A Day of Infamy

The conviction of a Royal Marines commando for killing an irregular non-uniformed Taliban guerilla has caused a lot of controversy, both in the UK and abroad. Our English correspondent Seneca III has some choice words to say on the matter.

A Day of Infamy
by Seneca III

I speak now as an ex-Royal Marine and stand prepared to have my comments in this post judged accordingly.

Yesterday, 6th December 2013, Sergeant Alexander Blackman, 39, a Royal Marines Commando who has given fifteen years of dangerous, selfless service, much of it in Iraq and Afghanistan ,was jailed for life and will have to serve at least ten years before being eligible for parole for killing a wounded, non-uniformed Taliban on the battlefield in contravention of the terms of the (First) Geneva Convention, specifically concerning “…the treatment of wounded and sick armed forces in the field”, although the actual Courts Martial charge was one of murder.

As the media are and have been covering the background to and the actual circumstances of this case in substantial detail, and as the comments sections of the on-line media adequately reflect the feelings of the public at large, I do not intend to elaborate on the conviction, its ramifications, comparative sentencing or the definition of ‘armed forces’ here this day — British and allied GoV readers will have to make up their own minds and reflect upon their now and future position on this matter, but would be well advised to contemplate the words of Pastor Niemöller as they do so.

My personal response is simply this: The Judiciary, the Political Establishment that appointed them — and who may or may not have influenced the judgement and sentencing behind closed doors — together with the deconstructionist, Islam enabling chatterati cheering in the background, know all of you this; I WILL NOT FORGET THIS DAY NOR WILL I FORGIVE YOU THIS BETRAYAL — EVER.

Seneca III
Middle England, 07/12/2013

For links to previous essays by Seneca III, see the Seneca III Archives.

57 thoughts on “A Day of Infamy

  1. I would not recommend or encourage anyone to serve in the Armed Forces, especially when it is necessary to engage in combat in foreign lands. The rules of engagement of western armies are ridiculous and suicidal. Why would one put oneself in such a straight-jacket in a life-and-death situation. Additionally, another consideration against becoming a uniformed combatant is that one may also be subject to foreign laws. I am referring in particular to the International Criminal Court and its pervasive and occult tentacles. So if your country is unwilling or unable to shield you from them, you are vulnerable to prosecution for breaking laws that are not part of your own country.

  2. I agree completely. It is an absolute disgrace, he should never even have been arrested in the first place. He could have killed 10,ooo injured Taliban and I’d still support him 100%

    Is there a fund for his family one can donate to?

    • At the moment there are many people, and groups of people, looking into how best his family can and will be supported and protected, and you may rest assured, Anon, that they will be.

      With the Baron’s permission I will keep you updated as to the best way you and any others can help. Please give me/us a few days to figure out the optimal way whereby the HM Customs and Revenue ‘take’ on these funds can be legally minimised. Thank you for asking. S III

      • Seneca, yes please post, I spent 6 years in the US Marines and was lucky enough to have met some of my Royal counterparts, some of the most impressive guys I have met in my life. Would love to help out when you get the ducks in a row.

      • Have you got your hands on any info about how to help the family of this betrayed soldier?

        Greetings from Sweden.

        • It’s taking time, nadacomprende. The verdict was only reached a couple of weeks ago, the sentence handed down a couple of days ago and doubtless there will be an appeal, but now that the Marine has been named and his photograph published the first priority is the safety of his kin in this now Muslim infested country.
          This to a great extent governs how any monies and material support can be legally organised, collected and secretly channelled to his family and how and where they, the wife and children, can be re-housed safely now that they have lost any right to military accommodation, salary or pension.
          You must try to understand that through the ghastly practise of ‘Affirmative Action’ our civil (public) services, including the Police and their support services, have been infiltrated to a major extent by Muslims, and the route to channel any help must be kept somehow safe from their eyes. [This infiltration, for example, is how young Muslim women trying to escape their slavery in general or forced marriages in particular are tracked through social security numbers etc. by other members of the tribe, their location forwarded to their owners (their own fathers, mothers and brothers) and then ultimately honour killed.]
          I must point out that I am in no way directly involved in making any of these arrangements, although I will be advised where and how donations can be made in due course; there is a lot to be done and it could take quite a while to set up with the necessary firewalls in place. I do thank you for your support and will provide you, via the Baron, with any safe links once I have them.

