Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Nuggets Mahoney

Shuffle Off This Mortal Coil You ****

Recommended Posts

Last night I was listening to US comic Bill Burr's Monday Morning podcast. He's currently touring Europe. He's quick on the uptake and after only a day in London he managed to sus that Arsenal have a bit of a rep for scoring one goal then 'going on the defence' and that 'the maniacs watch soccer and the rich c**ts are into rugby'. In passing, he also mentioned the case of Marine Sgt Alexander Blackman who's recently been handed down a life sentence for slotting a wounded, defenceless Afghani insurgent/ terrorist/ resistance fighter whilst, by way of a valediction, saying...

"There you are, shuffle off this mortal coil, you c**t. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us."

I'm a tad troubled about this story. Firstly, unless I missed it, because I rely on OT rather than US comics' podcasts to keep me abreast with this sort of thing but, mostly, because of banging up someone for doing something which I suspect most folk placed in the same position as Sgt Blackman would, sooner or later, find themselves doing, or go nuts, or both.

It's straightforward enough to anticipate what people who accept the Official Narrative of the invasion of Afghanistan will think about this case. What I'm curious to know is how people who share my antipathy towards the Afghan fund-raiser think about locking up Sgt Blackman and throwing away the key.

Would anyone care to share?

edit: PS 208gtoy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cold blooded murder.

The only argument in Blackman's favour is perhaps during wartime it's a slighter lesser offence due to mitigating circumstances. If you've just seen your comrades killed by the enemy, then you're going to be emotionally disturbed and understandably mad as hell. I don't know what the offence could be. Does unlawful killing fit?

Blackman was a highly trained soldier. He was supposed to be disciplined and aware of international law. Shooting a defenceless enemy like that was unnecessary, and could even be detrimental to their mission i.e. a living prisoner might have intelligence. Obviously it was also morally corrupt and a godsend to anti-West terrorists.

I'm getting less and less inclined to buy into all the nationalistic BS we hear so often. The SAS are the best in the world, Britain didn't need the USA to help beat the Germans etc etc. It's complete rubbish, designed to make a population feel good about themselves, nothing more. And all those who post comments on news sites saying it was justified are the worst of Britain quite frankly. They'll fly the English flag out their window and then sit on their backside drawing benefits draining the country.

Well done Blackman, you unprofessional ****.

/rant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest there's a fine line between reasonable behaviour in a combat situation and murder. This marine stepped over it.

The question is why a highly trained and experienced soldier did so. A loss of control in the heat of the moment perhaps? Well, we'd certainly want to avoid having him in a combat situation in the future. Result of post-traumatic stress? Probably not unreasonable - given what he'd been through.

I guess we have to try and keep the moral high ground and set an example so others aren't either inspired or think they can get away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cold blooded murder.

The only argument in Blackman's favour is perhaps during wartime it's a slighter lesser offence due to mitigating circumstances. If you've just seen your comrades killed by the enemy, then you're going to be emotionally disturbed and understandably mad as hell. I don't know what the offence could be. Does unlawful killing fit?

Blackman was a highly trained soldier. He was supposed to be disciplined and aware of international law. Shooting a defenceless enemy like that was unnecessary, and could even be detrimental to their mission i.e. a living prisoner might have intelligence. Obviously it was also morally corrupt and a godsend to anti-West terrorists.

I'm getting less and less inclined to buy into all the nationalistic BS we hear so often. The SAS are the best in the world, Britain didn't need the USA to help beat the Germans etc etc. It's complete rubbish, designed to make a population feel good about themselves, nothing more. And all those who post comments on news sites saying it was justified are the worst of Britain quite frankly. They'll fly the English flag out their window and then sit on their backside drawing benefits draining the country.

Well done Blackman, you unprofessional ****.

/rant

I know it is not exactly germane to this case but what many people don't realise is that taking prisoners and surrenders in war situations is rare, as ex soldiers have told me (from WWII onwards). Basically the first time you see a mate killed trying to take someone's surrender is the last time you bother to try to take one, the exception being large scale negotiated surrenders were you are 100% in control. It's your life, you are not going to throw it away in the name of the Geneva convention.

As to the case, has been common in all Britains dirty wars since 1945 (e.g. IRA Gibraltar ). Why the guy recorded it god knows. A colleague used to spend his time training special forces to use road side bomb countermeasures (he is an electronic engineer) he says the SAS were the scariest people he had ever met, highly intelligent psychopaths. I guess governments need such people sometimes, probably better they are in the army than on the streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know the full details of the case (perhaps someone else can clarify), but it was my understanding the Afghan was badly wounded (think he may have been shot AND run over??). Aside from the likelihood of any medical treatment failing, he (Blackman) may have thought any med assistance called in would have been place in further unnecessary danger or the Afghan would have placed the team in harms way / slowed progress if they had tried to carry him to safety.

