To my mind, the BBC have taken a perverse delight in the conviction of a UK Marine for killing a Taliban terrorist. Their airwaves have been full of the pious passing judgement on the actions of this soldier and yet, as we draw closer to Remembrance Sunday, part of me remembers that war IS hell, it IS savage and brutal, and many many British soldiers showed no mercy to the Nazis when they fought for our freedom.
It sickens me to witness the MSM in general, and the BBC in particular, pretend that the Queensbury Rules exist in the theatre of war. We send our lions into battle and then deny them the right to kill before they are killed. Naturally, BBC pacifism runs deep and no time deeper than the approach to Remembrance Sunday, The Taliban do not fight in uniform, they are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions, they show no mercy to our soldiers and yet they must be delighted to see the loathing of our military that those like the BBC exude at every opportunity.
Hi David, I am sure many will disagree with you on this but I would just like to say that I agree wholeheartedly with your post ‘especially the allusion to fair play etc. Of course we must have rules of engagement but the constant talk as if this RM had walked down the high-street and capped a child is really pissing me off so too is that they call it murder – in a war zone FFS with an injured enemy probably fatally wounded as he was riddled by a helicopter gun ship. To try to give 1st Aid or take prisoner was futile so putting him out of his misery was doing everyone a favour. With roles reversed what would en the outcome? Probably torture of an injured Marine. I bet Marine B feels sick to his stomach at having caused all this (helmet cam on)
Its well know that injured Jihadis will surrender, then bide their time till some soldiers come near to offer assistance. They then blow themselves up, killing the soldiers..
It is this sort of total disregard for the Geneva convention or even common morality, that eventually leads some soldiers to snap.
What is really amazing is the restraint that Allied soldiers have shown in the face of Jihadi barbarism.
The Geneva convention is only valid amongst those who are signatories I very much doubt if the taliban are!!!
And that is the reason why Gitmo came into existence.
It was hardly Mai Lai, and all the solder was doing was what solders have been doing for centuries, killing the enemy. In my opinion he did us a favour, one less asylum seeker to worry about.
Damn right. He should receive a medal and a promotion, as should the police officer that made Mark Duggan good.
This solder was asked to do Tony Blair’s dirty work. It is Blair that should be in the dock.
Blair, Brown, Campbell. Three traitors who have all been complicit in acts of treason, including being the architects of the on-going invasion, get off scot free, aided and abetted by the BBC. Meanwhile, a soldier who puts his life on the line for us everyday rids us of a death cult scumbag who would kill us all if he could gets sent to jail because he “murdered” him. The hypocrisy makes me sick.
in a war zone FFS with an injured enemy probably fatally wounded as he was riddled by a helicopter gun ship.
Does anyone see the irony in this; an Apache fills this guy with holes in an attempt to KILL HIM but the RM is tried and found guilty of killing him.
Having been involved with troops on ops I have witnessed the adrenaline pumping as they ready themselves for the “final conflict”. There is also the mental stuff pushed by the officer class to ensure their men are ready for the task mentally and physically. No one outside anyone who has walked in the shoes of these men is in a position to judge.
This whole sorry affair reminds me of this rather good movie.
Breaker Morant, excellent fim……like the closing comment, ‘Shoot straight you bastards, don’t mess it up’…….chutzpah.
Superb film, one I’ve leant to friends to encourage them to watch.
Bryan Browns finest career moment.
I read somewhere, can’t vouch for it, that the Royal Marines had recently come across a Taliban victim whose body parts had been hung from a tree as a deliberate taunt.
Ideally, he shouldn’t have done it but I’m surprised it was only one.
Long way to go before the Marines can compete with the NHS.
makes yer blood boil, sick of hearing about it
yep! … of course, the al bbc narrative on loop ad nauseum
BBC take note …There is no time for overpaid lazy latte drinking nation haters thank you very much, not in Afghanistan.
You try to assist these thankless reprobate, lawless wonders, like the 2 soldiers who got shot in the back
only last week by the “policeman” they were patrolling with? … yes!,
… how many bloody days of outrage from the BBC? for that? eh!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2487867/RAF-policeman-grins-alongside-rogue-Afghan-policeman-opened-comrade-moments-later.html
Marine guilty of Afghanistan murder,
Afghan ‘execution’ audio released,
Marines ‘had shooting cover-up plan,
Marines murder trial highlights battlefield rules
Marines trial explored battle rules
How often are captured enemies killed?
Has case harmed marines’ reputation?
on and on it goes
By the way has Cameron finished apologising and handwringing yet?
Willy Vague would probably have opened his mouth
too, to firmly insert both feet, but silly me I forgot, he s too busy selling Israel down the river, by throwing concessions at Iran, too blind to see where that will get him.
Well this is a tough one. The soldiers themselves rightly pointed out on the tape that it was nothing the enemy wouldn’t have done to them given half a chance, and of course that is correct.
However, this was an NCO, who knew the rules, and even mentioned he had broken the Geneva convention within seconds of committing the act, so a better question might be what earth was that man doing in that role at that time, and why would three Royal Marines besmirch the reputation of one of the finest Regiments in the world? And wait until possible observers flew off. And discuss where to put the bullet for plausible deniability. And film it. And write a diary entry all about it.
Although the sentence has been deferred for psychiatric reports that did not form any part of the defence case, so the NCO considered himself, and certainly sounded, calm and lucid.
I remember when Saving Private Ryan was released there was controversy that a scene early in the movie showed US troops killing prisoners. It was challenged by those who were not there, but I certainly never heard a voice raised in denial by any of the men who landed that day.
I think sometimes we like to pretend our guys are noble and upstanding, when those two traits are probably surplus to requirements when landing on Omaha or Sword in a hail of lead. The time for nobility is after you’ve killed the bastards.
