The Dogs B******s

Fucking disgraceful, should of been given a medal.

dpb

Maybe it'll be an inspiration to others

LSherratt

iTrader: (1)

I think it's terrible that he got sentenced for it. So he shot an injured Iraqi? I'm sure if it had been the other way round, the Iraqi would have done exactly the same, and probably take out all 3 marines.

tony de wonderful

He broke the law.

hodgy0_2

Injured Iraq's probably where shot, but he shot an injured Afghanistani

paulr

Unfortunately, that's the case. A tragedy all round, but the law is the law.

It should never have got that far. The video should have been erased as soon as it was taken.

johnlogie

iTrader: (4)

So it's ok for the Afghanistani's to do what they want? Doesn't matter how they treat the soldiers (brit/yank or what ever) our guys must act under the Geneva convention? But it's ok for an apache helicopter to shoot the **** out of them , just don't shoot them face to face? the man should be freed for just being there

jonc

And therefore you'd agree then that your Iraqi should also be allowed to walk free instead of being sentenced for it executing an injured British soldier?

bioforger

iTrader: (1)

It's a fucking outrage, our law is an ***.

daviee

+1 IEDs are cowardly and do you think Geneva Convention applies when they capture a British soldier.

Martin2005

I don't know, but it certainly does when our soldiers are involved. What's the alternative?

Martin2005

Why?

LSherratt

iTrader: (1)

We're not the ones causing trouble though! War is war, people die. In fact, I don't really know much about the whole situation to be honest so I'm probably not the best person to comment on this topic, however, I defiantly don't think the Marine should have been sentenced. I also don't think it should have been an issue to start with. I thought that's what war is? People get shot. The injured Iraqi could have easily have shot all 3 if given the chance if the situation was reversed. Sounds crazy to me.....

ditchmyster

iTrader: (7)

The prat that filmed it wants shooting.

jonc

'We're not the ones causing trouble though! ' Really? I thought the general consensus was that we shouldn't have invaded that country in the first place. You're right, war is war, but there are rules of engegement that we as 'liberators' and as signatory to the convention have to abide by as outlined in the Geneva Convention. Whether the injured insurgent deserved to be shot or not is neither here nor there, the marines executed him and then tried to cover it up. His actions have brought the name and the work of the Royal Marines into disrepute and they had to be sentenced if we are to hold the moral high ground for being there in the first place.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...nistan-2485136

DYK

Its how it is though..

hodgy0_2

I suggest you avail yourself to what is actually going on, we are prosecuting a vicious war in Afganistan/Pakistan - mainly now by unmanned drones

Thousands of unarmed civilians are dying, a large % of women and children

Whether you agree or not with the sentence - that Marine was lucky to have been judged with all the protection our legal system provides

Many have no such protection.

LEO-RS

Are they?

Millions of unarmed civilians died in the world wars but in Iraq/Afghanistan the number of unarmed civilians killed by allied forces is absolutely minescule. Certainly not in the thousands. With the rules of armed conflict, it's near enough impossible to kill an innocent civilian.

It amazes me how many arm chair experts we have, a bullet whizzing past your ear may put things into a different perspective. This was certainly not the same as a pre-meditated murder that we read about on a day to day basis here in the UK. He's no risk to public safety at all.

He's appealing and hopefully his sentence gets reduced some. I think a sentence under 5yrs would be more appropriate.

hodgy0_2

Give me a figure on civilian casualties in Iraq

mrmadcap

Its just typical of the way this country is going, the weak government need to stop expecting the Military to fight a war with hands tied, get behind them by changing the rules of engagement and let the Military carry out operations as they see fit.

And if this weak government can't do that the troops should be pulled out pronto.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Unless I am mistaken the marine in question stood around for a few minutes chatting with other marines with no visible fear of being attacked by any further insurgents (i.e. they weren't taking cover) and then he shot the injured man. That is what the various reports of the case seemd to say anyway. If so why all the comments above? I am genuinely confused. If it had been in the heat of battle then I could undertsand the comments here, but surely we aren't starting to condone cold blooded murder in the name of a war?

As said if the circumstances are different fair enough! Only giving an opinion on what I have read.

Snooky

Iraqi or not! If he had opposed a threat in the first place he would be killed! If you go to afghan and shoot a target from afar, he moves after he is shot again and again till he doesn't! All the law on how to fight in a war while the opposition doesn't it's very unfair, hands cuffed kinda fighting! I respect all decisions made out the under the environment there in and stresses! It shouldn't of been videoed, just really stupid it was shown and passed about for him to be punished for it!

