A good article by Chris Terrill which can apply for all those at the 'sharp end', be it Afghanistan or other such conflict.
Marine A: criminal or casualty? - Telegraph
Saward
Marine A: criminal or casualty? - Telegraph
Saward
Marine A: criminal or casualty?
- Thread starter saward
- Start date
BlackNinja66
Full Registered User
Excellent article methinks. The pressure that these guys face cant be quantified to people who don't have to operate under the cosh like this, I think he deserves all the support he can get. In my view, he's a casualty.
Carl Dowd
Longterm Registered User
Who cares what he (Chris Terrill) thinks and which Beret as a 'CIVILIAN' he has earned... He'll never fully understand! On that day, at that moment in time, Marine 'A' decied to squeeze a trigger... I do not judge him for that and what he did must be questioned. I roll with the 'General Commandant's statement' but I will also say that 'Through Adversity' and Brotherhood he will have my unequivocal support... because that's what we do..!
CD
CD
deltasierra70
Longterm Registered User
AMEN! Being shot at can change one's perspective on life and easily cloud ones judgement.
War is killing people. Those that can't or just don't want to never win. Anyone who thinks different has been in one.
Interestingly, being shot is as quick and humane a death you''ll get on a battlefield.
This should of been a case of "lose the footage and don't talk about it".
Interestingly, being shot is as quick and humane a death you''ll get on a battlefield.
This should of been a case of "lose the footage and don't talk about it".
Good post Carl.
Even though I am only ex Navy and never been in a gunfight, I agree with having your oppo`s back and the guys only have a split second to make a decision whereas other people have all the time in the world to criticise the choices. Until someone has been in that situation themselves then no one has the right to judge.
Even though I am only ex Navy and never been in a gunfight, I agree with having your oppo`s back and the guys only have a split second to make a decision whereas other people have all the time in the world to criticise the choices. Until someone has been in that situation themselves then no one has the right to judge.
Can I borrow your hammer? It seems to hit the nail dead centre.
darren7455
Longterm Registered User
We do seem to get ourselves (as in the Western World) into a real old pickle in situations like this. We send lads out to fight an enemy that can simply bear arms one minute and melt into the civilian populous when they see fit; in essence, they are afforded the luxury of picking their fights as and when they decide the odds are in their favour. Meanwhile our troops know that they will be shown no mercy if captured - they face a truly brutal and savage opposition.
Couple the above with the fact that this type of warfare starts to chip away at your own forces morale and psychological well-being (they are frustrated by a raft of war related rules and regulations of what they can and cannot do) and it will only be a matter of time before something or someone goes 'pop'. You cannot simply 'cleanse' the actions required in a war-zone: the whole process is brutal and based upon training your own men to take life in the most violent of circumstances, so is it fair to expect that our troops can simply flick a switch between kill and don't kill mode when they finally get their hands on an often invisible enemy?
Couple the above with the fact that this type of warfare starts to chip away at your own forces morale and psychological well-being (they are frustrated by a raft of war related rules and regulations of what they can and cannot do) and it will only be a matter of time before something or someone goes 'pop'. You cannot simply 'cleanse' the actions required in a war-zone: the whole process is brutal and based upon training your own men to take life in the most violent of circumstances, so is it fair to expect that our troops can simply flick a switch between kill and don't kill mode when they finally get their hands on an often invisible enemy?
The british have been fighting brutal and savage enemies for centuries. This is the first "war" where fatalities have been so low.
Are we to lower our morals and beliefs to their level simply because they're fighting a style of war which benefits them? If Afghanistan invaded England then we would be playing by the same rules! By the same token, don't certain branches of the British military dress like the enemy to gain advantage?
We are a civilized society, in that country to introduce a system of human rights and how does that greater goal work if undermine it with such behavior?
I'm pro British military but the excuse of low morale and frustration is ridiculous. You're making these guys seem weak, like they had no control.
This marine was not insane or under pressure, he just wanted to kill the guy. When you're a SGT. in the RM that's a perfectly sane concept.
What my grandfather went through during a real war is actual torment. hundreds of thousand of fellow soldiers killed. There simply is no comparison and using the fog of war and all it's effects make these guys look like pussies.
This behavior happens all the time, it will happen all the time and it's supposed to happen. Soldiers kill soldiers. But we shouldn't be recording it for digestion by people who have no concept of war and we certainly shouldn't be trying to pick apart the psychological aspects of these guys. They are highly trained to kill with "No Emotion" and i don't think either person involved lost any sleep over it.
Gorillanobaka1977
Longterm Registered User
hoofin' 
alamarahsoldier
Longterm Registered User
He's a victim, the fact that the British media showed his name and the media coverage and attention is he's a scapegoat!!
Other way around and they would address him Mr Adebolajo who was a religious soldier ACCUSSED of killing!! British media is the problem here with there coverage and the fact they don't have a clue what's it's like in a situation like that..
Unless you are in a war situation you will never understand, British soldiers in a war with ROE, there is no media coverage. We are only media country that will turn on our soldiers to make
them look politically correct! These people have no idea what the real world is like.
They would all be speaking German if we didn't step up..
Rant over..
Sent from my iPhone using Close Protection World
Other way around and they would address him Mr Adebolajo who was a religious soldier ACCUSSED of killing!! British media is the problem here with there coverage and the fact they don't have a clue what's it's like in a situation like that..
Unless you are in a war situation you will never understand, British soldiers in a war with ROE, there is no media coverage. We are only media country that will turn on our soldiers to make
them look politically correct! These people have no idea what the real world is like.
They would all be speaking German if we didn't step up..