Of course the Beeb made the most of it, that’s what they do. Behead someone on a London street in broad daylight, and its poor form. Kill an enemy combatant in combat, but in custody, Hell and damnation.
The problem is the Beeb are technically correct, albeit appallingly pious, and the three soldiers – two of whom seem to me to be very, very lucky indeed to have walked free – were provably, irredeemably in the wrong, and were even good enough to provide their own evidence.
The best way to stop the liberal media using such events to advance their agenda is not to do it in the first place. I don’t know how long this guy will get, but if you commit such acts wearing that uniform and that insignia, you deserve the consequences.
I share most of your sentiments about this troublesome case. I keep coming back to the fact that war is a sh*tty business in which an awful lot of sh*tty things happen. I’m reading a pretty hefty history of WWII at the moment and it’s perfectly obvious that men who, in any other circumstance, would doubtless be fine, upstanding members of society, sometimes behave abysmally when under the stress of permanent combat.
Does the Royal Marine in this circumstance deserve life imprisonment? I’m not so sure. Who of us would step into his shoes, his uniform, walk where he walked every day under constant threat of sudden death from a hidden enemy (themselves no respecter of human rights)..? Which one of us could say we might not have reacted in exactly the same way in the same situation?
I know I can’t.
I agree. Of course it is difficult. There is little sympathy here for the guy killed in this incident. I certainly feel none whatsoever.
I remember seeing a German documentary a few years ago where they interviewed an ex-Ukrainian police officer who had bedn “seconded” for want of a better word, into the SS to start the executions of civilians as the Germans advanced.
He’d done twenty yesrs in a gulag for his crimes. As he calmly described the vodka fueled shooting of women, children and the elderly, the young woman interviewing him interrupted him in exasperation with the question we would all ask: “How could you do that?”
His unemotional answer was chilling. “You don’t know. You weren’t there.”
Of course, he was right. We don’t know what we are capable of. We like to think we wouldn’t, but until the day it happens we can only hope.
We weren’t there with thise three soldiers, we don’t know how many conrades they had lost, or in what circumstances. The only thing we do know is that it should not have happened.
Just as a matter of interest, may I ask where you served? You have such decided views on this event that you must have had some experience, if not of this particular war zone, another maybe?
I would be interested in how you felt, after a couple of tours – what makes you say that such an action should never have happened?
My question is posed because there is no way that you could possible imagine the circumstances, the heart rate, the sick gut feeling or any other combat emotion and experience that would qualify you to make a judgement on this man’s actions unless you had seen service in similar conditions. If you have not, may I respectfully suggest that your opinions would be best kept to yourself.
Should I have been in this man’s position I would have done exactly the same – and without hesitation.
Michele, you and Milverton are saying almost the same thing, don’t let one phrase “it should not have happened” confuse that. The ‘boys’ on the ground go through things 99% of people never ever have to; I also know for a fact that some units actively promote ‘murder’ (please, I only use that phrase due to the reporting and disgraceful verdict in this case) i.e. you burst in on a group of terrorists in Afghanistan who immediately hold up British passports saying ‘you can’t kill us’…they won’t live long enough to finish that sentence – something I am 100% in agreement with. The problem is the talking/webcam/social media afterwards…the only way is to turn to your colleagues after disarming the subjects and say “what’s that?”, pointing away; when they turn double tap the ‘British’ shits: nobody ‘sees’ anything, several enemy dead, no convictions.
Well hopefully you’d be in nick for it too.
You are so courageous you don’t even have the balls to identify yourself.
I have an opinion. Is that not allowed here? Are you a moderator, or just yet another ex-squaddie with anger issues? I’m sad to hear someone who infers he was in the British Army, one of the greatest institutions in the world, would just break the law as he saw fit.
Perhaps this case, and your reply, indicates that along with the politicians, the media, the police, and the medical profession, the armed services are up shit creek too.
I’m very glad you no longer have a gun if you think things like the Geneva convention don’t apply to you. You sound like a nut.
No offence…
‘You are so courageous you don’t even have the balls to identify yourself.’
May I ask to whom you are replying?
It’s just that most possibly current/ex-military seem to be roughly on the same page, but only differing on matters of degree. Or levels of robustness in making their case.
The written word often does not allow for tonality, so it can be hard to assess when someone is being serious or just winding up. And when accusations (especially on sanity, or ability to post, which have a sadly familiar ring) start flying the chances of anything sensible frankly cease as an option.
I value here any input from those who know what the reality of such incidents is.
However, I also have learned that what a person claims, or who they claim to be, may well be accurate, or not.
Asking posters who they are, or telling them who they are or are not, often seems a less than productive exercise when avatars and names are easy to acquire and post under.
The result here seems conflict and derailment.
Now, who on a blog that’s meant to be about BBC reporting standards does this detour serve?
There can be no doubt this action was wrong, was caught, and the law of the land served. I see great precedent for clemency given the mitigating circumstances, and hope the soldier in question is offered every help. Whether that happens from the calibre of military leadership promoted under the equally woeful new political pondlife we now have is another matter.
What matters to me is the BBC reaction.
Are they ‘reporting’ and then ‘moving on’ as they seem so keen to do on other ‘news’ where there is a sensible conclusion or community cohesion needs calming?
Or are they obsessively scratching a sore still, handing vast propaganda value to those who would endanger this country, and who we would turn to protect us?
I read it that Milverton was replying to Michele.
Just wait to compare sentences with Lee Rigby’s murderers.
The Geneva convention is part of what sets us civilised human beings from the Taliban savages.
I can’t bring myself to condone this, I fully support our armed forces but this sort if thing is wrong and a huge own goal.