          • Thank you for your answer.

            I do fully understand the complexity
            of the situation.

            I´m just eager to help those who made sacrifices
            for the sake of my still existing civil rights too.

  3. Doesn’t this sentence amount to a subversion of the armed forces? I should think subversion of the armed forces is a case of high treason…

    • That is why Blair repealed the treason act anon, he was protecting his back and the backs of the establishment.

    • Agree with all of you, an out and out disgrace to send this soldier to prison for what ?! And what do they do to
      sqaddies they catch, torture them for hours for their own amusement, then butcher them. What I don’t understand is why the sergeant’s men had cameras on their helmets.

  4. It’s not been a worthwhile career since Suez. The RAF might teach you enough technical things to give you a career, but soldiering? Good grief.

  5. What was it Orwell? We sleep safe in our beds knowing that rough/tough men guard us.

    [Curse] the government. [Curse] the collaborationists!

  6. When armed police shoot unarmed men, innocent of any crime in Britain, they go unpunished, even Cressida Dick was promoted after the Brazilian plumber was shot after 7 / 7, not so the army.

    Things are SO bad now, i fear we’re going to need the army to help us frustrated patriots restore justice and freedom under OUR laws for England and her betrayed people.

    This man is our hero – the filth who did this to him and his family, our sworn enemies, we WILL have our revenge.

  7. Like handing out a speeding ticket in the Indy 500 is a phrase that comes to mind.

    One British soldier is worth more than all these Talibs together. The people who now have putted him in jail are my mortal enemies. I no longer listen to their so called “laws and conventions”.

    How come the British army does not act upon this betrayel against their own soldier? If i was in command? I would pick Cameron out of downing street 10 right away. And [impose on him a just punishment] in Helmand. Let him do the “fighting”..

  8. Yeah, right.
    Condemn and punish a soldier for fighting.
    The absurdity is making my jaws ache.
    When did this Kafka novel begin?

  9. Think you are wrong on the arbitrary dispatch of the incapacitated enemy Seneca III, better to be feared and respected than feared and despised, not a good idea to signal to the enemy that no prisoners will be taken as it literally makes them fight for lives. A gifted psychological edge that may cost heavily in future battle casualties and cause the deaths of comrades by equivalent retaliation by the enemy.

    • Well, now, Jolie Rouge, your generalised antithesis would depend very much on what sort of enemy one is dealing with, wouldn’t it?

      • @Seneca III

        Irregular or regular the enemy is the enemy how they conduct themselves is their concern, there is an advantage in the opposing force maintaining its discipline and not being goaded into the enemies abyss. In this generalisation the concern is not for the enemy but the moral shape and integrity of our own forces, maybe it is grasping for the advantage of the moral high ground.

    • Your leftist do gooder [empty talk] might work against a western country, it does not work in a muslim country you are fighting in, period. When our Marines and soldiers get taken by the muslims, they butcher them in ways that will make the most battle hardened man puke, for I have seen what they do and it isn’t pretty. When the muslim fears you, he respects you and always keep them at your feet for if you don’t, they will be at your throats.

    • Those overseeing the prosecution of this hero are immoral hypocrites. As almost every member of our Armed Forces knows there are almost countless examples of British Forces being unable to adhere to the Geneva Convention. During the Falklands War for example surrendering Argentines were killed rather than be allowed to be burdensome prisoners during offensives. Those same people who allowed this marine to be crucified know of this. If the Talibani had been allowed to live he would have gone on to cause the death or injury of other members of our Armed Forces. The members of the British Armed Forces really need to start thinking about how they are treated by the people that send them to risk their lives. The first rule of any group is “Look after your own”.

