Maybe not but they are part of Britain's armed forces, albeit the Navy in this instance. Take one hair and split it!

I think she's fantastic.

Why would you think that?

You could well be right there!

Correct, they should stick to indiscriminate long range weapons dropped from aircraft or drones.

That's much more sporting

Why wouldn't I think that?.

Do you honestly believe that the British soldier believed he was wearing a suicide vest and a danger given that he took him off somewhere out of the way so his mates could use him as a punching ball after which he murdered him?

I have no idea. What is so good about her?

Horrible woman

Katie Hopkins is being personally sued for up to £50,000 for libel with costs between £500,000 to £700,000 on top

Big Gob is also being sued by Joe Monroe

Next, @KTHopkins is in court on 27th Feb 2017 on trial for libelling @MxJackMonroe

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...oe-mail-online

ooooh that's an interesting one. She really is rather careless when she taps out her poison with out checking. She'll be a liability to the Mail - very expensive. What a horrible woman she is. She clearly thinks she can spout what she pleases with no repercussions - she really should check her stuff out first though.

This will surprise no-one on here.

Good for Jack, I hope she takes Hopkins to the cleaners.

There was a time when people like Hopkins were shunned by society but sadly these days, they are given a platform to spout their hate.

Katie - always claims there is a list longer of what your not allowed to say then what you can say and then proceeds to lose her own argument when she says anything she wants.

Clearly, you need to learn something about the case.

Of course you do.

It would be news if you didn't.

It was clearly established before the shooting that this man posed no immediate threat to those around him. He was shot at very close range. Had there been any threat of a detonation, the soldiers would have gone nowhere near him and this incident might not have occurred.

Maggie, you are deliberately twisting details of this case to justify the unjustifiable. At the moment he fired his gun, Blackman behaved no better than the people he was fighting against, thereby forfeiting his moral authority. And then he lied about it. There is a Grand Canyon-sized gulf between what happened here and events in WWII. Should you continue down this route, it will become obvious you're simply trolling other FM's.

Unfortunately there are many documented cases of wounded prisoners being treated and then turning on their captors as soon as they can. It is easy from this cosy fireside position to pontificate upon what soldiers should and should not do. An enemy soldier is a danger, even more so with the proven suicide missions that this lot undertake. If he had killed him ten minutes earlier we would have applauded his actions, if he had killed him if the prisoner had turned on his captors with malevolent intent we would also have applauded his actions. That does not make what he did right but it goes a long way to mitigate his actions and we expect too much from our troops when fighting an enemy that will send explosive laden children into areas to be blown up by remote detonation.

BIB: I don't agree it mitigates his actions at all, given the circumstances in which this event took place and the words spoken by those who took part. I understand that one of the arguments used to defend Blackman is that the victim was on the verge of death anyway. If he was so incapacitated, he clearly posed no further threat and should have been taken prisoner or simply allowed to die where he lay. Instead, he was shot, and Blackman exhorted those around him to cover up a criminal act.

I understand that our soldiers are forced to operate under horrendous conditions, and I can't begin to imagine the hardships they're forced to endure on our behalf. But the details of this case make it abundantly clear: Either they behave in a manner that gives them moral authority over their enemy, regardless of the circumstances, or they are no better than those they are fighting.

Perhaps you can explain this 'canyon-sized gulf'

Japanese soldier comes out with his hands in the air and is machine gunned. Sometimes they turned a flamethrower on them.

This is not murder but the other incident is. Personally I don't see the difference. No doubt you can explain though.

Of course it happened the other way, British soldiers machine gunned in barns US soldiers lined up and slaughtered in a field by the German army. They were in the middle of a battle and the rationale is that they couldn't afford to send soldiers to the rear with them as guards. We did it to the Germans for the same reasons

Still not murder though apparently, it was war.



Maggie

You do the crime, you do the time.

Hope cretins like Hopkins get taken to the cleaners. Scum.

I don't need to 'explain the difference' any further, since I've already done so in multiple posts. And since you're obviously trolling, this is the last time I'll respond to your line of enquiry.

The difference is that if it had been the other way around and he was lying on the ground injured and the Taliban fighter had shot him the media headlines would have been about how he was "murdered in cold blood".

He knew full well what he was doing at the time, he even said to his colleagues about breaking the Geneva convention. So in a civilised, democratic country, he should be held accountable for his actions.

The fact that his enemy would have done it to him if the roles were reversed isn't justification for his actions at all.

However after WW II where such crimes were committed those who committed them were held to account wherever possible.

Why should it be any different today?

The main difference is that world holds soldiers up to higher behavioural standards in 2016 than they did in 1946 or 1916. The Geneva Conventions came about precisely because humanity collectively decided that some things that happened during WW2 were not acceptable, even during war