Troops warned not to attend Alexander Blackman rally

Acceptable to who? The families of those innocent people? Or just westerners with their "rules".
The grown up's who wrote them and all of the countries who are signatories.
Are you seriously suggesting that conflicts can be waged with only combatant casualties? The IRA might disagree on that one ;-)
 
The grown up's who wrote them and all of the countries who are signatories.
Are you seriously suggesting that conflicts can be waged with only combatant casualties? The IRA might disagree on that one ;-)
I'm just wondering why you find it acceptable to kill innocent women and children because the "grown ups" say so but seem outraged when someone said some **** who had previously been trying to kill British personel deserved to be shot while injured.
 
I'm just wondering why you find it acceptable to kill innocent women and children because the "grown ups" say so but seem outraged when someone said some **** who had previously been trying to kill British personel deserved to be shot while injured.
Well if you cannot figure it out I cannot help you.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Think about the Geneva Conventions and what is permissible and not permissible
Still very generalised, are you sure you can't be more precise ?
 
Acceptable to who? The families of those innocent people? Or just westerners with their "rules".
The only alternative to such "rules", i.e. the legal principles of proportionality and military necessity, is to have no rules at all on the application of force. Otherwise the situation would only be encouraging the taking of hostages.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
The only alternative to such "rules", i.e. the legal principles of proportionality and military necessity, is to have no rules at all on the application of force. Otherwise the situation would only be encouraging the taking of hostages.
These "rules" have always fascinated me.
Do they count for everyone all the time ?
Is one rule more important than another ?
May people decide which rules they abide by ?
 
These "rules" have always fascinated me.
Do they count for everyone all the time ?
Is one rule more important than another ?
May people decide which rules they abide by ?
Interesting Cuts, I'm not about to issue a treatise on the Law of Armed Conflict, but what rules do you think might contradict one another so that anyone would have to decide which is more important?
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Still very generalised, are you sure you can't be more precise ?
You can figure it out I'm sure.
Oh I can most definitely, I'm just unconvinced that you know any more about the subject other than the fact that there is more than one Geneva Convention.
 
It would be interesting to hear a judge's view on whether or not the courts (a Crown department, not a Government department surely, btw) are a political organisation, and by extension, are themselves politicos. Also, the Civil Service would be, under your terms, a political organisation, as would the Armed Forces, so a parade organised by the Armed Forces would by definition be a political rally, and service personnel would be banned from attending. As would a war, as that would be a political protest.
It's an interesting point. Members of the regular armed forces are certainly entitled to their own political views and for example entitled (in terms of QRs) to join political parties (although not to take an active part in their affairs) and to attend political meetings albeit not in uniform and without bringing the armed forces into disrepute. My own view is that a march for changes to a conviction or sentence would have been political in nature (not necessarily "wrong") and that participation by declared armed forces personnel could have been seen as bringing the armed forces into disrepute.

The basic "human rights" position is that everyone is entitled to freedom of expression and freedom of association. This is limited, rightly or wrongly, by what it says in QRs.
 
Last edited:
Oh I can most definitely, I'm just unconvinced that you know any more about the subject other than the fact that there is more than one Geneva Convention.
Oh I see, you're point scoring. Well you win hands down. I have never studied armed conflict, nor been instructed in it, I was a SNCO and unnecessary for me. Enjoy your victory :)
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Interesting Cuts, I'm not about to issue a treatise on the Law of Armed Conflict, but what rules do you think might contradict one another so that anyone would have to decide which is more important?
I'm not stating that one contradicts another, just wondering if people have a sliding scale of which they'd be prepared to break first, and for which reasons.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
Oh I see, you're point scoring. Well you win hands down. I have never studied armed conflict, nor been instructed in it, I was a SNCO and unnecessary for me. Enjoy your victory :)
Once again you're assuming.
Please try not be so chippy, you're giving other Crabs a bad rep.
 
My own view is that a march for changes to a conviction or sentence would have been political in nature (not necessarily "wrong") and that participation by declared armed forces personnel could have been seen as bringing the armed forces into disrepute.
I see a distinction between the enactment of laws (unquestionably political) and the application of laws (which ought to be apolitical). To me, a protest about a law is political, but a protest about the application of a law is not, even though the protest is likely to be aimed at Parliament.
 
Well if you cannot figure it out I cannot help you.
You mean you dont want to say because you'll either look like a hypocrite or a liar (or both).

Youre happy that innocent women and children are killed/horribly maimed so long as the rules allow it, but not so happy that some shitbag gets shot while wounded/prisoner because the rules dont allow it.
 

Latest Threads

Top