DS Forums

 
 

Sgt Alexander Blackman


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 23-12-2016, 17:16
Pink_Smurf
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: London
Posts: 6,346
The reason ISIS and Al Qaeda are rightly regarded as sub human scum is because they're the kind that will kill indiscriminately and in cold blood. We're better than that.
Just to add, it was the Taliban that this soldier was fighting rather than ISIS or al Qaida, my mistake but they're just as bad. I agree with you that they're sub human scum though.
Pink_Smurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 23-12-2016, 17:28
SaddlerSteve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 4,112
Just to add, it was the Taliban that this soldier was fighting rather than ISIS or al Qaida, my mistake but they're just as bad. I agree with you that they're sub human scum though.
I'm aware of that but quoted those as they were the ones you mentioned. The point still stands though.
We're right to condemn them for their actions but we go down a slippery slope if we start saying it's ok for us to pick and choose when to flout our principles.
SaddlerSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2016, 17:29
sorcha_healy27
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 68,918
War is war. After some of the things he has witnessed I wouldn't be surprised if he snapped, and hand on heart here. I honestly do not know how I would react myself if a wounded enemy fighter was at my feet, after watching him kill my friends.
Bib. Nope. Geneva Convention gives a clear distinction between acts of war and acts of inhumanity and genocide which I'm thankful for.

Blackman even noted he was breaking the Geneva Convention laws. He's a cold blooded murderer and is a disgrace to the majority of soldiers who are decent.

The excuses being made for him are unjustifiable imo.
sorcha_healy27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2016, 17:30
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,601
The reason ISIS and Al Qaeda are rightly regarded as sub human scum is because they're the kind that will kill indiscriminately and in cold blood. We're better than that.
I have no wish to see this soldier suffer, but hope the verdict is upheld just so we can truly believe BIB.
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2016, 17:38
Wee Tinkers
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,661
I think I would feel the same as you but you (as far as I know) and I are not professional soldiers and he was
Hmm, yeah, I'm kinda sitting somewhere between you and Minnie on this. He did breach the convention so there must be some recourse. Perhaps 8 or 10 years is fair. Had he been sentenced to, say 30 yrs, I would think that very unfair because - to me - this is not your typical murder. Sure, not under fire at that point but this was an insurgent and I read they were instructed to be, what was it? aggressive? That's going to have an effect.

I don't know, probably a reflection on how I view the 'victim'. I'm not overwhelmed with sympathy here.

Nothing to do with this but I can't help compare another case I was following in which an ex soldier had an argument with his father's partner, announced to his friends he was going to throw her in the river and proceeded to carry her over his shoulder, walk a fair distance up a fairly busy road and threw her over a bridge into a river. She had been reported missing but her body passed down the river and was discovered at a leisure spot some days later.

He got 9 yrs. Tbf a minimum of 9 yrs but I was shocked at the leniency of the sentence. I would love to know the exact reasoning behind this sentence but I did read that the judge made reference to the stress of war with him being ex-forces which read like a factor and yet this judge acknowledged the effects of war in Blackman's case but then went on to say that others' had managed to carry themselves well. Well, I'm afraid as much I appreciate the effect of serving in the forces I'm pretty sure there aren't many soldiers throwing slightly built, vulnerable women off bridges.

I'm surprised at the sentences in both cases but - where I understand there should be some recourse for breaching the convention - I know I would have no concerns with Blackman walking free at some point in the near future but the thought of that other one getting out in 9 yrs is a worry.

I suppose each judge can only sentence/accept appeal based on the info before them which we don't have access to but it struck me as strange that they could get similar sentences when the circumstances so different.
Wee Tinkers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2016, 18:17
Cornish_Piskie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Penzance, Kernow
Posts: 1,933
Just to add, it was the Taliban that this soldier was fighting rather than ISIS or al Qaida, my mistake but they're just as bad. I agree with you that they're sub human scum though.
And yet, when Blackman shot the prisoner, one of the things he was caught on cam saying was "It's nothing he wouldn't do to one of us." This is likely very true but rather than justifying his action it actually serves to blacken him further still.

