The Student Room Group

British soldier attacks and kills his own baby daughter

British soldier attacked and killed his own seven week old toddler and turned up to court showing no emotion according to recent reports:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2492891/Former-soldier-lost-eye-Afghanistan-attack-killed-colleagues-facing-jail-admitting-killing-toddler-daughter.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10436790/British-soldier-admits-killing-daughter-after-surviving-Afghanistan-shooting.html

You can be rest assured that your taxes will go towards three hot meals a day, top of the range gym facilities and a nice warm bed for the chap.
(edited 10 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

An absolute disgrace.

But why would someone do such an atrocious thing? Sometimes, I wonder what the human race has come to.
(edited 10 years ago)
Sickening. Absolutely inexcusable.
Very obviously the effect of war trauma but monstrous and despicable nonetheless.
Terrible, clearly the incident by which he was injured effected him deeply. It doesn't go away as soon as the tour is over. Not that such a thing excuses what he did before anyone suggests that.
Reply 5
Why do you feel the need to include the title "soldier"? That is meaningless, the fact that he was a soldier has nothing to do with this murder. Moreover, yes he may have suffered a traumatic experience, but that has not been proven to be linked to the murder. So it is silly to speculate that the two incidents were related. Until that happens, he should be treated as a murderer, but still have a full psychiatric test to find out whether the two incidences are related. It is meaningless at this point in time to make everyone aware he is a soldier, his job is not a factor at all.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 6
Original post by originaltitle
Very obviously the effect of war trauma but monstrous and despicable nonetheless.


Likely, but until it is proven it is not a fact. He has not be diagnosed with PTSD as far as I am aware.
Original post by the mezzil
Why do you feel the need to include the title "soldier"? That is meaningless, the fact that he was a soldier has nothing to do with this murder.


That's the first thought that popped into my mind. However, the media these days tends to use words that are a bit iffy..."Soldier", "Muslim", "Romanian". I don't get what's so wrong with the word(s) 'man', 'woman'...etc.
Original post by the mezzil
Why do you feel the need to include the title "soldier"? That is meaningless, the fact that he was a soldier has nothing to do with this murder. Moreover, yes he may have suffered a traumatic experience, but that has not been proven to be linked to the murder. So it is silly to speculate that the two incidents were related. Until that happens, he should be treated as a murderer, but still have a full psychiatric test to find out whether the two incidences are related. It is meaningless at this point in time to make everyone aware he is a soldier, his job is not a factor at all.


Just because it has not been factually proven at this time that his actions were linked to his traumatic experience, that does not mean we should be banned from mentioning it or discussing the possibility.
Reply 9
Original post by ismailjan3
That's the first thought that popped into my mind. However, the media these days tends to use words that are a bit iffy..."Soldier", "Muslim", "Romanian". I don't get what's so wrong with the word(s) 'man', 'woman'...etc.


It baffles me completely that the media feel the need to include the individuals race, colour, religion and occupation. That is not news or in anyway related to the story?

The media should use names, and names only unless a individuals race, colour, religion, occupation etc etc is directly related to part of the story. In most cases it is not.
Original post by thunder_chunky
Terrible, clearly the incident by which he was injured effected him deeply. It doesn't go away as soon as the tour is over. Not that such a thing excuses what he did before anyone suggests that.


Are you speaking from experience?
Sad

Similar to a story in Saudia Arabia

http://www.osundefender.org/?p=127205

Renowned Islamic preacher raped, killed 5years old daughter Cour affirmed

When will the world learn!
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by tibbles209
Just because it has not been factually proven at this time that his actions were linked to his traumatic experience, that does not mean we should be banned from mentioning it or discussing the possibility.


Yes we should discuss the possibility, please do not misunderstand what I am saying, but that is not what a newspaper is for. A newspaper is supposed to give the facts of the story that is already known. Unless he has been diagnosed with PTSD the fact that he is a soldier is irrelevant. Newspapers such as the Daily Mail are despicable in this way, as you are probably aware; they give the public unfounded stereotypes.

Why was the fact that this individual is an atheist not mentioned? What about his colour? They are equally important when doing stories on a muslim, no?
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 13
Disgusting...:mad:
LOOOOOOOOL at OP, when you mentioned 'chap'. I bet tax-payer would pay him a right visit and ask if he needs anything else to entertain him.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Are you speaking from experience?


No, why?
Original post by thunder_chunky
No, why?


The way you wrote it.
Is he one of those "hero" soldiers?
Original post by College_Dropout
Is he one of those "hero" soldiers?


No. There is nothing remotely heroic about soldiering. What is heroic is the way in which a soldier carries out his duty, and what actions he takes. For example lying down on a grenade to save another's life, or retrieving an injured comrade under effective enemy fire is heroic.

Killing a child is not heroic.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by the mezzil
No. There is nothing remotely heroic about soldiering. What is heroic is the way in which a soldier carries out his duty, and what actions he takes. For example lying down on a grenade to save another's life, or retrieving a injured comrade under effective enemy fire is heroic.

Killing a child is not heroic.


The is nothing heroic in jumping on top of a grenade, that would be stupidity.

Quick Reply

Latest