He's clearly no squaddie thug if he's quoting Shakespeare, and I don't detect any overt sadistic malice in the tone of voice.

Hindsight of a 3rd party observer sat behind a warm desktop PC in the UK is a wonderful thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine in a war situation when seeing people blown up and shitting your pants 24/7 - there are occasions where you see the enemy and just think '****** it' - its not exactly surprising.

Doesn't make it right though. However i don't think anyone who has not been in such a situation can ever say they would never act in such a way. I have no idea if i would or not.

Think about the sort of thing everyday people quite happily say in public in front of anyone - when discussing child murderers or pedophiles. "I would hunt them down and kill them with my bare hands" - seems the standard response.

Nobody bats an eyelid when people say something like this. Its deemed perfectly acceptable - even though clearly it rarely happens.

Put the same person in a similar situation in a foreign country with a rifle in their hand standing over a person who may well have blown up their best friend. With the knowledge that if they kill them - they will probably get away with it.

Many of us would be more than happy to pull the trigger - we just don't want to admit or talk about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm troubled by the fact that junior personnel are easily trapped and used as scapegoats; whilst the real mass murders, those who authorised premeditated massacres of civilians by bombing (war crimes) get honours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it is not exactly germane to this case but what many people don't realise is that taking prisoners and surrenders in war situations is rare, as ex soldiers have told me (from WWII onwards). Basically the first time you see a mate killed trying to take someone's surrender is the last time you bother to try to take one, the exception being large scale negotiated surrenders were you are 100% in control. It's your life, you are not going to throw it away in the name of the Geneva convention.

As to the case, has been common in all Britains dirty wars since 1945 (e.g. IRA Gibraltar ). Why the guy recorded it god knows. A colleague used to spend his time training special forces to use road side bomb countermeasures (he is an electronic engineer) he says the SAS were the scariest people he had ever met, highly intelligent psychopaths. I guess governments need such people sometimes, probably better they are in the army than on the streets.

The murder was recorded accidentally; the recording was later discovered by a third party, who then reported it to the authorities. The idea that this was a one-off that just happened to be recorded is absurd. Incidents such as this must happen quite frequently, with care normally being taken to avoid leaving any evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it as far more understandable and acceptable than many other things that happen in the course of these campaigns. Innocent women and children being killed by drones in nearby countries is totally unacceptable, why isn't the individual who authorises them charged with murder?

I thought the conventions on surrender only applied to uniformed soldiers? Guerrillas were always subject to summary execution in past wars, weren't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine in a war situation when seeing people blown up and shitting your pants 24/7 - there are occasions where you see the enemy and just think '****** it' - its not exactly surprising.

Doesn't make it right though. However i don't think anyone who has not been in such a situation can ever say they would never act in such a way. I have no idea if i would or not.

Think about the sort of thing everyday people quite happily say in public in front of anyone - when discussing child murderers or pedophiles. "I would hunt them down and kill them with my bare hands" - seems the standard response.

Nobody bats an eyelid when people say something like this. Its deemed perfectly acceptable - even though clearly it rarely happens.

Put the same person in a similar situation in a foreign country with a rifle in their hand standing over a person who may well have blown up their best friend. With the knowledge that if they kill them - they will probably get away with it.

Many of us would be more than happy to pull the trigger - we just don't want to admit or talk about it.

In law, a surrender is no longer the enemy...he is posing no threat....then again, it has been known for surrenderers to be the bait for ambush...and these Aholes are in that line of religion.

Saying all that...WTF was that soldier doing there in the fracking first place?>

Bring them home...TODAY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he commit a crime? Yes.

Should he have been prosecuted? Yes.

Would the Taliban have done the same (or worse) to him? Yes.

Has this happened before? Yes.

Will this happen again? Yes.

Are they idiots for filming it? Yes.

Will the next person to do this film it? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In law, a surrender is no longer the enemy...he is posing no threat....then again, it has been known for surrenderers to be the bait for ambush...and these Aholes are in that line of religion.

Saying all that...WTF was that soldier doing there in the fracking first place?>

Bring them home...TODAY.

Have to agree with this.

Politicians shouldn't put them in these difficult positions in the first place.

This was a Royal Marine Sergeant who was near the end of a difficult tour. His unit had already lost 3 or 4 to insurgents and blood was shall we say running high.

All that said..

All soldiers deploying have the rules of LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict) drummed into them. This also contains detail of the usual conventions signed in Geneva. In addition to this there will be very strictly defined ROE (Rules of Engagement) which dictate when a soldier may or may not open fire with his personal weapon. ROE for example were completely different in NI than they are in the Afghan!

This sergeant would have been well aware of the rules, indeed given his rank he would have been responsible for teaching his subordinates LOAC and ROE.

