I am glad you deleted it because it was a bit stupid. As for commenting or criticising on a serviceman's actions in a war zone I think you need to understand that unless you are getting shot at or in the situation Sgt Blackman was in you really do not have any idea of what goes through your mind or what you might do. I spent 22 years in the Royal Marines and it was not all fun I can tell you as many other service and ex serviceman on this site will tell you. We had/have a job to do and it is not all dancing girls and soft music and drinking. Some times the training you had comes in handy as is the weapon that you hold in your hands. It is not a game and you have to keep your wits about you. Ask dannyh he will tell you. If I was you I would refrain from making statements like you have as you do not know what it is really like to be in that situation. it is not very nice and your adrenalin is going like hell and you make your move or you will end up dead!

Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky.

Danny's post was spot on,I have not served in the services,but my son is a serving infantryman and has seen his share.
Until late you have been in that position I don't think anyone is qualified to comment on his state of mind or predicament...harsh world the front line.

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Mercy killing is illegal 'yes'. Still was the ethically right thing to do though imo. Can you imagine the kind of death he would have had if just left there? All that blood and whatnot attracting flies, insects, hungry rats maybe.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Yes, and arguably not really a decision that Blackman was reasonably qualified to make either. His actions around it don't really seem reasonable for someone acting out of mercy either. He did it, because of the effects being in war has on people, and that's something the reality of military courts and governments don't want to address - Because they are responsible for putting young men into those situations for reasons that are increasing, as I age, vague in ethical rationals.

The Army especially doesn't want us to see soldiers as ordinary people, put into extra ordinary situations and horrifically stressful situations on a continual basis. No one really has the training to avoid the impact of these situations, the things these men and women will see, be asked to do. No one ever could.

Not having been in a war, or fought in one, I can only guess what the effect can be on people. But then how many service men manage not to be committing 'crimes' in warzones? Many of us don't know the effect of being brought up in a violent abusive family environment - but that still doesn't forgive the actions of those that do, it only puts them into a context of understanding.

Of course, his sin really was being caught out; and because he was, those who had a responsibility to him, threw him under the bus to protect the PR and approved image of Soldiers as 'supermen' or 'heroes', not ordinary men and women with some specialist training.

Diminished responsibility seems to cover it. To me, that makes more sense than murder. But the problem here, really isn't him being tried, but the way he was hung out to protect the image of the military, rather than assessed, helped and treated. His actions were criminal only because of the impact on him of what he was being exposed to and asked to do, by his country and those who deserted their responsibility to him.

But really, after the incident, he shouldn't have been on trial for murder, he should have been in treatment for the psychological and psychiatric issues, that war had inflicted on him.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

i`ve just learnt a new word

interviewer " iggy , do you think you influenced anybody?"
iggy pop " I think I wiped out the 60`S "

Yes, but in a criminal trial, this decision can be taken by the legal team with the support of forensic psychiatrists - or at the request of the judge in pre-trial reviews.

I don't think the screening, counselling and therapy for troops should just stop at returning from war zones, these men need effectively oversight whilst in them. We'd evacuate a wounded solider for treatment, we should extend the same level of care for psychiatric and psychological problems.

The situation of modern warfare is very different from that of our grand parents, where there was a reasonable degree of ability to know when and where the enemy would strike and preparation accordingly. With a guerrilla conflict, every minute or every day could very well be an attack. Every bump in the road an ambush, and every one who isn't wearing the same uniform as you could be an enemy combatant or spy. There are no front lines, and that kind of stress level and vigilance is exceptionally damaging to the central nervous system, because the human stress response is only really suited to short term stress. We're asking these men and women to be on an almost 24 period of readiness for engagement in a situation where there are no 'reasonably safe areas'.

And the military seems to have made no provision in its planning to deal with this. Despite this being a well documented phenomena dating back to Vietnam (and seen on the Eastern Front in German soliders during WWII where the Soviets used partisans to effect exactly this style of constant threat).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]