What this soldier did was wrong, there is no ifs or buts, or the Taliban are worse. The fact remains a man who should have received medical treatment was murdered and he got what he deserved.
But, and a big, if taking this man’s life is such a Human rights crime (As it is) why do we not deport war criminals with more blood on their hands to the countries demanding them.
Until we treat everybody the bloody same for murder :
A fat ugly slag who allowed her infant son to be tortured to death getting released after a few years prison time where (and get this) she had gone up to 22 Stone in weight.)
A failed asylum seeker who kills a child by driving illegally cannot be deported due to his human rights and get this walked free from court.
The NHS and its disgusting death rate and not one person is held accountable in fact the cunt in charge of West Midlands Strategic Health Authority not only got a massive payoff (£400,00 , but a £1 million pension)
As I keep on saying the left love to pick on only those it disposes anybody else is treated as a hero.
Nobody denies the actions of this soldier were wrong. He took the man’s life when he could have tried to save it. However can any of us know how we might react if regularly placed in similar dreadful situations? These fellows aren’t fighting wars from the comfort of their armchairs. They are in mortal danger, against an unscrupulous enemy, ever day and will have witnessed horrors most of us can hardly imagine. The left, and the BBC in particular, seem to be pious and vindictive.
Of course the Beeb have to report this tragic tale. Just a shame they weren’t quite as vigilant with the Muslim paedo gangs…
When you fight war – you fight it simply: quick and dirty: kill the enemy before they kill you. Any ‘rules’ serve simply to force you to fight with a hand behind your back as the enemy aren’t playing by them.
In theory any person plotting ‘terrorist’ attacks in the UK or elsewhere should simply be shot as a spy. (Enemy combatant not in military clothing).
Or aiding/abetting them.
Morning Mr.Rusbridger.
you could understand a little bit this murder charge standing if this victim was some goat herder ploughing his field for a bit of corn to feed his family,but this young marine was not in that position was he,he was fighting brutal terrorists who dont think twice about beheading a 11 year old girl who took some sweets of a british soldier or hanging some poor old women because she forgot to wear her niqab,but have you noticed something about the bbc and radio 5 live over the covering of this case,not only was he not a terorist according to them,he was neither a militant as well,the bbc have made up a new word to describe this taliban killier,he is now a insurgent,yes a insurgent,what is all that about,anyway,i hope this young marine appeals against this politically motivated murder charge and wins and left alone by the bbc and radio 5 presenters who have never fought in a war zone with brutal terrorists to live out his life in peace and quiet with his family after putting his neck on the line serving this country.
And the Westgate shooters were ‘militants’.
When I were a lad, ‘militants’ were miners who fought with police, but not (as far as I recall) with the intention of ever killing one.
I wonder who the BBC would define as being a terrorist.
The American government ,but only when the Republicans are in office and the Israeli government, whenever they try to defend the lives of their citizens
How many of us have been in a situation like that?
The marine was in a war zone dealing with an enemy who is dressed in civilian clothes and shows no mercy to his own people never mind an opposing army and who slit the throats or behead any prisoner they capture.
Would any of us here have acted any differently?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2493892/Taliban-hung-mates-body-parts-trees-months-hell-Horrific-testimony-Marines-fighting-Death-Valley.html..we need say no more,when are these murderers of british troops going to go on trial you liberals and the bbc
One aspect of this case is that the marine sergeant was on his sixth tour of duty. The forces are now so small thanks to our pathetic politicians, such as David “aid superpower” Cameron, that the same men have to do multiple tours, in an environment where death or crippling injury can happen at any second. Six tours is three years. I doubt many combat soldiers in WWII actually did three years at the front, but that is what this marine did. His political masters put him in a situation which would shred the nerves of anyone, and then condemn him to life imprisonment for killing a man who a few minutes before had been trying to kill him. Believe me when I say that killing a wounded enemy on the battlefield, either to put him out of his misery or to avoid the disruption of dragging him to the rear, and thus weakening the forces on patrol, was far from uncommon in past wars. Any soldier found doing it would have been given stern words of admonition, but the idea that a court of law in England would treat the soldier as if he was a common criminal who had murdered an innocent person would have seemed an absurd fantasy. And yet here we are, in Britain in 2013, where the absurd is now the norm, and if you can believe three absurd things before breakfast they make you Prime Minister.
Thank you for your post. I have spoken with veterans of WW1, WW2, and those who have fought in other conflicts. They all confirmed what you have posted and much more besides. How our brave forces personnel deserve our grateful thanks.
If only our politicians had half their courage.
Next time boys, shoot the politicians, who even make you wear helmet-mounted cameras to catch you committing “atrocities”.
One is reminded of Mike Harding’s tribute to his father (Lancaster crew killed before Harding was born).
Bombers Moon is as haunting a song as one is likely to hear and contains the lines:
‘Old men sending young men out to die, young men dying for a politicians lies’
I’m no pacifist pinko, but those lines seem to resonate more with todays wars more than past conflicts.
Just to confirm my father, a WW2 vet, served 3 years on the front line fighting mostly German elite units and his “rest period” was being withdrawn to the rear of the battle for a week. He left his home in April 1942 and returned home after the German surrender in 1945.
True, but I think that would have been more than the norm. Most of the army was kept back in Britain until D-Day, and the war in North-West Europe then lasted eleven months. Some units served longer, the Italian campaign lasted for two years. But this particular marine had served for three years in a counter-insurgency operation, with no front line, and no enemy in uniform, where he could be shot or blown up any second. I would not like to do that for one day, he had to do for more like a thousand. I would not like to judge him for what he did.
The worst is yet to come. This poor Taliban freedon fighters Human Rights compensation claim will probably be in the millions.