The hard and difficult tour was mitigating circumstances, this was reflected in his sentence 10 years instead of the mandatory 15.

Is this thing widespread? No it isn't.

The rules dictate that as soon as an enemy combatant has surrendered or is so incapacitated that he no longer poses a threat he is to be taken into safe custody. If he is injured then medical attention has to be given.

In this particular scenario the insurgent had been engaged by this patrol and shot up by an Apache heli. He was badly injured enough for the Sergeant to claim at CM that he was already dead when he shot him in the chest. It is very likely he would have died soon after anyway.

No excuse for what the Sergeant did but the normal practice would have been to try and treat the casualty and then seek a helicopter for casevac. Usually all sorts of other things have to be done before treatment can occur. Making the area safe from IED's ect ensuring the area is clear of armed insurgents. This invariably means medical attention will be delayed, but it is administered as soon as practical. Often a volunteer will be sought to treat the person, bearing in mind that they may not have a general first aid kit (or trained medic immediately available) and that if this is the case the volunteer will be expected to use his own medical kit/morphine in the treatment.

Some are not keen in using their own medical kit for obvious purposes.

The biggest thing learned from this will be squaddies will now not be keeping any (incriminating) footage from a helmet cam.

Edit to add. There is a long thread over on the Army Rumour Service which goes into detail on this action and the opinions behind it. As you can probably guess there are very varying opinions.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs-news-analysis/206382-marine-guilty-executing-afghan-insurgent.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree with this.

Politicians shouldn't put them in these difficult positions in the first place.

This was a Royal Marine Sergeant who was near the end of a difficult tour. His unit had already lost 3 or 4 to insurgents and blood was shall we say running high.

All that said..

All soldiers deploying have the rules of LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict) drummed into them. This also contains detail of the usual conventions signed in Geneva. In addition to this there will be very strictly defined ROE (Rules of Engagement) which dictate when a soldier may or may not open fire with his personal weapon. ROE for example were completely different in NI than they are in the Afghan!

This sergeant would have been well aware of the rules, indeed given his rank he would have been responsible for teaching his subordinates LOAC and ROE.

The hard and difficult tour was mitigating circumstances, this was reflected in his sentence 10 years instead of the mandatory 15.

Is this thing widespread? No it isn't.

The rules dictate that as soon as an enemy combatant has surrendered or is so incapacitated that he no longer poses a threat he is to be taken into safe custody. If he is injured then medical attention has to be given.

In this particular scenario the insurgent had been engaged by this patrol and shot up by an Apache heli. He was badly injured enough for the Sergeant to claim at CM that he was already dead when he shot him in the chest. It is very likely he would have died soon after anyway.

No excuse for what the Sergeant did but the normal practice would have been to try and treat the casualty and then seek a helicopter for casevac. Usually all sorts of other things have to be done before treatment can occur. Making the area safe from IED's ect ensuring the area is clear of armed insurgents. This invariably means medical attention will be delayed, but it is administered as soon as practical. Often a volunteer will be sought to treat the person, bearing in mind that they may not have a general first aid kit (or trained medic immediately available) and that if this is the case the volunteer will be expected to use his own medical kit/morphine in the treatment.

Some are not keen in using their own medical kit for obvious purposes.

The biggest thing learned from this will be squaddies will now not be keeping any (incriminating) footage from a helmet cam.

How do you know it's not widespread? You're not telling me it's pure luck that an isolated incident was accidentally caught on camera. It's far more probable that this sort of this happens regularly but with more care taken not to leave any evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know it's not widespread? You're not telling me it's pure luck that an isolated incident was accidentally caught on camera. It's far more probable that this sort of this happens regularly but with more care taken not to leave any evidence.

The Military these days have camera's all over a battlefield, drones, helicopters, satellites, The technology they possess in this regard is astounding, they never know who is watching.

This was one renegade NCO nothing more nothing less!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest thing learned from this will be squaddies will now not be keeping any (incriminating) footage from a helmet cam.

Yep, it will become part of the drill.

Tough day? Wipe the footage unless we need it to protect ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more victim on the alter of Political Correctness.

If you're going to war, you'll never win with one hand tied behind your back. How many wars has the UK won since taking a Health & Safety / Human Rights approach to warfare? That would be: none. Rather a lot of people have died, though. If you're not willing to fight a real war, then don't start a war.

This entire case was pursued so that military/politicians could feel good about themselves as they "do the right thing" even as their actions lead to catastrophic outcomes. They're just trying to salvage some sense of meaning for themselves, and, evidently, the loss of one more Royal Marine's life was worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Military these days have camera's all over a battlefield, drones, helicopters, satellites, The technology they possess in this regard is astounding, they never know who is watching.

This was one renegade NCO nothing more nothing less!

I would seriously doubt that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Military these days have camera's all over a battlefield, drones, helicopters, satellites, The technology they possess in this regard is astounding, they never know who is watching.

