Alexander Blackman BBC Interview

The law is the thin line separating civilisation from barbarism and savagery. The protection that law gives to every peaceable person is vital. Again, he's white trash that remembered his mental health problems after he'd been convicted of murder. He's beneath contempt. If he is indicative of the mentality of the Royal Marines, disband them.
So to confirm, if the law said rape and murder in war is ok, you think it would be civilised?
And yet you want the Booties to be disbanded.
 
That was the unlawful aspect; no right thinking person would have gone with that defence, with the video evidence in prosecution hands. The later appeal court accepted the missing psyche evidence and were minded to reduce the verdict to manslaughter.....
You can keep on screeching unlawful as much as you want, mash away my incoherent friend. You're wrong.

Have you worked out why they didn't go for retrial yet? Why no defence brief worth the name would have done it?
 
This cat knows the difference between the court of appeal which reduced the sentence and the criminal case review, which is an appeals process which deals with miscarriages of justice and do NOT routinely quash a verdict and offer the defendant a reduced verdict...... The fact the prosecution accepted this speaks volumes that the dogs of unwarlike on this thread are simply not paying attention.

The laws of war and battlefield euthanasia are and will remain a controversial element of the law, because the battlefield is not a place where people are acting rationally and its certainly not working well in the event a soldier has a mental health problem that the chain of command is unaware of, but aware of a decline in a subordinates performance.
Any idea what Hackle does for a living?
 
You can keep on screeching unlawful as much as you want, mash away my incoherent friend. You're wrong.

Have you worked out why they didn't go for retrial yet? Why no defence brief worth the name would have done it?
Grac lets be brutally honest, you are always flying close to the site rules with your need to chase a vendetta across threads and I obviously upset you desperately... Putting aside your confused feelings towards me, why are you so unhappy the criminal case review referred back to the appeals court and subsequently quashed the original verdict and changed it to manslaughter ?
 
Grac lets be brutally honest, you are always flying close to the site rules with your need to chase a vendetta across threads and I obviously upset you desperately... Putting aside your confused feelings towards me, why are you so unhappy the criminal case review referred back to the appeals court and subsequently quashed the original verdict and changed it to manslaughter ?
You'll remain a stranger to truth and logic as long as you're posting. Upset me? <Guffaw> There's only one of us claiming to put the other on ignore and then posting replies and button mashing isn't there?
 
have you seen the unredacted video?
Nope, why would I want too, its all rather sick. I have seen the written transcripts and all the marines appeared in technical breach of the law...... My interest, has always being the psychiatric and to a lesser extent, the exploration of motive and the failure of the prosecution to establish a motive. As carrots said, he was a most efficient war criminal and also a highly selective one, as his only victim was a dying man far beyond medical aid (MERT or no MERT).
 
You'll remain a stranger to truth and logic as long as you're posting. Upset me? <Guffaw> There's only one of us claiming to put the other on ignore and then posting replies and button mashing isn't there?
No response to a reasonable question and simply playing the man, that could be seen as a breach of the site rules as you do tend to follow me around the site posting how stupid I am and that is pretty much it.
 
If this man is indicative of their culture, then yes, they should be disbanded and their honours stripped by law and confined to oblivion.
It’s not, and that is a truly ridiculous course of action. Btw, Royal Marines are professional soldiers, not professional killers...that’s hitmen you’re thinking off.
 
D

Deleted 164106

Guest
That was the unlawful aspect; no right thinking person would have gone with that defence, with the video evidence in prosecution hands
Some people are idiots, some are chancers. It doesn't mean that they're not "right thinking" and it doesn't mean a trial / verdict is unlawful.
 
Whoa, don't forget the Geneva convention itself draws a distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants... The Taliban and the Iraqi insurgents, were both technically unlawful combatants and that will always complicate the rules of law, doubly so if an unlawful combatant is dying and they're on the other side don't respect international law.
I wouldn't bother replying, except for the fact that you are peddling persistent dangerous nonsense on a vaguely military themed website.
The phrase "unlawful combatant" doesn't appear at all in the relevant (Third) Geneva Convention, but what it does say is, in effect, that captured persons who have committed belligerent acts and whose status is in doubt must be treated as prisoners of war "until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
 
Nope, why would I want too, its all rather sick. I have seen the written transcripts and all the marines appeared in technical breach of the law...... My interest, has always being the psychiatric and to a lesser extent, the exploration of motive and the failure of the prosecution to establish a motive. As carrots said, he was a most efficient war criminal and also a highly selective one, as his only victim was a dying man far beyond medical aid (MERT or no MERT).
so by Your metric, it’s OK to shoot wounded prisoners if you don’t have a hospital handy?
 
Last edited:
No response to a reasonable question and simply playing the man, that could be seen as a breach of the site rules as you do tend to follow me around the site posting how stupid I am and that is pretty much it.
What reasonable question? Your post was wholly a work of fiction wasn't it sockie?
 

Unremarkable

War Hero
Of course mortar bombs and JDAMs are controlled, or do you think the go about firing/releasing themselves?

Ordnance is an inert object. It can't feel any emotions whatsoever. I certainly never got a birthday card from one.
Indeed. Confucius said that "Weapons are tools of ill omen". Tools. I have a hammer, and it's never been near a human head; others' have. Tools are not intrinsically good nor bad; they have no intent, that being solely in the mind of the user. Ill omen only means that when the blade is drawn, blood is likely to be shed. Weapons do not harm, defend, love nor hate. Humans do.
 

Latest Threads

Top