His numerous wives and army of children will be unable to feed themselves now their provider can no longer grow opium to flood our streets with heroin
Think of world where your next step, let a lone day, could be your last. Where the Afghan’s you break bread with would happily shoot you in the face for little or no reason. A place where the population, if they are not trying to kill you, are trying to rip you off for every penny. A war without reason or end. A situation where those that sent you there sit happily at home bailing out their banker chums with our billions whilst at the same time they plan to throw you and your fellows on the scrapheap.
And finally. And when you return from this filthy, dust ridden $#!THOLE, and you once more walk the green and pleasant land, you cannot help but notice that the place is increasingly looking like the self same dust, filthy, $#!THOLE you just left.
Our troops are there to defend the UK, her interests and people. No one has explained to me how being in Afghanistan or any other similar $#!THOLE helps to defend the UK, her interests and her people.
I long for the day that our Army mutiny and stage a coup with sympathetic officers and eliminate every stinking MP, rid the country of the more useless immigrants and most muslims, then find wise heads to start afresh. Could take years but far better than what we have now, the Left would be trounced.
When the left leaning liberal elite have achieved their aim of destroying the fabric of this country, and we no longer have military units like the Royal Marines to defend us, they will be screaming the loudest when the enemy comes knocking.
I suspect that they will be the ones doing the knocking
Modern lefty’s are all cultural marxists.
They are destroying society so they will get their one world marxist government.
They know how to destroy society but not what to replace it with.
Maybe they is some undiscovered Gramsci writings about what to replace modern society with to help the libtards..
Please can someone explain to me the difference between a Royal Marine, in the heat of battle, putting a bullet in the head of a member of the Taliban, and a US Air Force operative who launches a drone, and fires a missile at four people in a taxi, killing them and perhaps innocent bystanders.
I’d say the Royal Marine, despite what happened, was a foot soldier on the ground, in hostile territory, in constant fear of attack from a mostly unseen, cowardly enemy, whereas the US Air operative piloting a drone by remote control from thousands of miles away enjoys what Roger Waters (of Pink Floyd) once described as ‘the bravery of being out of range’.
I think I know which of the two I’d consider the bravest.
No. one gets hung out to dry by his own government, is prosecuted and then imprisoned, whereas nothing happens to the other. Different standards? No just different ways of murder.
Yep, he was following orders, big difference. The marines should have realised how incriminating the video was and destroyed it, bet they regret that now. Hope they give a lighter sentence later to the marine. See my post above about a coup, it cannot come soon enough.
Again, I find myself pondering areas of precedent.
If public servants bearing the badge of our nation are to be held to account in the most intimate of detail for decisions made in the heat of the moment, so be it.
But what about consistency in accountability?
It might be interesting to have ‘helmet cam’ footage ready for public review across the board (possibly excluding Evan Davis for various reasons).
Imagine having an insight into production meetings deciding who gets invited in… Or editorial ones on what gets left out? Maybe management calls on who gets paid what. Or Trust oversight on what, despite some inconvenient facts, was always being ‘got about right’.
If some poor guy dealing with the fog of war gets put under the spotlight, then why not the vast array of those presuming to comment and report upon it.
The public has a right to know.
Odd then, that all of a sudden shutters come down, exceptions and exclusions apply.
Maybe not always life and death, at least so directly, but the potential via abuse of propaganda can actually have an impact on a much grander scale.
So why does the BBC get to stand in intimate judgement, but get to hide behind an array of reasons when spotlights turn on what it gets up to?
Luckily, as Lord Patten has not been shy to remind anyone, the BBC does not get held to account.
What about BBC/Guardian accountability in releasing British Intelligence information into the public domain?
It may well be worthwhile here to think through what should be the best way of dealing with the enemy we are faced with.
.
1. We have the leaders who are seeking power and glory for themselves within the Islamic mindset under the flag of the Islamic cause.
.
2. We have brainwashed beings who have been convinced by those leaders that the route they follow is most beneficial to themselves, in which they can perpetrate any kind of behaviour to further the ‘Islamic’ cause – the pawns.
.1
To deal with 1 first – my present thinking is that until those leaders realize that the only thing that will happen as a result of their ambitions is a massive assault against themselves in which they will lose their lives and any hope of enjoying fruits of their schemes.
How we deal with 2, is an important factor for success in this.
.2
Ideally we have to try and confront this mindset and show just how and why it was possible to brainwash them – both from the perspective of their mentality and our own. By also highlighting just how their leaders are using them for their own ends, and how ridiculous it is for them to think they could possibly be serving any God by following the tenets of those leaders,would help limit the numbers willing to serve them. Hopefully it would get many seeing a better way to live within their ‘faith’, or abandon it altogether.
.
The hypocrisy of their justifications and claims must be shown publicly and clearly, and condemned fully.
.
So that they know that our reasoning is not based on weakness, they may have to be made aware that if necessary we will launch all necessary power to kill them.
As Leonard Cohen put it – ‘I will kill you if I must; I will help you if I can, but with the addition that if I suspect that you believe that you are suckering me – as I know your mindset justifies, then I will kill you.
Much fewer people on all sides will die if our societies engaged in this stance than the idiotic appeasement we continue to see daily.
Thoughts please.
Miss Bangernofski will be carrying the standard for her detachment tomorrow, I am so proud of her. Late Grandfather Royal Engineers and Uncles in Royal Marines. BBC could not begin to understand this.
72 virgins and rivers flowing with booze.
Al beeb should be happy for him.
Send the lawers to the battlefield (starting with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.)
I’m sorry if I offend the PC brigade but I feel I have to cut the crap about this marine doing wrong and say to him well done and may they take out many more Teleban and their likes by which ever way possible.
100,000 Christians are butchered every year by the Taleban and their likes yet al beeb say f*ck all about it yet when one terrorist is taken out it makes headlines day after day.