      • What incidents of prisoner exectution occurred in the Falklands? I’m not aware of any outside of simple miscommunications between surrendered and captor…?

        That was a very clean war for various reasons. What offensives were there when British troops failed to accept surrenders? it doesn’t count if the guy throws his rifle down after emptying a mag at you and then says “Kamerad!” btw. You appeared to be talking about unit scale surrender.

  10. Will Blackman’s imprisonment convince the Taliban that “we aren’t the bad guys”, that we’re really just trying to help them? If not, then how many more of our men should we stone?
    Also, I was unaware that Geneva protections were applicable to non-signatories. Am I wrong about this, or have Al Qaeda and the Taliban sent ambassadors to Switzerland to sign the Convention? Their continued use of suicide bombers and videotaped beheadings make me doubt it.

  11. Here in the London Borough of Southwark, I spent part of my weekend on 30th June last to attend Armed Forces’ Day. I’m certainly not asking for a medal- those should go to our brave service people; just making the point that I’m not trying to undermine them.

    But- soldiers who execute captured prisoners, however nasty and inhumane, betray their own cause, giving ammunition to the enemy, who can claim that we’re just like them. The guys in white hats often have to fight with one hand behind their backs; if they didn’t, it would be hard to distinguish them from the guys in black hats, particularly in the wider world whose understanding we need in order to win them to our cause.

    • There is no moral equivalency between us western men and the muslim savage period, to do so gives them legitimacy where they don’t deserve it, and frankly speaking, you are never ever going to win their black muslim hearts and minds, you [treat them without nercy], it lets them know who is in charge and if they get all jihadist on you, give them a taste of Carthage.

    • Soldiers who execute a captured enemy do NOT betray
      diddly squat. We are not living in the age of chivalry, we are not fighting the Germans in WW1, the troops in
      Afghanistan are fighting [epithets] with no morals, [epithets]
      who would kill and probably eat our troops if they had time to cook them. This should be a [redacted]
      as far as the West is concerned. The fact that the rules of engagement are so skewed that they ensure our boys are put in harms way every day for no tactical reasons make
      the entire war an obscenity.

    • The US marines were faced with a similar situation at Guadalcanal and other places where wounded Japs proved to be very dangerous, to the extent that one could not in reality offer humane treatment until they were immobilized.

      In a battlefield situation, there is a certain amount of discretion given to the officer in situ, in this case a Royal Marine NCO. He has to make a decision based upon the military situation, the need for ‘information/interrogation’ and the burden imposed on his unit by bringing in a potentially dangerous fanatic who would need to be strip searched for hidden weapons etc. in a posibly exposed situation.

      I could have been one of the officers on the courts martial when I was serving, and my instinct is that this should never have been in the public domain, and could have been dealt with quickly and quietly, but with effective justice.

      Someone wanted this to be very, very public, I wonder why?

      It brings to mind the Corporal Clegg (later Sgt.) situation and the ridiculous petty politics that that entailed. Effectively, Clegg was denied justice for the sake of politics.

      • Churchill urged FDR to have Japanese troops taken alive where possible (not always, I realise) so others would be less likely to fight to the death and kill more allied troops in the process.

        And, with great respect to Seneca, MC and others who’ve served, which I haven’t: how do we (and the rest of the world) know we’re still the good guys if we behave like the enemy?

        • We don’t. We don’t have to know.

          We just have to take care of our own.

          That is the primal law. Unfortunately, it seems to have been forgotten throughout the Western world. We will destroy ourselves if we don’t somehow remember basic truths such as this one.

          • Dim witted and uncivilised as they may be other cultures and races at least have the common sense to look after their own. We are headed for the most obvious extinction if we do not act in each others best interests to protect OUR own group and do not act in the interests of others.

