Soldier F.

noseall · 25 Oct 2025

Highway Man said:
Not seeing your point.

No, of course not. You find it difficult to follow a simple conversation when it is convenient for you.

However, this statement...

Highway Man said:
Once you have permission to open fire you have a licence to kill. There is no murder.

Is not true.

Highway Man · 25 Oct 2025

noseall said:
No, of course not. You find it difficult to follow a simple conversation when it is convenient for you.

However, this statement...

Is not true.

Of course it is true you nut job.

carmanmemoranda · 25 Oct 2025

Highway Man said:
Of course it is true you nut job.

As a member of the armed forces you are taught about the legality or not of your actions, are you not ?

And therefore what you are allowed to do, or not.

Charlie George · 25 Oct 2025

Innocent civilians were killed by the security services quite often, most if not all result in no prosecution.

Brigadier · 25 Oct 2025

Highway Man said:
Of course it is true you nut job.

So why was soldier f on trial?

If there was no crime to answer for?

Highway Man · 25 Oct 2025

Brigadier said:
So why was soldier f on trial?

If there was no crime to answer for?

Hypocrisy and for political reasons. He wasn’t convicted and never should have been in court

Highway Man · 25 Oct 2025

Brigadier said:
So why was soldier f on trial?

If there was no crime to answer for?

Start putting soldiers on murder charges and convicting them then they won’t be able to do their job confidently and would endanger their lives. No soldier should face prosecution for doing their job. It will get to the point where people will put down their arms and simply say f you. Do it yourself.

Brigadier · 25 Oct 2025

Highway Man said:
Hypocrisy and for political reasons. He wasn’t convicted and never should have been in court

The judge said that unarmed civilians had been shot in the back by Paras, who had "lost all sense of military discipline".

Soldier F was not convicted only because "the evidence that he fired the shots did not reach the threshold".

Ergo the killings were unlawful, but the perpetrators could not be identified with enough certainty.

Brigadier · 25 Oct 2025

Highway Man said:
Start putting soldiers on murder charges and convicting them then they won’t be able to do their job confidently and would endanger their lives. No soldier should face prosecution for doing their job. It will get to the point where people will put down their arms and simply say f you. Do it yourself.

A free for all then?
Soldiering being the golden ticket to maim and kill without qualms?

Great plan

Highway Man · 25 Oct 2025

You won’t find a more disciplined soldier than a para, the judge may say what he likes but doesn’t understand

carmanmemoranda · 25 Oct 2025

Highway Man said:
Start putting soldiers on murder charges and convicting them then they won’t be able to do their job confidently and would endanger their lives. No soldier should face prosecution for doing their job. It will get to the point where people will put down their arms and simply say f you. Do it yourself.

Every soldier has a personal legal responsibility.

Tough job under pressure too, but it's how it works.

There is a point at which killing is authorised (legal) or not (illegal)

Highway Man · 25 Oct 2025

Brigadier said:
A free for all then?
Soldiering being the golden ticket to maim and kill without qualms?

Great plan

Yep that’s how it works, do your job without fear of prosecution.

Brigadier · 25 Oct 2025

Highway Man said:
You won’t find a more disciplined soldier than a para, the judge may say what he likes but doesn’t understand

Whatever

carmanmemoranda · 25 Oct 2025

Highway Man said:
Yep that’s how it works, do your job without fear of prosecution.

No. It's not how it works.

Brigadier · 25 Oct 2025

Highway Man said:
Yep that’s how it works, do your job without fear of prosecution.

And, as long as you do your job, that's what you get.

Shooting civvies isn't in the job description.

Soldier F.

Similar threads