Excuse my French but I find the BBC absolutely f*cking sickening.
As our troops retire from this hell hole the left and many in the MSM will speak of a western invasion that was defeated by the Taliban. Stories of how the Afghans have never been defeated by an invading army, and how our soldiers disgraced themselves. Blame the politicians; the army should never have gone in to win hearts and minds, they should have been unleashed on these savages, the poppy fields should have been radiated, denying the enemy its source of income.
I have to express my admiration for Milverton’s phrase about the BBC above – “technically correct, but appallingly pious”; bang on the head. We can’t expect to give young men a uniform, a gun, training and the experience of any war, especially the current Afghan one, and not expect things like this to happen. Anybody and everybody Knows this is going to happen as soon as they start slavering for war. It always has happened and it always will. It wasn’t exactly in cold blood, either. It was a battlefield situation, even if they weren’t in immediate danger from him. The real criminals are the politicians who send young men to environments like that for no discernible reason; the blokes in suits who never even do a good day’s work in a factory or office, let alone experience the wars they start; the ones whose own children wouldn’t be sent within a thousand miles of a war zone anymore than they would be sent to the bog-standard comprehensives they’ve designed for the rest of us; the ones who just sit back and make millions from their memoirs. You don’t need me to supply the names. These marines are their victims too.
“The real criminals are the politicians who send young men to environments like that for no discernible reason”
And who fail to provide proper support – in numbers, equipment, air cover, whatever, because they want the political benefit without the expense of doing it properly.
Killing on a battlefield is also a far cry from torturing prisoners in the relative safety of a prison. I can’t say how I’d react in their situation – I suspect I’d probably be worse.
Why the West is powerless against Islamic violence
Well, that’s simple. You are fighting by the queen’s rules with a bare knuckle fighter. You can’t win from an enemy that commit any atrocity by carefully fighting according to Geneva rules. You’ll need to adapt to their strategies because for sure they aren’t going to do so by yours.
http://petrossa.me/2013/01/19/why-the-west-is-powerless-against-islamic-violence/
http://thelunaticarms.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/multiculturalism.jpg
That is a great cartoon – unfortunately OBL’s words and the cartoonist’s drawing is very much the truth.
Could someone please publish an address or website where people can express their support directly to Marine A?
One less Taliban commander to come to Britain and claim asylum because he is fleeing from the Taliban; claim his free house, flying lessons etc. Then if he’s finally rumbled, claim the British tortured him at some point in the past. Get Cherie Blair or her Matrix Chambers legal firm to defend him at our expense or why not get that man/woman Gareth Peirce and put in for another wad of cash.
Reminds me of this case a few decades ago where a border guard in Northern Ireland had a bunch of teenager joyriders drive straight through the gates and he instinctively shot at them, killing one of them, and was given life in prison (I think it was overturned on appeal). In both cases the men in question were wrong but they weren’t cold-blooded murderers, they were trained soldiers paid to protect the public and exercised incorrect but understandable judgement towards either idiotic or aggressive parties in exceptional circumstances. The people who jump on their backs make me sick, they have no intention of fighting the good fight themselves and just want to look trendy in sticking up for the indefensible morons who put themselves in those positions to begin with.
We shouldn’t be surprised that the known Islamic/Taliban sympathisers at the BBC have taken this stance.
‘the BBC have taken this stance’
‘Stance’ being an apposite, operative word when it comes to what the BBC used to ‘report’ but now enhances or shuts down, depending on a collection on factors.
Only recently in Obama’s brave new America a ‘white if you looked hard enough’ man was vilified up and down for killing (in what a jury found a tragic but not guilty manner) a young man who could have been the President’s son.
Not long after a disturbed lady who could have been his sister tried to crash (literally) the President’s crib, and paid a hefty price.
This latter did not occupy much BBC airtime.
The difference in intensity and duration are hard not to view as being governed by some kind of ‘stance’ within BBC Editorial.
Of course FOI exclusions will mean no questions need be answered on what this may have been.
Well said David Vance. An excellent post. The Taliban are animals who act like barbarians from the Dark Ages… If I had witnessed these animals hang body parts of mates on trees, then I’d treat them accordingly, with absolutely no MERCY given!
I find it truly nauseating how the BBC, in its international trendy ‘impartialness’ mode, treat these excrement like they’re human beings and noble opponents deserving of respect. They should be executed on sight and the world would be a better place without them.
The army has different views, amongst the chief of staff, regarding the leniency of sentence given to Marine A. The BBC is quite happy to print the “anti-lenient” side today, on Remembrance Day.
When it comes to acts of murder by members of our army the BBC returns to a Victorian stance. If it’s ethnic murderer Z committing a murder as a civilian we (the public) have to be reminded that imprisonment should be about rehabilitation and that murderer Z must not be allowed to rot in hell for too many years.
David Vance surpasses his usual digusting and meritless posts. And how depressing yet predictable that the support for him is overwhelming here amoung the comments.
Where is this perverse delight you assert? You provide no evidence.
Is the Deputy Commandant General of the Royal Marines, Brigadier Bill Dunham, also taking a perverse delight when he describes it as a ‘Truly shocking and appalling aberration’:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24873039
It’s not the Queensbury Rules that exist in war, but there are rules. It’s part of what makes some us civilised. You however are an enemy of civilisation as are the denizens of this dank corner of the internet.
This marine has not been denied ‘the right to kill before they are killed’ – the injured Afghan insurgent was unarmed and mortally wounded, lying in a field. They were in full knowledge of what they were doing.
Here’s a reminder for you:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10432095/Recording-of-Royal-Marines-accused-of-murdering-Taliban-prisoner-released.html
Gen Sir Mike Jackson: “It’s not about whether the Taliban do or do not adhere to whatever set of rules, if any. It is about the standards which apply to the British armed forces which are drawn from the Geneva Convention.”
