kill if needs be, trained to 'switch off' perhaps, but there is a difference between that, and appearing to be happy taking the life of another person, a person no longer a threat. In my opinion (and that's all it is) he crossed a line.

If it makes me some do-gooder because I see a difference between killing in the line of duty (in defence) and the murder of someone no longer a threat, then so be it.

 

Not at all, it is just a different opinion to mine.

I think most of us would be in agreement though that it's not like he shot someone in the back as they were fleeing, or even murdered a defenceless civilian.

But my opinion is not the one that the court of law agreed with and yours is.

 

No, I'm with you. If people actually read up on it they would see why it was wrong and why the military court and his commanding officer thought so too. Still, it's always easier to spite some right wing hard man bollocks than read

 

For the record, I do not share their views either. I'm certainly not a part of that bloody mob!

I just do not think that our lad killed the guy in cold blood.

I also find it hard to understand what this case has achieved.

 

Perhaps to draw a clear distinction between 'us' and 'them'.

If we have any just cause to be fighting this war, then we cannot and must not be seen to be no different to the people we are fighting against.

If this situation was reversed, would we all just say 'hey ho, it's just war' or would we be up in arms at the enemy for killing one of our own in such a manner? Ok, the guy wasn't hacked to death, but he was killed at a point in time that it was no longer a necessary evil.

And before people jump on this comment too quickly, just bear in mind, you already hold our enemies in contempt for the fact they wouldn't think twice about killing in cold blood, how then can you commend one of our own for what could be said to be the same thing? (or at best, not be open minded enough to at least think it was wrong)

 

I do not think you understand how the world works or you are extremely naive.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25268710

The commanding officer pledged his full support to this marine and supported him as best he could in court without overstepping the mark. Your naivety shows with thinking he could have said anything else, EVERYTHING is political. What do you think would happen to this commanding officers career had he stood publically and said he had disagreed with the sentence? That's right, no further career progression, shi* rolls down hill from the chief of the defence staff in parliament to the Generals, Brigadiers, Colonel's etc. His career would have been over, off record though, you can bet your house that he was p*ssed at the sentence. Guaranteed.

Anyone within the military probably all the way up to the top will feel this sentence is harsh, ask any serving soldier/officer and they will be up in arms about the sentence given.Below is a quote from someone higher up than the Marines commanding officer. Note the word former (Nothing to lose by speaking out)


The only reason he was given a minimum of 10yrs was purely political. The government had no choice, they had to make an example that this act was not acceptable.

The majority of the British public think this sentence was too severe but I guess it is do gooders like yourself and many armchair experts on this forum that support the sentence and think he should be compared to the 2 evil men who pretty much hacked off an innocent mans head on the streets of London.

Wonder how all you armchair experts would react when a few rounds whizz by your own ears, mortars land within a couple of feet, IED's blow up the vehicles you're driving along in, your own friends butchered and maimed, your colleagues limbs tied in trees, your ********* cut off and put in your mouth and left in a ditch etc etc. It's war, it's not a friday night down your local town centre FFS. You cannot judge unless you have been there, held a rifle, fired that rifle, had bullets whizzing by, only then can you judge this marine.

You think this shi* was observed 70yrs ago in World War 2? God help us if there is ever a WW3 and everyone was called up to defend the country and things went back to the way they used to be. Men were men back then, nowadays, we just have a bunch of do gooder human right activists with not a pair of bollocks between them.

In summary, do not judge unless you've walked an inch in the marines shoes, he's done more for his country than I suspect everyone combined who has commented on this thread. He was silly, he got caught, that's it.

Now had he butchered a Taliban supporting muslim on the streets of Bradford, then that's a whole different kettle of fish, there would be no support for him.

Rant over.

