So not a terrorist then (1 Viewer)

Sky Blue Kid

Well-Known Member
Anyone remember Jimmy Young's interview on Radio 2 with that "Hook Handed Bastard Abu Hamser" some 8-10 years before the Iraq war in 2003?
Hamser said "He will not rest till Sharia Law is recognized in the UK and the "Flag of Islam" is flying over the "Houses of Parliament" yet PC arseholes "ConvenientlyOverlook" him and that other "Hate Preacher Choudary" who openly declare "Holy War Jihad" while happily take benefits that we all have contributed towards.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QShdd0BDEZc
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
Anyone remember Jimmy Young's interview on Radio 2 with that "Hook Handed Bastard Abu Hamser" some 8-10 years before the Iraq war in 2003?
Hamser said "He will not rest till Sharia Law is recognized in the UK and the "Flag of Islam" is flying over the "Houses of Parliament" yet PC arseholes "ConvenientlyOverlook" him and that other "Hate Preacher Choudary" who openly declare "Holy War Jihad" while happily take benefits that we all have contributed towards.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QShdd0BDEZc

I'm not really sure what relevance that has to this argument.
He's a horrible fucker and definitely someone who doesn't empathise with the suffering of others. I'm sure he was delighted with the events of last week in London and what is going on in Mosul.
 

Sky Blue Kid

Well-Known Member
I'm not really sure what relevance that has to this argument.
He's a horrible fucker and definitely someone who doesn't empathise with the suffering of others. I'm sure he was delighted with the events of last week in London and what is going on in Mosul.

To me the relevance is the difference of cold blooded murder and accidental death in the confines of a war situation.
 

Liquid Gold

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Kid, what do you think about the marine that was jailed for breaking the Geneva convention by murdering an unarmed man. Surely he's a terrorist?
 

SkyblueBazza

Well-Known Member
No genuinely. What is a terrorist? I suppose someone who wants to cause terror. But that's not the reason the media use the term is it? Or is it?

The media coverage seems to have encouraged Isis to claim the attack. Seems strange
It helps BBC in particular to justify spending a disproportionate amount of time on one story.
On the radio, while in the car, I heard a reporter talking with an MP who was apparently just on his way out of Parliament, but sent back...the reporter excitedly asked him "So you were among the first in the building to hear about the attack?"
"errrrm...I guess so yes"
"How did that feel knowing that?"
I don't know what the answer was as I was too busy ranting at the fckwit of a question.
BBC breakfast was the presented from the actual scene (or as near as possible) the next morning.

How to desensitise the nation.

...onwards & upwards PUSB
 

Sky Blue Kid

Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Kid, what do you think about the marine that was jailed for breaking the Geneva convention by murdering an unarmed man. Surely he's a terrorist?

Taliban and Al Qaeda have never broken the Geneva convention then? Have you ever been shot at then in the split second of taking aim to retaliate see the the opposition throw down his gun and turn his back on you(Geneva Convention states no shooting opposition in the back) Yes! those bastards know how to "Play the terms of engagement card" but don't give a fuck if you are asleep if they kill you!!!.... You are allowed to fire a warning shot at "Dickers" that are setting you and your "Brothers" up for a "MASS MURDER" but not hit them!.... Just for youLG. Sergeant Alex Blackman is being set free for the Manslaughter of the Taliban insurgent.
 

covcity4life

Well-Known Member
i have not commented on it 1 way or the other, you said the poster didnt have a clue. so its on you to tell it how it is
 

covcity4life

Well-Known Member
ahh so what your saying is if terrorists do it so can our soldiers..........but if they do they are not terrorists.

alrighty then
 

Sky Blue Kid

Well-Known Member
ahh so what your saying is if terrorists do it so can our soldiers..........but if they do they are not terrorists.

alrighty then

Ahh so you're saying you don't give a fuck if one of our soldiers are killed as long as those poor little defenseless Taliban are ok?
Alfuckingrighty then.
 

hill83

Well-Known Member
Blackman shot the Afghan, who had been seriously injured in an attack by an Apache helicopter, in the chest at close range with a 9mm pistol before quoting a phrase from Shakespeare as the man convulsed and died in front of him.