And to think David Vance stood for election in a democracy and claims to want an impartial broadcaster!?!
You’ve obviously never served in battle against vile scum like the Taliban who eat your brains and rip out the hearts of the injured. If it were up to the likes of you we’d be speaking German and reading the Koran. You typical middle class response, which is easy to make over a nice coffee in the local trendy coffee bar with your sanctimonious craven friends, is nauseating but predictable in its naivety.
Ooooh, it’s satire, but not as we know it, not as we know it, Jim.
🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁
And executing the unarmed and injured makes you different from them how?
We didnt need to do that to beat the Nazi’s. And I’m not sure the Taleban were about to invade the Uk before we started shooting our prisoners.
I’m not working class, but
Klaus says:
November 10, 2013 at 4:18 pm
‘I’m not working class, but..
Klaus says:
November 10, 2013 at 4:23 pm
‘I’m not Middle class, but…
You seem to be struggling with what you are not.
The field on what you might be is narrowing at least.
Whilst it may serve to weave the strawman that summary execution of non-coms has suddenly become a default desire of everyone not balancing atop a knackered high horse, it has little to do with the BBC reporting.
As has been clearly outlined by those aware of the site’s point and purpose, with URLs and quotes, the national broadcaster seems a lot more keen to ‘understand’ the motivations of some in war than it has been to report, acknowledge and move on from those of armed forces serving this country pushed beyond any sane limits. And once it moves from reporting to propaganda serving those who would wish the UK harm, accounts need to be held. The BBC is internally, institutionally unable to do so, leaving necessary questions to others, whilst dodging the most bizarre attempts at distraction.
From your latest choice of name from a very dubious collection it is rather clear the intention is to taunt and provoke, pleasing only the Tricoteuses all too easily attracted by such things.
Read the OP again.
Well we hanged 16 and shot one spy – who were presumably unarmed and uninjured – during the second world war.
Why did we do that? Why not let them go free?
And the Taliban may not be invading the UK in a d-day esque military invasion but there seem to be a good many ‘sleepers’ under MI5 and MI6 supervision.
Sorry to disillusion you, “Klaus” but that’s exactly what DID happen happen in WW2.
Many of our troops, along with the Yanks, shot the likes of the S.S. on sight after seeing what these Teutonic Knights did to their prisoners. It’s well documented. A good many S.S. troopers never reached a an Allied P.O.W. camp.
A brutal war brutalises its participants, no matter how much the pacifists and “progressives” in our society want to see it in terms of a game of lawn croquet.
It’s part of what makes some us civilised.
Oh, dear. Hopefully you and Klaus will not hold back in your condemnation of the US President’s continued killing in cold blood via drones of various people from afar. Who is more civilized, then?
Ah, a common mistake here. You seem to presume I have a particular opinion on Obama’s drones.
I was commenting on David Vance’s advocacy of the cold blooded murder of the unarmed, and dying.
Well if those combatants are dying,what’s the problem with putting them out of their misery? Is it better to leave them in agony as they pathetically try to stuff their innards back into their shattered stomachs?
If you’ve never been involved in close quarter combat or seen and smelt grisly death up close and personal, and seen your mates lying in the exaggerated postures of the violently done to death, then you have no right to criticise those who have.
Actually, Klaus, if you read my comment more thoughtfully, you’ll realize that I’d guessed that already. Which is the point.
“. . . the unarmed, and dying. ”
So you’re OK with them not just dying but, dying slowly. Putting someone’s out of their misery is considered cruel to you is it ?
And as for ‘unarmed’, errr ? Sorry but two points:
1) How do you know this assuming that you were not there.
2) If he was dying as you suggest, then someone must have shot him first, which means they have convicted the wrong person.
I am neither going to condone or condemn this action. What I do condemn, is that today, of all days, some very senior politicians laid wreath’s of remembrance for those that made the ultimate sacrifice. War, by its very nature, is State Sanctioned murder. These Marines’ are trained to kill for and on our behalf. To make this legitimate in the eyes of the law, the State must first sanction them into war. ie The Politicians’ sent them there.
Think about it. The Marine and the Taliban terrorist might never have met had those in authority not sanctioned this. And what is more, those self same people, including Generals’, wanted to start another war in Syria.
i think we are locking up the wrong people and our erstwhile State Funded Propaganda Unit might do well to reflect on this rather than lionize a Taliban mass-murderer who killed at least a THOUSAND people, probably women and children and most certainly unarmed.
You’re right not to condone or condemn because you obviously know nothing of the story. Probably best to do that first.
Good to have you back.
And already seeing Flokkers scatter whilst shouting back which cherries they want to sample, and making the mistake of confirming they are not interested in detail around BBC professional objectivity or integrity, rather irony-free seeking generic ideological personal or political point scoring.
We didnt need to execute unarmed casualties to defeat the Nazi’s. And I don’t think the Taleban were poised to invade the UK before we started shooting our prisoners. So not sure why I’d be foced to read the Koran.
I’m not Middle class, but I think some working class might take issue with the suggestion theyre more in favour of shooting the unarmed or the dying.
This is the first British soldier to be tried for something like this for action in Afghanistan. So it seems that decision isn’t just being made over a nice coffee. But by the great majority of our troops, in battle, who behave with honour.
fuck off you sad little prick
How typical. A reasonable response in opposition to the prevailing Biased BBC worldview brings out the true face of this site’s regular clientele.
I agree that reasonable responses should be argued civilly – however you should not assume that all bloggers are the same as zoo keeper – who is either a troll or a plant but in any case is totally unfit to be a blogger on this site or any other site that prides itself in holding rational debate.
