"I've just broken the Geneva convention"

[pork911]

is there no thread on this?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/08/roy...

[pork911]

Puggit said:

It's the headline on the BBC news - I see no reason for this. Fine, catch the killer and punish him. But for god's sake, there is no need to publicise this and provide ammunition to the 'enemy'. This should have been kept within the Marines.

yet 'publicise' the nastiness of the enemy etc? propaganda


appeals are outstanding regarding release of their names and the full video

[pork911]

I personally see no reason not to name him, the others or release the video

presumably those against are also against any member of the armed forces ever being identified for acts of bravery / anything or releasing any footage of their various activities?
....or should such things be limited to only what the government wants us to see?

[pork911]

digimeistter said:

ROE is great when both sides observe it, however it falls apart when one side doesn't and we shouldn't crucify our own for a moment of madness in the midst of madness.

quite some reasoning there

[pork911]

digimeistter said:

pork911 said:

digimeistter said:

ROE is great when both sides observe it, however it falls apart when one side doesn't and we shouldn't crucify our own for a moment of madness in the midst of madness.

quite some reasoning there

I like your selective quote, there

digimeistter said:

Chimune said:

The whole point is DESPITE all wars being utterly appalling and unique, rules of combat are there to keep a kernel of humanity alive.

ROE is great when both sides observe it, however it falls apart when one side doesn't and we shouldn't crucify our own for a moment of madness in the midst of madness.

I'll offer the Pacific Campaign in WW2 as a classic example.

twas for brevity.

reasoning unchanged above

[pork911]

why would anyone expect both sides to operate under a singular set of ROE? you misunderstand what they are



that aside, assuming a singular set they did it first and our's was a moment of madness is no excuse


then again we'd also have to take the giant leaps of the 'war' not having been started illegally by your chosen angels

.....and them not having then also having broken their own ROE


its all about perspective

[pork911]

paranoid airbag said:

digimeistter said:

Not really, they were UK citizens in a domestic environment! I don't see any correlation whatsoever?

I give up, patriotism has clearly died.

Aren't the Afghans also citizens in a domestic environment?

McWigglebum is right. You can't arbitrarily and unilaterally declare what is and isn't a legal combat zone and expect that to be respected. You can ask others to conduct their wars with appropriate respect for the lives of those who do not pose immediate threat to them - but again it is foolish in the extreme to expect them to operate to a standard you aren't holding your own forces to.

imagine PH outrage if our shepherds and wedding parties were getting bombed

[pork911]

Vipers said:

...some bloody judge saying they insurgents should be treated with dignity and humanity

The judge didn't say that & the conviction was not for failing to do that.

[pork911]

Vipers said:

...some bloody judge saying they insurgents should be treated with dignity and humanity

The judge didn't say that & the conviction was not for failing to do that.