This was one renegade NCO nothing more nothing less!

Sorry, but that just defies common sense. If this accidental recording had not happened to have been discovered, we'd never have known anything about this murder, regardless of how many drones, helicopters or satellites were around. It must be highly probable that other such incidents have occurred that never see the light of day.

And, yes, I'm sure they already do switch off or wipe as a matter of course any cameras that may record the event. They just made a mistake in this case and forgot one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In law, a surrender is no longer the enemy...he is posing no threat....then again, it has been known for surrenderers to be the bait for ambush...and these Aholes are in that line of religion.

Saying all that...WTF was that soldier doing there in the fracking first place?>

Bring them home...TODAY.

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,

And the women come out to cut up what remains,

Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains

An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

Go, go, go like a soldier,

Go, go, go like a soldier,

Go, go, go like a soldier,

So-oldier of the Queen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it is not exactly germane to this case but what many people don't realise is that taking prisoners and surrenders in war situations is rare, as ex soldiers have told me (from WWII onwards). Basically the first time you see a mate killed trying to take someone's surrender is the last time you bother to try to take one, the exception being large scale negotiated surrenders were you are 100% in control. It's your life, you are not going to throw it away in the name of the Geneva convention.

As to the case, has been common in all Britains dirty wars since 1945 (e.g. IRA Gibraltar ). Why the guy recorded it god knows. A colleague used to spend his time training special forces to use road side bomb countermeasures (he is an electronic engineer) he says the SAS were the scariest people he had ever met, highly intelligent psychopaths. I guess governments need such people sometimes, probably better they are in the army than on the streets.

+ 1

The art of surrender in war is complex. It is discussed in some depth in John Keegans 'Face of Battle'. Basically if you want to get your surrender accepted you tend to need to do it early in an engagement, to troops of a similar type (ie infantry to infantry), preferrably from a similar religious, racial and social background. If you resist to the last bullet and then try do it do not be surprised if you are shot out of hand. The only other time it is likely to be accepted is in large scale surrenders at the end of a battle when the victors usually will not want to risk any more casualties once they have achieved their objectives. Ironically, mercenaries historically have had more chance of getting their surrender accepted than regular levies or conscripts as the winning side would normally simply recruit them to its own ranks. What happened in Afghanistan might surprise people but is by no means a rare event in war.In addition the Afghan was presumably wearing no uniform so not covered by the usual conventions of war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more victim on the alter of Political Correctness.

If you're going to war, you'll never win with one hand tied behind your back. How many wars has the UK won since taking a Health & Safety / Human Rights approach to warfare? That would be: none. Rather a lot of people have died, though. If you're not willing to fight a real war, then don't start a war.

This entire case was pursued so that military/politicians could feel good about themselves as they "do the right thing" even as their actions lead to catastrophic outcomes. They're just trying to salvage some sense of meaning for themselves, and, evidently, the loss of one more Royal Marine's life was worth it.

there are videos on the web of Helicopter gunships taking out the "enemy"...seen through IR cams, the ground "troops" ( if that s what they are) are seen being smashed apart by rocket fire, machine gun fire et al...then they mop up the wounded. till there are no bodies left.

There was no surrender opportunity.

These are war crimes too when they enter the "mop up" phase.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7e2_1342645222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are videos on the web of Helicopter gunships taking out the "enemy"...seen through IR cams, the ground "troops" ( if that s what they are) are seen being smashed apart by rocket fire, machine gun fire et al...then they mop up the wounded. till there are no bodies left.

There was no surrender opportunity.

These are war crimes too when they enter the "mop up" phase.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7e2_1342645222

Yeah, those were definitely "war crimes". Which is why you should be tried in court and sentenced to life imprisonment, or were you just "following orders" when paying your taxes to the British state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, those were definitely "war crimes". Which is why you should be tried in court and sentenced to life imprisonment, or were you just "following orders" when paying your taxes to the British state?

many taxes you have no choice but to pay...like on things you buy or sell.

incidentally, Ive never heard of any combatants surrendering to a drone. In a "civilised" conflict, there must be a time where the force is a threat, and the "enemy", feeling overwhealmed should be able to "give up" and back off while the other side enforce their will.

But, our soldiers will have been publicy told to respect the enemy, but inside told that the ragheads are out to kill you...no good having a soldier on the trigger and suddenly finds respect and compassion for the poor farmer he is about to machine gun...best that actual killing is swept under the carpet and sanitized for public consumption...

Indeed, Governments should fight it out themselves...we dont see many sons and daughters of the rich and famous in the armed forces...Royal Family a serious exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soldier pops wounded enemy combatant I doubt ordinarily the top brass would do anything to discourage it which means there's some other, most likely political, story going on. This guy was actually delivering some uncharacteristic public sector value for money and productivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   212 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.