The shooting of the Afgan Taliban is the thin end of the wedge and such unwarranted behaviour in such circumstances cannot be condoned. However, and this is the crux, the fact that the military campaign in Afganistan has been under the auspicies of political control has severely handicapped its effectiveness. To many politicians it is better to lose ‘playing by the rules’ than to win ‘dirty’. That is not the case in war when it is your life and that of your comrades at stake rather than a few hundred votes in some constituencies.
Correct, obviously a plant as there are dissenting views all through this comment thread and nobody has been in the slightest bit rude; then suddenly a new name dives in with OTT insults. Clearly the regular nay-sayers will jump on it but so do the “site’s regular clientele”. Scott and Co. clearly desperate enough to need to plant their own ‘fuel’.
…suddenly a new name dives in with OTT insults.
He’s not new: doing a Google search for “zoo keeper” on biasedbbc.tv comes up with 5 pages of results.
But hey. You go ahead, stick your head in the sand, keep telling yourself that Biased BBC’s regulars are all nice, polite people, They’re not. Some may be, but there are also some sad, vicious little men who your blind eye is intent on overlooking.
…and it’s all the same zookeeper? Put the link up, I can’t get pages of comments from a single poster – or I’m searching for the wrong thing.
My version of Safari, with its unified search and address bar, doesn’t provide an easy way of doing that – but searching for [“zoo keeper” site:biasedbbc.tv] will do you right.
And no, there’s no guarantee that “zoo keeper” is the same person all the way through. That’s a crumb of comfort I’m sure you’ll cling on to long after anybody with a brain realises that it’s the same person throughout. I suppose it’s also conceivable that there are multiple people who post under the pseudonym “Guest Who” who are all dreary narcissistic solipsists who believe their meandering, pointless prose has any worth; that there are numerous “David Preiser (USA)”s who are too busy masturbating over the cold, dead corpse of Sarah Palin’s political career to worry whether the right-wing lunatic conspiracy theories they regurgitate on this site have any actual validity.
Maybe there’s a hive of George Rs somewhere, too – an enclave of racist linkbait idiots, poised to repeat anything that the Mail or Express posts about the Middle East, eastern Europe, immigration, or against whatever hyphenated version of BBC they are obsessed with this week.
Funny, whenever there’s any chance of Biased BBC regulars manning up and taking responsibility for their actions and those of their peers, they fall over themselves to find ways out of taking such responsibility. Yet when it comes to “the left”, “the gays”, or even those of us like Dez, Albaman and myself who have the temerity to stand up to their lunacy, they’re quite content to cast aspersions at the earliest opportunity with little to no basis in reality.
The sad little losers.
so its ok for you to be a sad little man being abusive, but when we do it its a mega no no.
normally, i’d say lefties can give it but cant take it, but you take it all the time dont you big boy
So you admit being abusive?
You do realise the hypocrisy in now abusive you’re being, right?
That may put another dent in the ‘gentlemanly’ rep. some were trying to push for you once.
Interesting who here has you most concerned, Scott.
There are some I feel don’t help this site’s mission, but instead you have called out two gents who, best I recall, calmly and politely share facts and URLs that itemise BBC lack of professional accuracy, objectivity and integrity.
I’m honoured to find myself targeted along with them by your nasty, petty little callouts from your Madocesque notebook.
Each time you post one of these, the only loser is the entity you associate with.
Thanks, I Googled that and here is the link:
https://www.google.com/#q=%22zoo+keeper%22+site:biasedbbc.tv
Of the 10 links on page one of four the comment is THE SAME ONE. I followed 7 of the links and didn’t find a single comment by zookeeper, presumably it finds it because the comment probably appears in the recent comments etc. Despite all the different threads and dates the zookeeper comment is the SAME ONE made on 7th Nov. I reckon he has probably made less than 10 comments in total.
Scott reverts to type proving my comments about this pathetic little creature who mistakenly believes he’s the better person.
Whatever your opinion of the BBC or these events, you have to admit, Scott has nailed these descriptions, brilliant!
‘“Guest Who” who are all dreary narcissistic solipsists who believe their meandering, pointless prose has any worth; that there are numerous “David Preiser (USA)”s who are too busy masturbating over the cold, dead corpse of Sarah Palin’s political career to worry whether the right-wing lunatic conspiracy theories they regurgitate on this site have any actual validity.’
‘you have to admit’
Do ‘I’ have to?
It’s just that getting from ‘dreary narcissistic solipsists’ to ‘meandering, pointless prose’ in one sentence, seems a bit of an irony fail right there.
On top of a body of work that has long since given up any pretence of addressing BBC failures in accuracy, objectivity or integrity, focussing near solely on bitter and twisted attacks on people who happen to have their own viewpoints beyond the BBC approved list.
But you do seem keen on compulsion, so one can see what, along with Scott, has appealed to you.
What makes you think that they are all ‘men’. And they may not be all sad, or for that matter vicious. They maybe just angry over a topic that they, for whatever reason, care passionately about. I have met many people over the internet in real life. It never ceases to amaze me how different they are to their internet persona.
I find your view very condescending, mostly towards men, and lacking any sense of real understanding and compassion. Do you really think that you are any different or better then the people you so readily criticize ?
Funny, whenever one of Biased BBC’s regulars shows their true colours, it’s always dismissed as a “false flag”, or a “troll”, or “somebody trying to bring this site into disrepute”.
Dig a little deeper, and it usually turns out to be a regular showing their true colours, while not possessing the maturity to take responsibility for their own vile behaviour.
How can you say that, do you have a trace on everyone’s IP address? Please let us know the last time in the clearly oft occurrence, if indeed “it usually turns out to be a regular”?
Just moreof the well practised obfuscation and smoke screening as per usual.