If the Taliban murder British prisoners and that makes them "Sub human scum", then is not Blackman, by doing the same thing, also "sub human scum"..?

If you become what you behold, you are no better than they.


I'm often disappointed by the mentality of some in our society, that everybody in our armed forces, by no other virtue than that they have put on a uniform, are immediately and automatically elevated to the status of "Hero". The campaign to free Blackman repeatedly calls him a "Hero" and is playing the heroism card for all its worth.

My definition of a Hero is somebody who does something actually.....er.... heroic in the face of personal danger..... who puts himself at great personal risk to either to bring about a successful conclusion to a mission, or save another person (not necessarily a comrade, it could be an adult civilian or child) from injury or death or to prevent another person from committing a heinous act.

Sergeant Blackman did none of those things. He knowingly and with clearly malicious intent, summarily executed a wounded enemy prisoner in a callous and cowardly manner, and then attempted to recruit fellow soldiers to help him cover up the act.

There's nothing heroic about that. He disgraced himself, his regiment and his country. He is a war criminal, nothing less.

And yet, because he's "One Of Ours", we find ways to justify his action. Would we entertain the argument that an enemy insurgent who did the same thing, was under combat stress..? I don't think so. We would call him "sub human scum".... and yet, we find all sorts of faux justification when the person who commits the crime is "One Of Ours" and is therefore automatically a "Hero".

I'll put the posters on this thread to a simple test. Imagine exactly the same incident, perpetrated by the enemy, that is, a wounded British soldier being summarily executed by a Taliban insurgent.

How many people here would call for that insurgent to be exonerated..? How many would accept that he did what he did due to "Combat stress"....? How many would sign a petition to have him released from prison...?
Cornish_Piskie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2016, 18:39
welwynrose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Posts: 29,546
And yet, when Blackman shot the prisoner, one of the things he was caught on cam saying was "It's nothing he wouldn't do to one of us." This is likely very true but rather than justifying his action it actually serves to blacken him further still.

If the Taliban murder British prisoners and that makes them "Sub human scum", then is not Blackman, by doing the same thing, also "sub human scum"..?

If you become what you behold, you are no better than they.


I'm often disappointed by the mentality of some in our society, that everybody in our armed forces, by no other virtue than that they have put on a uniform, are immediately and automatically elevated to the status of "Hero". The campaign to free Blackman repeatedly calls him a "Hero" and is playing the heroism card for all its worth.

My definition of a Hero is somebody who does something actually.....er.... heroic in the face of personal danger..... who puts himself at great personal risk to either to bring about a successful conclusion to a mission, or save another person (not necessarily a comrade, it could be an adult civilian or child) from injury or death or to prevent another person from committing a heinous act.

Sergeant Blackman did none of those things. He knowingly and with clearly malicious intent, summarily executed a wounded enemy prisoner in a callous and cowardly manner, and then attempted to recruit fellow soldiers to help him cover up the act.

There's nothing heroic about that. He disgraced himself, his regiment and his country. He is a war criminal, nothing less.

And yet, because he's "One Of Ours", we find ways to justify his action. Would we entertain the argument that an enemy insurgent who did the same thing, was under combat stress..? I don't think so. We would call him "sub human scum".... and yet, we find all sorts of faux justification when the person who commits the crime is "One Of Ours" and is therefore automatically a "Hero".

I'll put the posters on this thread to a simple test. Imagine exactly the same incident, perpetrated by the enemy, that is, a wounded British soldier being summarily executed by a Taliban insurgent.

How many people here would call for that insurgent to be exonerated..? How many would accept that he did what he did due to "Combat stress"....? How many would sign a petition to have him released from prison...?
Would the Afghan police actual arrest him & put him in prison they don't seem to have done in other cases where unarmed British soldiers have been shot & killed
welwynrose is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2016, 18:52
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,554
Bib. Nope. Geneva Convention gives a clear distinction between acts of war and acts of inhumanity and genocide which I'm thankful for.

