Soldier F.

[morqthana]

Regardless to any political views. No soldier who is sent to serve anywhere in the world should have to face prosecution for doing his job.

Indeed not, as long as he does it within the law.

Unless that soldier opened fire on his own accord and committed a war crime by doing so.

That's you agreeing that soldiers should not be allowed to get away with murder.

 

[morqthana]

The topic of the thread is a discussion about the not guilty verdict on Soldier F recently delivered in court.

Not from my POV - I was just after an answer to the question "should British soldiers be allowed to get away with murder?"

If it's about the Soldier F case then it would be about whether there should have been a court case or not, not whether he was or was not guilty, whether the verdict was the right one, etc.

 

[Scally-Ho]

So do you think that British troops should be allowed to get away with murder?

Our troops are fully trained to kill and should have never been put into a civilian location where mistakes could take place affecting the civilian population.

 

[Notch7]

question "should British soldiers be allowed to get away with murder?"

False question

Please put it in context.

What you mean is: British soldiers that kill in the context of a conflict where they are peacekeepers against a dangerous bunch of terrorists

 

[Notch7]

Our troops are fully trained to kill and should have never been put into a civilian location where mistakes could take place affecting the civilian population.

I think this is a very good point.

 

[morqthana]

It was justice for the accused, he was victim of a malicious prosecution.

Whether he was, or not, a victim of a malicious prosecution is hard to say (at least, it is for anyone not blinded by partisan bias).

If I was of a conspiracy-theorist mindset I might wonder if he was chosen because they knew there'd be no evidence for a guilty verdict but it would give the authorities the ability to say to the campaigners "we tried to hold someone to account but an independent court found him not guilty".

But before branding the prosecution "malicious", please consider what the judge said:

He said troops had "lost all sense of military discipline", as they shot unarmed civilians "in the back…as they were fleeing from them, on the streets of a British city".
Furthermore, the judge said he had no doubt "the soldiers who opened fire did so with the intention to kill" – and they "did not act in lawful self-defence".

And please consider them properly, and actually think about them properly.

Is it really OK for soldiers to shoot unarmed civilians in the back as they were trying to flee from them, intending to kill them, when that was not justified for their own self-defence?

Really?

But my question was not about re-litigating the Soldier F case, it was simply about the general question of whether soldiers should be allowed to get away with murder, prompted by

IMO that case should have never been considered.

 

[morqthana]

Shut up you treacherous little troll.

And the point of you being here is what, exactly?

 

[Notch7]

Not from my POV

Has the aripiprazole not kicked in yet

 

[morqthana]

It is a false question

Using the “get away with murder” phrase does not acknowledge the situation.

Until you acknowledge the fact it was a conflict where soldiers faced immense stress everyday, I’m not going to,waste my time engaging with your nonsense.

It's starting to look as if what you are not going to do is to deal with the question I asked. It was not specific to the situation. It was not specific to the conflict in N.I.

It is one which is applicable to any situation, at any time, anywhere in the world.

Do you think that soldiers should be allowed to get away with murder?

Do you think that soldiers should always be allowed to kill whoever they like, in whatever numbers they like, for whatever reasons they like, or even for absolutely no reasons at all?

Please don't try to swerve that again by saying "oh it's complex, they're under huge pressure, facing unimaginable stress, having to make instant decisions on the fly", etc. As I keep saying, I don't dispute or downplay any of that.

But do you think that a soldier can never, ever, ever "cross the line"?

 

[Highway Man]

Indeed not, as long as he does it within the law.




That's you agreeing that soldiers should not be allowed to get away with murder.

Nope you are mistaken and misunderstand me.

 

[Highway Man]

No it isn't.

Can you not even try to get things right?

Or do you genuinely not GAS if you don't?

You obviously do not even know what the red hand commando’s were.

 

[Highway Man]

No it isn't.

Can you not even try to get things right?

Or do you genuinely not GAS if you don't?

Red Hand Commando - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Highway Man]

The Red Right Hand refers to the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) or similar groups that were essentially Unionist paramilitary groups similar to the IRA (but obviously with differing ideologies). A red hand has long been an insignia used in the Ulster region of Northern Ireland

 

[morqthana]

I think I can safely say that I'm sure morqthana meant he wasn't punished for the murder.

No, you can't.

I meant what I said in my question.

So do you think that British troops should be allowed to get away with murder?

That was the question.

It was NOT "Do you think that Soldier F should have been allowed to get away with murder on the streets of Belfast?"

It was NOT "Do you think that Soldier F did get away with murder on the streets of Belfast?"

It was NOT "Do you think that any soldiers murdered people that day?"

It was a general question of whether British troops should be allowed to get away with murder. Anywhere. At any time. In any circumstances.


Do people think that British troops in any "conflict situation" should have a legal carte-blanche to kill whoever they like, wherever they like, whenever they like, for whatever reason they like?


Highway Man has said they shouldn't (hopefully me highlighting the relevant part will not get twisted into "falsifying" a quote):

Regardless to any political views. No soldier who is sent to serve anywhere in the world should have to face prosecution for doing his job. Unless that soldier opened fire on his own accord and committed a war crime by doing so. Leave them alone to get on with their jobs and take the politicians to court.

Although at the time of writing this, I've not seen if he has reacted to me pointing that out by changing his mind, or insulting me again.

 

[Charlie George]

No, you can't.

I meant what I said in my question.



That was the question.

It was NOT "Do you think that Soldier F should have been allowed to get away with murder on the streets of Belfast?"

It was NOT "Do you think that Soldier F did get away with murder on the streets of Belfast?"

It was NOT "Do you think that any soldiers murdered people that day?"

It was a general question of whether British troops should be allowed to get away with murder. Anywhere. At any time. In any circumstances.


Do people think that that British troops in any "conflict situation" should have a legal carte-blanche to kill whoever they like, wherever they like, whenever they like, for whatever reason they like?


Highway Man has said they shouldn't (hopefully me highlighting the relevant part will not get twisted into "falsifying" a quote):




Although at the time of writing this, I've not seen if he has reacted to me pointing that out by changing his mind, or insulting me again.

Streets of Belfast? you's dont have a clue