Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Click Here Shop Kindle New Album - Foo Fighters Shop now Shop Women's Shop Men's
Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Royal Marine Alexander Blackman


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 50 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 6 Dec 2013, 21:39:12 GMT
Should Royal Marine Alexander Blackman have been sentenced to a minimum ten years imprisonment for killing a Taliban fighter OR been given another medal?

Posted on 6 Dec 2013, 21:41:29 GMT
Last edited by the author on 6 Dec 2013, 21:41:40 GMT
Neither, but I'm biased towards the military.
I wait with bated breath to see what sentences Lee Rigby's killers get.

Posted on 6 Dec 2013, 21:43:43 GMT
Last edited by the author on 6 Dec 2013, 21:47:30 GMT
gille liath says:
You think he should get a medal for killing a prisoner? (Presume that's who we're talking about?)

What Lee Rigby has to do with it I don't know. But I don't suppose his killers will be let off with a warning.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Dec 2013, 22:01:10 GMT
Defenceman says:
Chief Wansum Tail,

'I wait with bated breath to see what sentences Lee Rigby's killers get.'

You assume that the jury will find them guilty - likely but you never know with a jury.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Dec 2013, 22:25:27 GMT
Shrek says:
He got off lightly, imo it should have been 20 years for stupidity.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Dec 2013, 22:29:08 GMT
Last edited by the author on 6 Dec 2013, 22:31:48 GMT
I want to see how the sentences compare, and if the punishment is just in comparison to what Marine A got.
He should have got a dishonourable discharge from the army and snuck off into civvie street, due to exceptional circumstances.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Dec 2013, 22:29:37 GMT
20 years for stupidity ... for leaving his helmet cam on.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Dec 2013, 22:30:00 GMT
Last edited by the author on 6 Dec 2013, 22:33:08 GMT
Shrek says:
At least 30yrs a piece, good chance they will even get 'whole life sentences' - bang to rights, wasted the court's time pleading not guilty to a crime they committed, politically/ ideologically motivated, grisly murder with with knives taken to the scene.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Dec 2013, 22:30:27 GMT
True, I would hope they do though otherwise I give up on Britain lol

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Dec 2013, 22:31:03 GMT
Shrek says:
If Ladbrokes have a book open, put your house on a guilty verdict.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Dec 2013, 22:32:03 GMT
Shrek says:
For every bit of his behaviour .

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Dec 2013, 22:34:41 GMT
I would hope so, they should lock em up and throw away the key. And with such a vicious attack like that they really deserve the death penalty, trouble is, that would make them martyrs.
Not guilty plea got them air time though and forces everyone into listening to their BS and watching that attack again.

Posted on 7 Dec 2013, 00:00:19 GMT
Last edited by the author on 7 Dec 2013, 09:33:24 GMT
Looking at the bigger picture, in 2001 the entire British Military was committed to an illegal (according to the UN) war in Afghanistan by Tony Blair PM; following a Media propaganda campaign now publically known to have been based on 'sexed up' intelligence documents, IE: lies.

On that basis, every casualty suffered (Afghan or British); can be fairly credited to Mr Blair and the British Political Establishment.

But if a highly combat stressed Royal Marine can be sentenced to ten years for 'illegal actions' resulting in the death one enemy fighter,

WHY

have Tony Blair and his Political/Media apparatchiks not been even questioned, let alone legally punished; over far more serious 'illegal actions' that have been directly responsible for tens/hundreds of thousands of equally tragic/needless deaths/maimings, since 2001 ???

Posted on 7 Dec 2013, 11:10:05 GMT
Spin says:
Having heard the recording a number of times, I think the incident was a case of "bravado" gone mad, rather than an inherent evil on the part of the soldiers involved. In reality, such murders take place without the bravado or talk; they are committed as a result of an inherent psychological abnormality rather than as a conclusion to a shallow conversation intended to "show off" ones "macho- attitude"...It seemed to me that the soldiers had no choice but to shoot the prisoner not because of an inherent evil on their part but because they dragged themselves into that situation by their conversation...Each soldier seemed to be afraid to back down...

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Dec 2013, 11:16:23 GMT
Last edited by the author on 7 Dec 2013, 11:16:52 GMT
gille liath says:
Maybe, but that doesn't make it okay does it?

10 years is a just sentence for this, and no doubt took into account that it happened in a war zone. Rigbys killers can expect at least twice as long, and rightly.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Dec 2013, 11:22:02 GMT
Spin says:
Gille: I am not condoning the action. I am simply analysing the circumstances. And, hopefully, so did the jury...I think the sentence was appropriate but, of course, I was not present to hear every detail of the case which might influence my view...In general, if society trains men to kill it must be careful in its judgement of those who do kill...

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Dec 2013, 11:26:24 GMT
gille liath says:
I agree, but it looks as though they were. The recognition that these things happen in war doesn't mean it can be condoned when it comes to light. If we don't claim to be any better than the Taliban why are we fighting them?

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Dec 2013, 11:34:14 GMT
Spin says:
gille; I personally do not consider our military forces to "represent" our society; they defend society by military force, but no military action, of any kind, can be said to represent the morality of a nation. Military action is the last resort; the abandonment of moral debate and considerations. And the men engaged in such action cannot be expected to adhere to the same morality as displayed in everyday urban society. Warfare is the basest and most animalistic of human endevours. It cannot be judged according to the standards of peacetime society.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Dec 2013, 11:58:10 GMT
I disagree, it's not just and I don't feel it remotely takes into account what else was happening.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Dec 2013, 12:35:02 GMT
Last edited by the author on 7 Dec 2013, 12:36:40 GMT
Spin says:
Chief: Why do you consider the sentence to be unjust?

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Dec 2013, 12:56:13 GMT
I think it's too long considering the circumstances, the area of Afghanistan they were in, the events preceding it which these men were subject to - this was at a time when the Taliban were hanging corpses from trees and dismembering them. As if the stresses of being in a warzone themselves weren't enough, to have to witness scenes like that must have an impact on a man's mind. And for the way the fighter was killed, a simple headshot of an already severely injured man (he had been wounded in a helicopter attack) - it was quick, and it was over. It's a damn sight better than anything they could have hoped for if the roles were reversed.
They may have gotten carried away in the moment with the bravado and bluster, to a situation where they felt incapable of backing down. Maybe they wanted revenge on behalf of their fallen friends.
These men are trained to kill and to 'neutralise' the enemy. Years of training to be the best and the ultimate killing machine in war, and then you get jailed for killing someone the wrong way. You put them in this situation and then expect them to behave in a a certain manner and that's just unrealistic imo.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Dec 2013, 13:01:45 GMT
Spin says:
Chief: But the situation did not involve combat. They murdered a prisoner. An unarmed man posing no threat to them. I do not know how you can consider an unarmed prisoner to be a threat to a group of armed soldiers...And you assume that all members of the Taliban deserve death when in fact most of them are men like you, I and the soldiers they engage in combat with. What was so unique about that Taliban prisoner that he deserved execution?

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Dec 2013, 13:05:30 GMT
Because the other members will come to try and get him back.
I really don't think you know what it is like over there. There is barely any air support for troops, they have limited supplies when on the ground and the Taliban are nothing like our soldiers in battle. You say they're like you, fine, but don't tar others with that brush.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Dec 2013, 13:07:09 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Dec 2013, 13:10:54 GMT
Experience of military training have you ?
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  9
Total posts:  50
Initial post:  6 Dec 2013
Latest post:  8 Dec 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer