Murder Verdict

[wrighty]

'Our' side? It was the UK parliament who decided to go to the Middle East...**** all to do with the IoM.

 

TBT.

[P.K.]

>So it's OK then for them not to play by the rules.

 

Yes, if you sign up to the Geneva Convention, then you have to abide by their rules. The Taliban haven't signed, so the rules don't apply (to them).

 

>but our side have to follow them...

 

'Our' side? It was the UK parliament who decided to go to the Middle East...**** all to do with the IoM.

 

TBT.

 

The rules don't apply to the Taliban. So in theory the plank did nothing wrong. Because I'm not aware of a country called Taliban, or an armed forces from there to protect it from invasion. Or a government called Taliban. Or a people called Taliban. I am aware of a group of murderous thugs called the Taliban who shot a schoolgirl in the head because she wanted an education. So the Geneva Convention just doesn't apply.

 

Very difficult this one. Because he broke the UK "Rules Of Engagement" which was a stupid thing to do. Especially at age 39 because I suspect he would not be far off his 22 years. However he just did to them what they do to ours. But the main issue is that our rules are different from theirs out of necessity to maintain the moral high ground. So it's very unfair but mostly it's very unclever.

[The Border Terrier]

So it's very unfair but mostly it's very unclever.

 

>The rules don't apply to the Taliban.

 

Correct. And he knew this before he left the UK, so plenty of time to prepare.

 

>So in theory the plank did nothing wrong.

 

In practice he murdered a man in circumstances which contravene the Geneva Convention (GC), a fact he admitted at the point of killing.

 

>Very difficult this one.

 

Not so difficult that it's impossible to comprehend.

 

>Because he broke the UK "Rules Of Engagement" which was a stupid thing to do.

 

Very, very stupid. In fact so stupid an offence as to warrant a custodial sentence if subsequently proven guilty.

 

>Especially at age 39...

 

So not a silly kid reacting under extreme pressure, in fact, old enough to know better.

 

>However he just did to them what they do to ours.

 

That's why it's not the smartest of moves to carry a gun and shoot at people; there's always the tendency that they'll reciprocate.

 

>But the main issue is that our rules are different from theirs out of necessity to maintain the moral high ground.

 

Or the need for the one side to adhere to the aforementioned Geneva Convention to which they've previously signed up to.

 

In summary: Professional soldier with 20+ (?) years service defies the GC and murders an unarmed terrorist in cold blood. Gets caught, pleads not guilty, which is dismissed at trial and is then punished.

 

Just what calibre of soldier are the UK government sending out to represent Her Majesty these days? Pfft...

 

And how much are we paying for our share of defence and diplomatic services...around £3.5 million? Value for money?

 

TBT.

[CrossRoss]

 

lots of innocents get killed by dronestrikes but nobody answers for that.

 

why pick on marine A so close to 4000 redundancies? if i was a squaddie i would be swearing like a trooper.

 

The story reeks - as if the British military haven't been murdering people for 100s of years - that is their fucking job

 

It reminds me of the aftermath of the 1919 Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in which Colonel Dyer ordered the soldiers to fire on a crowd of pilgrims. He was offered up by the authorities as a sacrificial lamb, everything was blamed on him and the episode was treated as totally out of sync with British Army conduct. Winston Churchill called it: "an episode which appears to me to be without precedent or parallel in the modern history of the British Empire." This of course was total bollocks. The massacre was totally in keeping with British Army conduct. Dyer himself received his military training in Ireland where terrorism against civilians was included in their training manuals. And you only had to go back to the aftermath of the so-called Mutiny of 1857 for widespread terrorism against the civilian population. The real reason he was turned into a scapegoat was not to persuade the colonial subjects about how wonderful the British Army was -- they knew better -- but to convince the British people who were becoming increasingly opposed to empire-building abroad. If anything, failure to scapegoat this man would be a setback for public relations next time they want to launch us into another trumped up war.

Yes, Churchill stories remind me a bit like tooth fairy stories,

 

nobody likes to hear the truth about Churchill and that he was really a big fat ugly cunt who lied about murdering people and then fitted up patsies to appease public opinion.

 

Well I never supported bombing the fuck out of Libya nor the Syria debacle so whatever bullshit is in store I do not buy it. I will not wear a poppy any more so they can fuck off with all that kak as well. And I won't support sending off some poor shit off to fight a bullshit war and when he does what he thinks he should is scapegoated like a cunt.

 

The people who sent the British military to Afghanistan should be in the dock beside the aforementioned poor shit.

 

That is if the story is not just more made up kak, we do not have a name of the supposed perp or a pic nor a name or pic of the supposed victim. This is scepticism.

 

If I were not a lazy cunt then i might formulate an alternative theory about what actually happened but we do not have enough info in this article to even make it interesting. This is conspiracy theorising.

[thommo2010]

The guy killed a wounded and unarmed person, anywhere in the world that is murder.