Rant over..
Sent from my iPhone using Close Protection World
Gorillanobaka1977
Longterm Registered User
Errr , what's wrong with speaking German anyway (Gorilla ducks and waits for the incoming...)
darren7455
Longterm Registered User
Not a warzone??? I think you'd be inclined to disagree if you had the unsavoury task of bagging up one of your oppo's after he's been blown to pieces by an IED. Having been over myself I'm more than happy to class it as a warzone - it is certainly war when you're sent over by your own Govt and effectively authorised to kill or even be killed yourself in the process. It might not be on the scale of a world war, but the business of warfare and killing is certainly taking place over there...
As for psychological aspects, I'm afraid it has always played an extremely important part in warfare. Have a read of Gen. S. L. A. Marshall in Men Against Fire (1978) which details the fact that 15-20% of soldiers (including modern warfare such as WWII) actually fired at enemy soldiers in view. The definition of a human being that can actually kill without emotion is classed as being psychopathic, which effectively reverses the argument itself.
As for psychological aspects, I'm afraid it has always played an extremely important part in warfare. Have a read of Gen. S. L. A. Marshall in Men Against Fire (1978) which details the fact that 15-20% of soldiers (including modern warfare such as WWII) actually fired at enemy soldiers in view. The definition of a human being that can actually kill without emotion is classed as being psychopathic, which effectively reverses the argument itself.
SCT
Security Directors
Now, Falklan, don't take this the wrong way, it isn't a dig I just think that your perspective is a little skewed
Not true. 446 British fatalities in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001. Almost double that of the Falklands war in 1982 (255 British military fatalities)
That is not the mission. ISAF's primary objective in Afghanistan is to enable the Afghan government to provide effective security across the country and develop new Afghan security forces to ensure Afghanistan can never again become a safe haven for terrorists. (Source - NATO)
Low morale and frustration has a documented effect on troops in combat, I've seen it first hand
That can be said of any soldier. Soldiering is about killing the enemy, the military exists to KILL not deliver baskets of fruit to the poor.
A "real war"? Tell the families of the 446 fallen that the war they were killed in wasn't real. The number of fatalities has no bearing. On the ground, for the squaddie, combat is combat, whether they are fighting 10, 100, or 10,000. Combat is in the moment.
True
Agreed
Not true. 446 British fatalities in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001. Almost double that of the Falklands war in 1982 (255 British military fatalities)
That is not the mission. ISAF's primary objective in Afghanistan is to enable the Afghan government to provide effective security across the country and develop new Afghan security forces to ensure Afghanistan can never again become a safe haven for terrorists. (Source - NATO)
Low morale and frustration has a documented effect on troops in combat, I've seen it first hand
That can be said of any soldier. Soldiering is about killing the enemy, the military exists to KILL not deliver baskets of fruit to the poor.
A "real war"? Tell the families of the 446 fallen that the war they were killed in wasn't real. The number of fatalities has no bearing. On the ground, for the squaddie, combat is combat, whether they are fighting 10, 100, or 10,000. Combat is in the moment.
True
Agreed
I'm sorry you had to bag your friend, that's a shitty aspect of your job.
Thing is, you need to pick two options.
1. He's an honourable man, and made the choice to kill the afghan knowing full well it was illegal and was considered of sane mine when he did it.
2. he's insane, which is likely as his a RM and most are to some degree, a very large gap in what is considered acceptable behavior and what isn't.
As SCT said. 446 british fatalities since 2001... 13 years, that's 34 a year. In the uk, there were 471 gun related fatalities in the same time period. So is england a warzone too?
The fatalities are incredibly small. SCT also referred to the small amount of deaths for Falklans, but that conflict was very short by comparison.
So, i think it's wrong to compare a place that has less fatalities then England as being so traumatic that it's causing men of honor to loose their morale code. I've been to Afghan many times, face to face with the fighters and the only thing i took away with me from that place was a rug, no mental anguish here.
Now, Falklan, don't take this the wrong way, it isn't a dig I just think that your perspective is a little skewed
Fair points mate,. Your falklans reference is a bit off. 13 years vs. a few weeks. But otherwise its debatable, hard to get into detail on a forum.
Also that comment about the mission, i think it's fair to say the ISAF mission has changed a lot over the years. Human Rights, Tablian, Poppy, Natural Gas, SOPA, Economic Aid, Bombing Campaigns. etc etc.
Serving across the water in Northern Ireland we would be sat in a hedge for days, watching the well known players doing their thing. Sometimes it could have been as easy to just squeeze the trigger and watch the target fall when hit!! But it takes self control of which a lot of guys have used in the past. When an aggressor becomes a wounded casualty then the laws change whether it be in a war or maritime scenario. The marine knew that he had done wrong the moment he pulled the trigger by saying that he had broken the Geneva Convention. Maybe there was a bit of bravado involved.
Controversial I know but why on earth did Sgt Blackman not plead guilty? With the footage there really was only one verdict. I note his defence team are only going to appeal the sentence and not the verdict. Bad advice I think.
It will be interesting to see if this case is mentioned when the defence starts in the case of the two B@@@@@@S that murdered Lee Rigby.
So far they deny murder but admit the killing. However in the interviews with plod they state very clearly that they considered themselves at "war" at the time.
Is that the way their defence is going to go?
It will be interesting to see if this case is mentioned when the defence starts in the case of the two B@@@@@@S that murdered Lee Rigby.
So far they deny murder but admit the killing. However in the interviews with plod they state very clearly that they considered themselves at "war" at the time.
Is that the way their defence is going to go?