          • Yes Mate this is the CORE of what needs to be done in Western countries if we (the indigenous whites) are not to suffer the same fate as the belaugered Afrikaaners (although worse as there will most likely be NOWHERE for us to free). I am British and I note the mood in this country IS changing (ironically ‘helped’ by incidences such as this) and just today one UKIP councillor was ‘exposed’ as saying that ALL immigrants should be sent out of our lands and virtually all of the comments (aside from on the liberal rags like the Huffington post) supported the idea of ‘repatriation’ which would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. It is increasingly apparent that our back is up against the wall (London, Luton, Birmingham etc etc all now ‘non-white’ cesspits) and the only way we can avoid the fate our ‘guests’ would so dearly like to mete out to us is to recognise WE are a group with INTERESTS and to fight exlusively for these without a damn thought for the others for the vast majority of them sure as heck won’t help us when the time comes!

        • “how do we (and the rest of the world) know we’re still the good guys if we behave like the enemy?”

          I wonder if such a question would arise among any of those on the other side of the fight? Do they believe they are the good guys? You bet they do. So if you are in a situation where you are having doubts that you are the good guy, that is a prescription for being defeated.

        • We train elite troops to kill at command, we do this by removing an element of their humanity for the greater good. The problem comes when we suddenly throw ‘ethics’ at them having basically trained them to disregard ethics.

          Yes we need to ‘know’ that we are the good guys, but at the same time we need to take responsibility for the fact that we put soldiers (trained killers) into ethically glutinous situations and expect them to come out squeeky clean.

          That is why you protect your soldiers at all costs.

          In 1919, General Dyer was Courts Martialled for obeying standing orders at Jalanwallabagh (Amritsar) and opening fire on an illegal assembly.

          This event shattered the confidence of the British military in its leadership, and as Correlli Barnet put it, British Power Collapsed.

          We put our soldiers in to fight unwinnable wars and expect them to sacrifice their lives on the altar of political correctness. And when they fail to ‘win’ we humilate and revile them. [oxy]moronic?

          • It is going to be to the left’s peril and much horror that they vilify and send them in harms way only to turn on them and jail them for doing their duty, that it may be time for the military to take charge of their fate. Perhaps Robert Heinlein was right in one of his books, let the folks who have served in the military be citizens, for they are the only ones who are responsible enough to be entrusted with it.

        • Your ideal of what our behavior should be in time of war is untouchable by human nature. Look carefully at what the Baron has said here. We should fight for nothing more.
          When there is, in fact, peace, then we can look to civilizing virtue.
          The adversary does not understand gentleness, he equates compassion with weakness in men and humanity generally. For him, the woman in her nurturing, the child in his growth, and the elder in his dotage, are always weak. Indeed, the only compassion in Islam is that attributed to Allah, Allah who never took a human form.
          There is no peace with Islam, only truce and taking advantage, and then another round of fighting.
          This is not a Western pattern, it is the pattern set by the Muslim adversary in his history and in his aspirations.

        • Mark H,

          Churchill’s advice was stupid and ignorant, the doctrine of Japanese soldiers was never to be captured, they had nothing but contempt for those Allied soldiers who had surrendered.

          The prospect of an Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands gave US strategic planners nightmares.

  12. What can you say ,the time for war is now forget the rules ,the enemy is within as well as without .Do not be surprised by any verdict in the future ,especially the lee rigby case

  13. Seneca, well said. May they all live to regret the part they have played in this despicable injustice. I understand the soldier is to appeal; let’s hope the appeals court has more commonsense and connection with reality.

  14. The political and legal cadres in Britain and the Western world will be eaten, by the citizens, that they are feeding to the “allahgators”

  15. It obsures the root of the problem to treat this as an isolated incident, or as a sign of specifically British rot. It’s a civilizational disease, and several equally egregious cases occur in the United States military very year. In fact, the idiotically soft Rules of Engagement are known to jeopardize the lives of American soldiers, and that’s even per the soft version peddled by MSM, e.g. here: “New battlefield rules blamed for spike in soldier deaths” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/5/increase-in-battlefield-deaths-linked-to-new-rules/. And the penalties for breaking these self-homicidal ROE are draconian.