 

If a guy came at you with a knife and you knocked him to the ground and disarmed him then you went and stabbed him killing him you would be done with murder as the threat is no longer there and there is no self defence.

 

Can't see how people can defend him, if our soldiers just start going round killing unarmed people at point blank range then we are no better than the people that we are fighting

[Thomas Jefferson]

If a guy came at you with a knife and you knocked him to the ground and disarmed him then you went and stabbed him killing him you would be done with murder as the threat is no longer there and there is no self defence.

 

I don't care what the bleeding heart law says, you would be entirely justified to kill such a person. Just as you would be justified in killing any foreign soldier occupying your country.

[Mr. Sausages]

So it's OK then for them not to play by the rules, but our side have to follow them?

 

Isn't that the whole point of being there?

[P.K.]

To play Devil's Advocate for a moment.

 

>Very difficult this one.

Not so difficult that it's impossible to comprehend.

I would argue that unless you have been there then it IS impossible to fully comprehend. Simply from the fact that you lack any relevant experience on which to base a judgement.

The guy killed a wounded and unarmed person, anywhere in the world that is murder.

Don't forget that every time the Taliban fire on UN troops it's attempted murder. Don't forget that every time the Taliban kill a UN soldier then it's murder. So surely this is another reasonable assessment:

The guy killed a wounded and unarmed person executed a known murderer, anywhere in the world that is murder justice.

It's easy to pass judgement on things you don't understand. He didn't kill a person. He didn't kill some mother's son. He didn't kill a father or brother. He put down a TARGET. That's what you do. They're not people because if you started to think like that you might hesitate and that would put you and yours at risk.

Having posted that he broke the rules and that's what he was judged on....

[Monkey boy]

 

The Taliban haven't signed the Geneva Convention.

So it's OK then for them not to play by the rules, but our side have to follow them? A bit like one football team not signing up to the rules and being allowed to pick the ball up and run with it, while the other gets a penalty against them for doing likewise.

Two wrongs don't make a right though do they.

[Monkey boy]

 

'Our' side? It was the UK parliament who decided to go to the Middle East...**** all to do with the IoM.

 

TBT.

That's exactly the kind of superior attitude that ensures the UK will continue to be one of the most war fairing countries on the planet for many years to come.

Perhaps a more relevant question than why this fella should get away with murder would be why was he sent there in the first place? There has scarcely been a year in living memory that the UK have not been at war with someone somewhere. How long does it take to spot a common denominator?

[P.K.]

He did not have the right to act as judge, jury and executioner. The day we give our armed forces that - as a right - is the day when the rest of us should look for a civilised place to live.

 

Are they not judge, jury and executioner every time they pull the trigger?

 

As in Syria recently you execute prisoners and the spiral get's ever more vicious with more and more atrocities from both sides. However, and this is clearly going to come as a big shock to a lot of folks, the Taliban just don't care....

 

So here is a question for all you keyboard warriors who are not bricking it under fire. How will the Taliban react when they hear about his conviction and the length of his sentence?

[paswt]

If a guy came at you with a knife and you knocked him to the ground and disarmed him then you went and stabbed him killing him you would be done with murder as the threat is no longer there and there is no self defence.

If you had the knife in your possession , apart from being now in possession of an offensive weapon ,would you turn your back on the guy and risk being attacked from behind ,or do you leave the weapon on the ground and walk away . What would you do Thommo assuming you were just a member of the public?

Can't see how people can defend him, if our soldiers just start going round killing unarmed people at point blank range then we are no better than the people that we are fighting

so does that make the politicians who sanctioned the rules of engagement guilty of murder when unarmed civilians die as a result of carpet bombing, drone attack and similar "collateral damage".

 

What's all this "WE" cobblers , I'm not fighting anyone and certainly have more in common with the innocent folk who are being killed than the ex british prime minister who authorised it.

[Blade Runner]

 

He did not have the right to act as judge, jury and executioner. The day we give our armed forces that - as a right - is the day when the rest of us should look for a civilised place to live.

 

Are they not judge, jury and executioner every time they pull the trigger?

 

As in Syria recently you execute prisoners and the spiral get's ever more vicious with more and more atrocities from both sides. However, and this is clearly going to come as a big shock to a lot of folks, the Taliban just don't care....

 

So here is a question for all you keyboard warriors who are not bricking it under fire. How will the Taliban react when they hear about his conviction and the length of his sentence?

 

Good point PK, I tend to think they will laugh at us, what about you?

[manxman1980]

 

So here is a question for all you keyboard warriors who are not bricking it under fire. How will the Taliban react when they hear about his conviction and the length of his sentence?

How would they react if the story came to light and no action was taken?

[Thomas Jefferson]

So here is a question for all you keyboard warriors who are not bricking it under fire. How will the Taliban react when they hear about his conviction and the length of his sentence?

 

I think they'll be so impressed with how morally upstanding the British Army is that they'll realise the error of their ways, lay down their arms, dance around a camp fire and sing Kumbaya My Lord and chop off their nuts in homage to David Cameron's impeccable manliness.