Yes, from the defence point of view. The same individuals could just as easily do a hatchet job on him if paid to do so. That's why I really can't take what they say very seriously.

So presumably in your view all those Germans who died on the D Day landings were "cold bloodedly murdered", and all those who died in Dresden for example were "murdered" thanks to Bomber Harris and all the bombers

Good post. I agree with every word.

http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/commission-re...-appeal-court/

Our armed forces are heroes. All of them including this soldier. Until you've walked in their boots and put yourself on the front line I don't think you can judge. ISIS on the other hand are utter scum.

Those are desperately silly comparisons and you know it.

I disagree, it's a cop out. As you've just said there's one rule for them and another for us. Hypocrisy.
In reality, yes we do have different rules. We have rules of engagement and conventions and we have to fight against people like IS because their rules are non-existent.
No psychiatrist, especially one with British Armed Forces involvement, would concoct a mental health issue defense for an IS fighter who'd behaved like Blackman, nor would I expect them to.

They are not, war is war
We should applaud our servicemen for protecting our freedom and way of life

It's not a cop out, it's the truth isn't it? When asked such a rhetorical question, the answer is that there would likely be outrage on "our side", and support over on "their side", which is the nature of affiliation during any conflict.

No they are not

So basically your support for Sgt Blackman is based on patriotism and the fact that he's "one of us" rather than any legal or moral absolutes?

I support his right to appeal his conviction based on new evidence.

There are rules to war that our armed forces adhere to.

The views of the Sgt Blackman case by many service folk who are required to abide by these rules might come as a surprise to some;

https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/th...-rally.245904/

So you've no problem with them breaking the Geneva Convention?

We did sign up to it.

In this case there wasn't even a chance he could run away or inflict further damage. Yet Blackman cold bloodedly pointed a gun at a defenceless man on the ground, and shot him dead. Then admitted that what he'd done had broken the Geneva Convention.

Whether he is acquitted or his sentence is downgraded to manslaughter, it still sends the wrong message.

And that says a lot about how corrupt our armed forces are that someone will resign on principle to support a cold blooded murderer.

You seem to keep side-stepping the basic point.

If a Taliban or ISIS soldier, or maybe a terrorist on British soil, like the murderer of Lee Rigby, killed an unarmed British soldier in cold blood and then tried to claim diminished responsibility based on a psychiatrist's report that he was suffering from some sort of mental disorder, how would you feel? What would your reaction be? I'm no psychiatric expert but from what I remember of the incident Michael Adebolajo (Rigby's killer) certainly appeared to have some mental problems. He actually appeared quite deranged screaming into the camera waving a bloody machete, as opposed to Blackwell who seemed remarkably cool, calm and collected.

Would you vocally support someone like Adebolajo's right to appeal or would you be outraged that the evil murdering scumbag was trying to get a reduced sentence?

I would like to have the opportunity of discussing legal and moral absolutes with you while at the same time confronted by heavily armed Taliban . In the real World, in a kill or be killed sutuation, they go out of the window.

I support anybody's right to exhaust all legal channels through the courts. I see all this "Yeah, but what if.....?" stuff as a sidestep, as it ignores the facts in question and tries to make a case based on a hypothetical scenario.

So if this thread was all about Adebolajo's appeal against the sentence he got for murdering Lee Rigby, you'd be on here making the case for him as well?

I think it was more to do with his dissatisfaction that evidence about the hellish conditions and lack of support for the troops which probably propagated this incident, and which he foresaw happening, were not considered by his superiors and the court martial etc. He considered them as significant mitigation.

The victim was unarmed and the soldiers were not being confronted by any other armed enemy at the time. Blackman actually ordered the victim to be moved out of site of the BRITISH surveillance because he knew that what he was going to do was wrong!

It was quite clearly a cold-blooded, premeditated execution. It is perhaps what you might expect from a Taliban or ISIS fighter but not a member of the British armed forces. We're supposed to be better than that, which is why when the act was discovered he was properly prosecuted for it. People need to stop making excuses for Blackwell otherwise we end up looking as bad as the Taliban or ISIS themselves.

I have no idea. Would depend on the circumstances. We can all dream up "What if...?" type hypothetical scenarios to support our position though, can't we?

That was open warfare and not in any sense a meaningful comparison.

aka you know bloody full well you wouldn't.