Don’t bother replying to Scott. That pathetic creature is posting only to divert the argument and disrupt the debate. He’ll offer nothing to the argument.
He’ll resort to his usual abuse before much longer.
no im not on a false flag, troll lefties/traitors, call them what you want, they just annoy me
i stand by my comments. klaus, a sad little prick.
its not so good to see leftist commenting on our armed forces when they wouldnt know which way to point a weapon. oh yeah they do, they point it at us becuase they support the enemy
Just remember that blogging is NOT risk free an that anything you write down will A) appear worse than you think it is and B) could be potentially libellous.
As for myself – I prefer rational arguments – my previous call was very mildly (I hope) pointing out the dangers you face by mouthing off.
Klaus is just showing his total ignorance of the history of WW2.
He’s arguing with a totally false premise. He should ask the diminishing number of veterans of that conflict about what happened to the many SS troops in Europe and Japanese soldiers they came across in the Far East theatre of the war.
His ignorance is astounding.
Actually, I know quite a bit about the subject.
The point I made, and the one you missed, was that we didn’t win or lose WWII because we executed prisoners.
The other suggestion was that if we didnt execute prisoners, I’d would currently be being forced to read the Koran apparently.
We didnt need to execute unarmed casualties to defeat the Nazi’s.[sic]
Who said he was unarmed? And in WWII, even though it wasn’t commonplace, prisoners were executed; it has probably happened in nigh on any major conflict, ever.
Actully it’s Nazis, plural of Nazi, rather than Nazi’s, possessed by a Nazi. Trivial point I know and you could well point out many others on this site with less than perfect grammar, but they are posting with the passion of their convictions rather then passing themselves off as dispassionate defenders of society’s morals as you see them
Here’s a question for you. Was the deliberate fire bombing of Dresden, which killed many thousands of unarmed civilians, an act of murder and against the spirit of the Geneva convention if not the letter?
When it comes to killing in war time, the issues are rarely clear cut. As General Sherman said, “War is hell.”
I thought that you may be interested in the following piece by Col. Richard Kemp . At http://tinyurl.com/mdszmq
Col. Richard Kemp | UK Affairs
I will examine the practicalities, challenges and difficulties faced by military forces in trying to fight within the provisions of international law against an enemy that deliberately and consistently flouts international law.
Do these Islamist fighting groups ignore the international laws of armed conflict? They do not. It would be a grave mistake to conclude that they do. Instead, they study it carefully and they understand it well.
They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy’s main weaknesses.
Their very modus operandi is built on the, correct, assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules.
It is not simply that these insurgents do not adhere to the laws of war. It is that they employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. Their entire operational doctrine is founded on this basis.
In Gaza, as in Basra, as in the towns and villages of southern Afghanistan, civilians and their property are routinely exploited by these groups, in deliberate and flagrant violation of any international laws or reasonable norms of civilised behaviour for both tactical and strategic gain.
Only the BBC and the useful shills for the Caliphate would use phrases like “we need to keep the moral high ground”.
The Kenyan murderers, those who butchered a British soldier beside his own barracks last May…and of course those loveable scamps that beheaded the likes of Berg, Bigley and Pearl-and shot dead Mrs Hassan…maybe see things a bit different.
The BBC and their high ground eh?…just perfect for us all to see rows of gays hanging in concert from those compliant cranes and scaffolds.
Will the BBC ever dare leave their Savile Swamps again…hah…as if!
I would point out that in past wars, an enemy who offered his surrender was taking a chance. Sometimes our troops would accept it, sometimes they would not. If they had suffered heavy losses taking a position, enemy soldiers who tried to surrender once they had killed as many British soldiers as they could got short shrift. It is not easy for a soldier to turn off the training to kill the enemy on sight. But once a prisoner has been taken, it was always considered a crime to kill him. The dangerous part for any would be PoW was the time when he was trying to surrender.
It seems to me that this Marine was being judged by an unreasonably high standard. This Taliban terrorist had been wounded, it is not clear to me if he had actually tried to surrender, and it is also clear that the Marines had decided not to accept him as a PoW. In any previous war, that would have been that. War is a harsh business, and if you think you can try and kill British soldiers, and then if you get injured, surrender to them and get the best medical treatment money can buy, then you should be in for a rude awakening, but in our system we prefer to imprison our own troops. Why anyone bothers to sign up for this nonsense is beyond me.
The BBC had a duty to report this event. However it should be under no illusion about the propaganda this provides our enemies and that it will win us no respect for being just.
However, the BBC had no duty to run a recent pro-Mau Mau radio documentary without covering Mau Mau atrocities or asking why the Mau Mau from independence through to now have had so little support in Kenya.
While we can understand why this Marine murdered an Afghan, we cannot excuse it as that would undermine thouse hundreds of thousands of our troops who did not cross that line. It is a war in Afghanistan and we should respect our enemy and fight them according to the rules of war.
-Whether our enemy respects us?
Are we talking ‘assymetical warfare’ here?
In the meantime, there are many politicos on the ‘left’ who will condemn British troops, but will not condemn Islamic jihad murderers of our troops.
In fact, there is an Islamic-‘left’ political alliance in U.K, of which BBC-NUJ is very familiar.
“Theresa May: BBC’s online presence is a threat to local democracy.
“The BBC’s dominant position on the internet is destroying local newspapers and threatens national publications, the Home Secretary has warned.”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/theresa-may-bbcs-online-presence-is-a-threat-to-local-democracy.1384178255?
DAILY MAIL COMMENT:
“Heed this plea for a Marine who cracked”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2499075/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Heed-plea-Marine-cracked.html
How many people condemning Marine A and demanding the full force of law to be imposed are pleading with the Russians to let the Greenpeace 30 off or publicising the campaign?