The K M Links Game - December 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Common Sense At Last
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Baldric. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
\\\They seem to think that because the dead man was a Taliban fighter,, and was executed after his capture, then its OK for Blackman to kill him as he did.\\\
Doesn't sound as if the Prisoner had much chance of survival anyway, Operating Theatres are in short supply in those situations
///Blackman, who was serving with Plymouth-based 42 Commando, shot his victim in the chest at close range with a 9mm pistol after the Afghan had been seriously injured in an attack by an Apache helicopter.
During the trial, Blackman, of Taunton in Somerset, said he believed the victim was already dead and he was taking out his anger on a corpse///
mikey444 - //Andy...if what you say is true, and more importantly, found and proved to be true by the Appeal Court, then I am more than happy to side with the outcome of the Court.
But what you have said is what not most others have said on this thread.
They seem to think that because the dead man was a Taliban fighter,, and was executed after his capture, then its OK for Blackman to kill him as he did.
That is the beginning of a very slippery slope. //
Indeed it is - but I can't see that anyone is using that thought as any part of the posts on this thread thus far.
I would not for one moment agree with anyone who thinks that the ethnicity of the victim, or his status as the enemy, makes one shred of difference in this case, and nor while we are in that area, does the fact that he was adjudged to have been fatally wounded already.
But I do not believe either that this point is the thrust of the thread - far less, I don't believe it has been referred to before you brought it up.
The thread is about the Appeal - I think we should remain on track and not get side-tracked into the notion that people are saying something by not saying something else.
That indeed is a slippery slope.
But what you have said is what not most others have said on this thread.
They seem to think that because the dead man was a Taliban fighter,, and was executed after his capture, then its OK for Blackman to kill him as he did.
That is the beginning of a very slippery slope. //
Indeed it is - but I can't see that anyone is using that thought as any part of the posts on this thread thus far.
I would not for one moment agree with anyone who thinks that the ethnicity of the victim, or his status as the enemy, makes one shred of difference in this case, and nor while we are in that area, does the fact that he was adjudged to have been fatally wounded already.
But I do not believe either that this point is the thrust of the thread - far less, I don't believe it has been referred to before you brought it up.
The thread is about the Appeal - I think we should remain on track and not get side-tracked into the notion that people are saying something by not saying something else.
That indeed is a slippery slope.
Baldric - //Doesn't sound as if the Prisoner had much chance of survival anyway, Operating Theatres are in short supply in those situations //
As I have just pointed out to Mikey, the status of the deceased prior to his being shot does not for one moment support the premise that the action of shooting him was correct.
Please don't derail your own thread!
As I have just pointed out to Mikey, the status of the deceased prior to his being shot does not for one moment support the premise that the action of shooting him was correct.
Please don't derail your own thread!
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - //It's not quite the same chewing over the pros and cons of what Blackman did whilst sitting behind a desk sipping coffee, rather than being there at the (dangerous) time. //
I don't think that the necessity of objective reflection after, and away, from the circumstances means that conclusions are likely to be less correct. Quite the opposite.
It is a fact, and no-one would deny, that battle situations cause behaviours that contravene legislation such as The Geneva Convention, and no-one would wish to condone or excuse such breaches which are for the protection of all protagonists.
But actions need to be seen in context, and that does necessitate objective consideration after the event and I think that is a good thing.
If the necessary authorities consider this issue properly and objectively hearing all evidence, and weighing up all factors, and then find that justice has not ben done, and a change must be made, then I doubt that anyone would argue with that decision because it was made 'whilst sitting behind a desk sipping coffee, rather than being there at the (dangerous) time.'
I am sure you would agree with that.
I don't think that the necessity of objective reflection after, and away, from the circumstances means that conclusions are likely to be less correct. Quite the opposite.
It is a fact, and no-one would deny, that battle situations cause behaviours that contravene legislation such as The Geneva Convention, and no-one would wish to condone or excuse such breaches which are for the protection of all protagonists.
But actions need to be seen in context, and that does necessitate objective consideration after the event and I think that is a good thing.
If the necessary authorities consider this issue properly and objectively hearing all evidence, and weighing up all factors, and then find that justice has not ben done, and a change must be made, then I doubt that anyone would argue with that decision because it was made 'whilst sitting behind a desk sipping coffee, rather than being there at the (dangerous) time.'
I am sure you would agree with that.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Crosswords48 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles60 mins ago
ChatterBank66 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles107 mins ago