Blackman even noted he was breaking the Geneva Convention laws. He's a cold blooded murderer and is a disgrace to the majority of soldiers who are decent.

The excuses being made for him are unjustifiable imo.
What about the "excuses" of the CCRC, who deem his murder conviction to have the "real possibility" of being quashed?
eggchen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2016, 18:53
Cornish_Piskie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Penzance, Kernow
Posts: 1,933
Would the Afghan police actual arrest him & put him in prison they don't seem to have done in other cases where unarmed British soldiers have been shot & killed
Probably not, but Afghanistan is a pretty lawless place, run mostly by tribal warlords. To attempt to conflate the example I set with what would happen here is a straw man argument that nobody should fall for.

You're suggesting we should expect a medieval society to not have medieval standards. Completely unrealistic.

If you recall, one of the reasons we sent the troops into Afghanistan, was to create and train a modern police and military service that would help to bring the warlords to heel. We failed. But how could we ever have hoped to succeed if we did the very things we (allegedly) went in to stop..?

Britain is a modern country with an advanced legal and criminal justice system. Afghanistan is an almost medieval society where tribal cultures prevail. If we are to change anything we have to not only demonstrate that our system is better than what they have, but also convince them that what we have is actually desirable and worth aspiring to.

To achieve that we must first do so by example, and that means that where somebody falls short of the standards of our society they should be punished to the full extent of the law.
Cornish_Piskie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2016, 18:57
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,554
Probably not, but Afghanistan is a pretty lawless place, run mostly by tribal warlords. To attempt to conflate the example I set with what would happen here is a straw man argument that nobody should fall for.
You set your own straw man up, and then complain that a straw man is being used to refute it? Okay then.
eggchen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-12-2016, 22:15
mal2pool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,498
does anybody think its just futile trying to fight the Taliban and isis, cant see it ending anytime soon,the more we kill the more replace them, lots more innocent people getting killed. and countries destroyed. just creating more mayhem in the process.
I know we cant let them go round killing innocent people but we are doing the same really
mal2pool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2016, 11:15
anne_666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,179
The reason ISIS and Al Qaeda are rightly regarded as sub human scum is because they're the kind that will kill indiscriminately and in cold blood. We're better than that.
Indeed. Our armed forces are most definitely better than that and there's little support for Blackman from them. To suggest otherwise is insulting.
Without our rules of engagement and conventions we would be as sub human as any terrorist and it's the reason we fight against them.
anne_666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2016, 12:43
lemoncurd
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bristol
Posts: 46,964
And raining bombs down on innocent civilians as we did in WW2?
War is war, people get killed
Corbyn and pacifists believe that talking is better, Chamberlain tried that before Churchill and brave service personnel sorted the chief villain out.
Same experiences ever since with differing enemies, thankfully our freedom is due to the brave actions of those who defend us
Does that sentiment apply to all belligerents in all conflicts? Or just selected ones?
lemoncurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2016, 12:48
eggchen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,554
Indeed. Our armed forces are most definitely better than that and there's little support for Blackman from them. To suggest otherwise is insulting.
On the contrary, there is a lot of support from both serving and former service personnel, of all ranks.
eggchen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2016, 13:04
What name??
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 21,517
On the contrary, there is a lot of support from both serving and former service personnel, of all ranks.
Then it's discgraceful that they would openly support cold blooded murder. It also makes it harder to argue that they don't f captured should be treated fairly and if not the perpetrators should be punished.
What name?? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2016, 14:01
muggins14
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: The Pit of Despair
Posts: 50,130
And raining bombs down on innocent civilians as we did in WW2?
War is war, people get killed
Corbyn and pacifists believe that talking is better, Chamberlain tried that before Churchill and brave service personnel sorted the chief villain out.
Same experiences ever since with differing enemies, thankfully our freedom is due to the brave actions of those who defend us
bib - Most politicians - to be honest, most people I know - believe that talking should always be the first resort, war the last. We are in talks with most countries we deal with all the time, some of whom we resolve differences with peacefully. We don't always attack first and ask questions later.
muggins14 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:45.