    Seemingly the biggest thing in the Marine Corps this year has been the “shocking revelation” that a group of Marines [micturated] on so http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/7/marine-corps-retreats-court-martial-charges-taliba/?page=alle on some dead Talibs in Afghanistan. This was construed by the military brass as a war crime, at least 12 Marines have been court-martialed, the Marine Corps commandant has been implicated in exercising undue influence on the military judges to mete out exemplary, severe punishments, so on ad nauseam.

    ‘Tis a contagious madness, and it’s not only in the Anglophony. Nicholas Stix in a recent article about race-promotions in the US Navy wrote memorably that “The US Navy is simply the world’s most expensive racial socialist welfare agency.” German military’s greatest preoccupation is that at least 10% of its soldiers are not female, and Sweden, before whose armies once all of Europe trembled, has a similar concern with GLBT “underepresentation.”

    Needless to say, the armies that any of the above may one day face: China or North Korea, Iran or Hezbollah, perhaps Russia, do not evince similar lofty concerns. We have gone stark, barking mad, and the goings on in the military are but one of the many symptoms of this psychopathology.

  16. There was a decision made by a Royal Marine sergeant on that battlefield after the fire-fight had ended to terminate a wounded Islamic fanatic. That decision was just one of many millions of similar decisions taken on battlefields stretching back into time and made by both sides in all the wars ever fought until recent times.

    In my mind I would have done exactly as that sergeant did!

    Rules of Engagement sounds like it should belong in a dating book rather than on a battlefield where it is kill or be killed, and no matter how those who will never ever become involved in a fire-fight, where every move could be your last, draw upon their ridiculous rules, when it comes to killing your opponent does it really matter how or when he is killed so long as his fighting days are over?

    We did until recent times fight wars to win, not to play with nice rules that dictates how to treat wounded enemies who if given the opportunity would have no hesitation in killing you, his captor.

    If that Muslim fanatic had been treated for his wound, would he have been incarcerated for being part of the Taliban, or would he have somehow found his way back onto the same battlefield at a later time to kill or to maim more Royal Marines?

    Perhaps it was that thought that was going through the sergeants mind before he decided to pull the trigger?

    We now live in an age where cowardice is fashionable due to the feminizing of our once men only armed forces and police forces and is now dressed up as ‘rules of engagement’ or other fanciful, but certainly delusional policies that take the normal human response to those things best not observed and make them verboten!

    I have made myself aware of this travesty and of other less well publicized travesties as perpetrated on our soldiers and police officers by those who believe that we are somehow superior human beings when we are made to withhold our emotions, our hate and our disgust, at what our enemies have done and continue to do to us, while we are hog tied with absurd ‘rules of engagement’ and other notions that are severely limiting our fighting abilities and strategies.

    This stupidity has to end and sanity must once again prevail, otherwise we are lost as a civilization!

    • ” … when it comes to killing your opponent does it really matter how or when he is killed so long as his fighting days are over”

      There would then be no issue to massacres such as the Katyn Forest executions as any objections to unfettered nefariousness in war would be hypocrisy.

      Battlefield ethics and etiquette are nothing new, and are not the same as the absurdities of modern day battlefield political correctness it is disingenuous to conflate and confuse them.

    • Katyn was the elimination of the Polish officer class prisoners of war. There is a huge difference in killing on the battlefield and killing an ideological enemy who are recognized and kept as prisoners.

      That is systematic murder and the two examples cannot be equated!

      Hospitalizing wounded Taliban who when on recovery return to the battlefield to have another go at your soldiers is no way to wage a war!

      That is the height of absurdity!

      Soldiers fight wars to win, not to placate political sensitivities at home from those who would not have the cojones to even wear a uniform let alone shoot a weapon at an enemy!

      Ethics are a recent humanist counter to good old God given morality. There were no soldiers on past battlefields that fought wars based on Collectivist ethics, it was always kill or be killed and those who weren’t killed if taken prisoner could be ransomed for payment, depending on their status.

      Study up on what happened to Confederate soldiers taken prisoner and sent to what is often referred to as concentration camps, by the Union.

      How would you then term their treatment?