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

Blackman then turned to comrades and said: "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere, fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention."

The execution was filmed by a camera mounted on the helmet of Marine B.

Marines B and C were alleged to have been "party to the killing" and "encouraged and assisted" Marine A in committing the murder but they were cleared.

I'm not offering my opinion on this in any way. But the above quote is what happened.
 

Sky Blue Kid

Well-Known Member
I'm not offering my opinion on this in any way. But the above quote is what happened.

All respect to you hill83.


Perhaps this might show the other side of the coin.........
They agreed that Sgt Blackman was suffering from an 'abnormality of mental functioning' at the time of the killing

The 'key issue' was whether it was a 'cold-blooded execution' as the court martial board concluded on the evidence before them, or whether it was the result of 'a substantial impairment of his ability to form a rational judgement or exercise self-control arising from his adjustment disorder'.

Finding that the latter was the case, the court said that 'a person with such a disorder can appear to act rationally'.

They said: 'In this case, examples include moving the body out of the sight of the camera, waiting for the helicopter to move away, stating that he was not be shot in the head and other similar comments ...'

The panel of five judges, headed by Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, said: 'However, that type of planning is quite distinct from the effect of an adjustment disorder which can affect the ability to form a rational judgement about the need to adhere to standards and the moral compass set by HM Armed Forces and putting together the consequences to himself and others of the individual actions he is about to take.

'In our view, the adjustment disorder had put the appellant in the state of mind to kill, but the fact that he acted with apparent careful thought as to how to set about the killing had to be seen within the overarching framework of the disorder which had substantially impaired his ability to form a rational judgement.

'There can be little doubt that on 15 September 2011, the appellant was angry and vengeful and had a considerable degree of hatred for the wounded insurgent.

'On prior deployments, similar emotions had been controlled by him. The appellant's decision to kill was probably impulsive and the adjustment disorder had led to an abnormality of mental functioning that substantially impaired his ability to exercise self-control.

'In our judgement the adjustment disorder from which he was suffering at the time also impaired his ability to exercise self-control.'
 

Nick

Administrator
Who says shuffle off this mortal coil? Also, why would you say he had just broken the geneva convention?

I can get the emotional side of it and to be honest I'd probably do the same, but why make it so obvious on camera?
 

rob9872

Well-Known Member
I think being a squaddie saves many from turning to crime in the first place so only natural there will be some complete mercenaries among them. I guess in times of war you need those kind of characters (I could never do it) but that doesn't make what he did ok. Why wouldn't they destroy footage though? Soldier B is a gwaaaaaaasssss :)
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
I would struggle to see justice if I was the family of the person murdered by the marine but absolutely accept that asking someone to take part in war and expecting rational behaviour is a big ask. The eventual conclusion of the case seems fair to a laymen like me
 

Sky Blue Kid

Well-Known Member
I would struggle to see justice if I was the family of the person murdered by the marine but absolutely accept that asking someone to take part in war and expecting rational behaviour is a big ask. The eventual conclusion of the case seems fair to a laymen like me


He never murdered him!
Would you also struggle to see justice for these men??????
Screen-Shot-2015-02-18-at-4.18.58-PM.png
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
He never murdered him!
Would you also struggle to see justice for these men??????
Screen-Shot-2015-02-18-at-4.18.58-PM.png
Don't understand your point sbk.

No problem at all with them receiving justice. Would you have a problem if one of them was charged with manslaughter if as a child they had watched their family die in a house fire following a bomb landing on their house from allied forces during shock and awe?

Can't really have it both ways.

The marine murdered the individual, it has been downgraded to manslaughter for the reasons referred to and I think that's fair given I have only followed the news and can understand what killing a human being does to your mind
 

Sky Blue Kid

Well-Known Member
Don't understand your point sbk.

No problem at all with them receiving justice. Would you have a problem if one of them was charged with manslaughter if as a child they had watched their family die in a house fire following a bomb landing on their house from allied forces during shock and awe?

Can't really have it both ways.

The marine murdered the individual, it has been downgraded to manslaughter for the reasons referred to and I think that's fair given I have only followed the news and can understand what killing a human being does to your mind


It seems you along with the PC brigade(Not suggesting you're one of them) really don't get my point.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top