(Edited...For the record, my own view is, he made a mistake of judgement, he got caught, he needs to be held accountable for his actions, no denying. I am not saying he should have been let off with a slap around the wrist, just that there should be a distinction between ''murder'' in a warzone and murder in the traditional sense. Had it been me handing down the sentence, I think 5yrs would have been sufficient. Appeal may bring it down a few years)

No denying there is overwhelming public support for him, he's not the usual murder villain and I suspect he will be treated with major respect inside and have an ''easy time''

 

War is ugly - there will, I'm sure, be nothing new about this kind of thing, but here's the thing: In 21st century warfare, it's all on tape! I reckon that, if nothing else, this is what cases like these bring into sharp focus.

I don't want our soldiers who are risking their lives for us being hamstrung by politicians - war is ugly, people die; sometimes horribly!

Similarly I don't want our soldiers betraying the values they are there to uphold and having carte blanche to kill out of malice or hate; that's much more the Taliban's territory!

I do not know the full facts of this case, I'm not a solider, so I'm not going to presume to know what the appropriate outcome is, only that if there is the suspicion of an unlawful killing there must be a mechanism where it can be investigated and, if appropriate, for that person to be held accountable for their actions. This process should be informed by people who have combat experience. If that's happening, then I'm satisfied whatever the outcome of individual cases.

The second we go down the "Do you think our standards apply to them" road as a means of justifying unacceptable conduct in the field of conflict, frankly, we may as well form a coalition with the enemy!

Our standards are what distinguish us from the enemy. Our boys are soldiers, not murderers!

 

Yawn

1. So his career is more important than having the courage of his convictions and you think that is OK?

OR maybe

2. It is you who are naive and whilst the man has a lot of sympathy for him he also knows what he did broke the law and as the judge said 'it's the Royal Marines reputation that has been tarnished, whilst there is sympanthy, there is also anger'

I am not judging and I have repeatedly said that I have no idea what it must be like to be in that situation etc. etc. and it gives me no pleasure to see a solider like this get a 10 year sentence, but the events are pretty clear, he broke the law and as has been pointed out many times on here our soldiers must not drag themselves down to the level of those they are fighting in Afghanisatan as otherwise they are no better then them. scarey in post 38 put it better than I:

The rest of your post about the majority of the British public, do-gooders and 'you can gurantee this and that' is all just bluster and conjecture. I don;t agree with you and luckily I don't have to and there is zero you can do about it!

 

Spot-on.

 

Scarey in post 38 compared it to the butchering of Lee Rigby

Absolutely incredibly stupid, I wonder if the poster Scarey would walk into a room full of marines, friends and family of Lee Rigby and spout that comparison?

You like his post (And I assume his comparison to the Lee Rigby event) so what does that make you if you cannot see the difference between the two completely different events?

 

Well it's not conjecture, the only poll to date carried out..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ce-halved.html

35% no jail sentence
23% 5yrs
20% 10yrs
22% more than 10yrs

So I make that a majority 58% of the British public think his sentence was too harsh with the majority thinking he should be released immediately.

Not the usual set of statistics for a cold blooded murder hey

Now I wonder what the stats will look like when Lee Rigby's killers are sentenced?

 

Well, if it's the Daily Fail, here's my prediction:

100% If ONLY Diana were still alive
100% There are too many foreigners in the UK so .....
100% Bring back the Death Penalty
100% It was better after the war; T.B. builds character - young uns today with their hoodies and Ipods don't know they are born
100% If ONLY Churchill were still alive
100% Bollox should there be a compulsory driving test for over 70s
100% Get this life insurance and receive a free Parker Pen
100% Oh, Cliff Richard has got a new Xmas single out .....

 

No he is not necessarily comparing in the way you mean, but he is pointing out that that is what becomes justifiable if you start allowing things like this to go unchecked. The key is the dragging us down to their level comment.

Leaving aside that as pointed out above many times I can tell the difference I don't know what it makes me, please tell me what you think it makes me as I am sure you are just itching to have another pop .. crack on if it makes you feel better abut yourself, I couldn't care less what you think of me anyway!

I have my opinion which has not been arrived at through blinkered emotion, but through being logical and applying the law and I am entitled to it and entitled to give it as I see fit. You may not like it, but that's tough as I won't be changing it any time soon!