      During the New Guinea campaign Australian troops refused to take Japanese prisoners. Prisoners were only taken when they were considered to be out of action through illness, wounds or both. That decision was not based on some lack of morality on the troops part, but from the behaviour of the Japanese when pretending to surrender. Read up on the Cowra Breakout where hundreds of Jap POW’s broke out of their compound which cost the lives of 14 good Australian soldiers in trying to keep them contained. Such was the mindset of the Jap soldier raised on Bushido which is in some ways similar to Islam and Jihad.

      What you seem to not comprehend is the nature of the Islamic enemy who we are in an undeclared war with. Australian and American troops soon learned that when dealing with a fanatical enemy you shouldn’t take prisoners, because you simply can’t reason with fanatics or treat them humanely for which they recognize as a weakness, you can only kill them!

      • Quote:
        Katyn was the elimination of the Polish officer class prisoners of war. There is a huge difference in killing on the battlefield and killing an ideological enemy who are recognized and kept as prisoners.

        That is systematic murder and the two examples cannot be equated!


        • @goethechosemercy

          In Nemesis’s you can only kill them scenario there would be no prisoners of war as any incapacitated enemy would be eliminated on the battlefield the excellent point is not so excellent as the end result is the same destruction of POWs one more immediate than the other.

          • Jolie Rouge. Once again you fail to comprehend the nature of the war that we now find thrust upon us.

            This is not a war where both sides fighting each other are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, this is a war in which our enemy will give us no quarter. They delight in torturing their ‘prisoners’ to death and other obscenities that will not get mentioned in this comment. In short, this is not a war where large or even small groups of Muslim fanatics can be adequately contained on the proviso that at some time in the future they will return to their civilian lifestyles and quit the battlefield. We are fighting religious fanatics who are in fact very similar to the German SS, the Japanese of WW2 and the Jewish Zealots in Roman times.

            All of those fanatical groups are/were driven by either religious or national zealotry for which there is no persuasive argument against. In effect, one must be reminded of those who are liberated from religious sects and the de-programming which is so very necessary to alter their fanatical beliefs.

            However de-programming can never be really effective against the Muslim fanatic who knows his life will be forfeited to other Muslims from the day he denies his own life to Allah.

            We find ourselves in a no win situation and we must now do what we once held no concerns in doing, we must fight fire with fire in order to survive.

            If you can’t see that then you my friend I would consider as being part of our problem.

          • You are arguing semantics, in the first place the Polish Officers in Katyn are of us of the west, the muslims are not, so do not make the bloody mistake of giving them equivalence, in the second, I never did take a muslim jihadist prisoner.

  17. Unless the British military has within itslef the means of a successful coup, (and I highly doubt it does) plus the jailing and/or execution of traitors, this is all just [discussion that irritates me and tries my patience].

    Absent serious consequences for serious crimes, human nature being what it is, life will continue on its current path.

    Caesar must soon cross the Rubicon or forever shut his damned mouth and go quietly to his own execution. It’s that simple.

    The real danger is that ten years after the coup, and the annihilation of parliament, and the abdication of the Windsors, where is the UK then? Before going on about what you propose to do about all this, ask yourselves first what you shouldn’t do…

    • Perhaps Her Majesty the Queen can take over Parliament and get the Tower of London back into the business of what it does best, deal with traitors. Please do not tell me it cannot be done, for I have had this same conversation with my Hapsburger relatives and the general consensus is, the Austrian rank and file would support it, the commi left would have to be [dealt with justly according to the magnitude of their crimes].

    • Ask a politician, they seem to believe that they know how to make omelettes without damaging the eggs.

  18. @Nemesis,

    ” … we must fight fire with fire in order to survive.”

    The fire has to be of us, not of their savage kindle otherwise their will be no victory, a moral abyss where nothing is reaffirmed only savage survivors scorched by the fire of the foe.

    As I said – the concern is not for the enemy but the moral shape and integrity of our own forces, maybe it is grasping for the advantage of the moral high ground.