If your caught alone out there, your be videoed having your head chopped off and all sorts!

chopperman

What he did was wrong but crimes committed in the theatre of war should not be compared to those in civvy street. You need a degree of hate and contempt against the enemy to be able to fight them in a lethal way. This is bound to cause some over spill. I hope this soldier was given the right to psychiatric evaluation as criminals in civvy street get afforded.
It's hard to fight to a set of rules when the enemy have none.

mrmadcap

Oh so we've been reading the papers have we

tarmac terror

iTrader: (2)

I listened to Chris Terrill comment on this yesterday on Radio 4, he spent yesterday in court with Sgt Blackman as he awaited sentencing.

It is an interesting case, as there is no case law which covers this situation, and this case is now the precedent, which will be referenced should such circumstances come around again. Having read much of the coverage on this, I think the judge had to take a position of handing down a sentance as a deterrant measure as well an a punitive one.

I agree with the point made by chopperman, that it is not possible to defeat terrorists (which is what the taliban are, they are not soldiers or an army) using civil law. The rules of engagement are one sided, they apply to the uniformed forces on the ground, while their enemy operates freely outside the confines of such conditions. The area where this attack took place is (was) one of the the most hostile areas in Afghanistan, the marines, in a sense were sent into those areas to draw out the enemy and engage them, and in their view, they were having to do so with one arm tied up their back. To do this job requires either an attitude of indifference towards the enemy or a hatred for them which drives aggression.

What struck me in Terrill's report, was that he described Sgt Blackman as a warm, gentle giant of a man, with friendly eyes. He stated, this man is not a natural born killer, he has undoubtedly been trained to kill in his chosen profession, but he does not display the tendancies of a cold blooded murderer.

I got the impression, that the dishonour of being removed from the Marines will be tougher for him to deal with than the 10 year sentance handed down by the judge.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Whay is SN the only place in the world where having some intellect, some ability to read and write and a nous to go and research something before forming and presenting an opinion on is frowned upon whereas opening a big fat uneducated racist gob is championed?

Why don't you read up on the case (assuming the big words don't prove too difficult for you) and then you can come back and reappraise your comments or do you condone the marine's actions regardless? After all doubtless in your eyes it was only a f**king darkie towel head so who cares eh? One less potential immigrant for you to get your panties stuck up the crack of your **** about!

chopperman

The thing is soldiers are just normal people doing an extraordinary job. Sometimes to do this job you have to sort of train your mind to detach otherwise you could find yourself unable to carry out certain tasks. The trained soldier on the battle field is not the same man in a different environment like home.
An extreme example but i once watch a film trying to understand the evil **** SS man. By day a cold torturing murderer. Once home and out of uniform a kind loving husband and father who would be considered by his family as being incapable of such evil. Its like they train to have a split personality with something like the uniform being the trigger.

gazney101

iTrader: (5)

Are you saying that if some little religious **** is shooting at you or was shooting at you and you then found him injured some time later you would not seek revenge, i all i would be able to think is this ******* tried to leave my son without a dad and my wife widowed, id bite his throat out and pull his ******* eyeballs out before i shot him and same for the other ******* they deserve it

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

No idea what I would do to be honest as I don't have the training etc. and can't imagine myself in that situation. The fact remains though that our military are bound by the Geneva Convention and if he did what most of the reports I have read said he did he is sadly in contravention of that.

Not having a go at him as at the end of the day being in that situation is not one most of us can even imagine, I am more intersted in the way that people on here seem to think the only thing wrong was videoing it. At the end of the day we have no idea whether the Afghan guy who was shot was just a 'soldier' carrying out orders or had a heartfelt hatred of the West or anything in between.

As he is now dead rather than a captured prisoner like he should have been under the GC we will never know!

Only going on what I know of the case, could be wrong as who knows how much real truth comes out in these things!

chopperman

Country's are bound by Geneva Convention not individuals. He broke the rules of engagement and/ or the law . These rules are made quite clear as early as basic training and are often reminded. Trouble is there can be grey areas. It's not always possible to take prisoners while on ops as it could put you in danger or seriously detract from the mission. The fact the insurgent was wounded could compound this problem. The grey area lays whether you should just leave him and whether he could still be considered a threat if left alive. I have not followed this case so am unaware of the details. War is a dirty business but our troops are tasked to fight it in the cleanest possible way.