    • With all due respect, those sentiments have worked well in the past in our wars against us fellow Europeans and even the bloody Russians to an extent, but those days have come and gone. Let me make myself crystal clear, there is zero morality and ethics in war period. War is extremely brutal, bloody, nasty medieval business and business is about to get better. Since WW 2 we have tried to play by some civilizational standards for which no non western country has ever abided by and they never will. We are crucifying our fighting men on the alter of PC/MC madness in the hopes and wishes that the enemy muslims will respect and love us, and gain favor with them, nothing could be further from the truth and we are sacrificing our best on the battlefields all over the muslim world. Total war with no quarter nor mercy is what wins at the end of the day and history bears me out on this. So your going to have to pardon me while I do not take the same high moral ground your going to be buried in, for I would much rather [be ruthless in the extreme] and then go sit on top of what we have won and gloat with a nice glass or two of 15 year bourbon.

  19. Jolie Rouge, those who make rules for others to follow and who will not also be subject to those same rules, in as much as do as I say and not as I do, are the very same ‘thinkers’ who have got us into the mess we are now in and at some point in the future, are going to have to sort out if we value our Western civilization.

    You seem to not be able to comprehend this simple fact!

    Are you being wilful in that lack of comprehension? Because if you are, then you are as I have previously stated, part of the problem!

    It should always be as it was, and that is, what happens on the battlefield remains on the battlefield!

    It is not up to the ‘thinkers’ who sit in nice protected establishments and who in all probability would never place themselves in harms way to defend themselves, let alone their families and nation, to judge those who have.

    And once the actions of soldiers on far away battlefields are brought into the court room and made to be subject to laws that have no place on any battlefield – and this is not to be compared to a village or a POW camp – then the warrior protector of those who now place themselves as his judge and jury should then expect the righteous opprobrium from those the warrior was paid to protect!

    • @Nemesis,

      What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas!

      The history books tell us that maxim does not apply to the battlefield, indeed what happens on the battlefield reverberates down through history and can at a future date be a potent political force way beyond the scale of the original battle.

      Not particularly debating against your positions but beyond them, with one ethical glass eye on the battlefield and the other good eye looking out for the aftermath and any reverberations that can turn a hard won victory on battlefield into a political defeat of the future.

      Culpability for battlefield political correctness the blame should lay with the military chiefs of staff whom should have directed their political masters to their countries respective social works departments when asked to deploy their warriors under the subjugation of political correctness.

  20. Yes, it has taken two to Tango to get ‘Rules of Engagement’ up and running. The culpability for tying one hand of our soldiers behind their backs every time they find themselves being shot at should rest with Generals – who are paid by the state to run standing armed forces and the politicians who demand those policies that have irreparably damaged those armed forces – but who look to their own military/political careers/agenda, rather than take care of the warrior class.

    The other aspect that needs to be addressed in all Western nations, and that is if most of us can still value our civilization, is the now almost routine appointment of having politicians running ministries who have absolutely no background occupational experience of what their portfolios entail.

    It’s a little like having an ice cream vendor appointed into an Engineer’s position to build a bridge. Where would he start? Who would he employ? I’m sure you get the drift.

    We now have generals in positions who have never been shot at and are there in their current positions of running the military because they kowtow to what the politician requires just to safeguard their own careers.

    Meanwhile, those they are really paid to represent are given lip service only.

    Politicians have a nasty habit of removing those generals who have won fame on the battlefield and with whom they perceive may be a political threat to them at some time in the future. Harry Truman and Barack Obama are two politicians whose examples would fit that description.

    I don’t think the West will be saved by elements of the armed forces going ‘rogue’ and acting out a coup against our cowardly political class, most of whom should be removed as a liability to our own nations, no, I believe that any removal will have to come from the ‘grass roots’ because it is the ‘grass roots’ and the unpredictability of what the ‘grass roots’ is capable of, that scares our political class.

    • Bravo Nemesis, what you have stated is far better than I could articulate. So anything I would have to add would be redundant.

Comments are closed.