[Closed] This England.......

ton - Member

perhaps you posted the pic for another reason?

Another reason to what ?

oh I think you know ernie....you being such a clever bloke.

War crime?

Did he have laugh with his mates as he did it and ask them to keep quiet about it as he'd broken the Geneva Convention? What do you think Zulu?

War crime?

Is there an ongoing court martial with regards to that case Z-11 ?

What a thoroughly dispiriting and unpleasant thread. Have a word with yourselves.

I agree crikey.....and on that note, sorry for starting it, and offending anyone, but we all have different ideals and thoughts on stuff.

I am out. 😀

I am out.

Well there's a surprise. 😆

Ernie

A subsequent military inquiry concluded that no war crime had been committed. The other Argentines wounded in the explosion and fire were treated and evacuated, one of them had to have both legs amputated, and died on the operating table. The Regimental Signals Officer who witnessed the event and spoke in court stated, 'I remain convinced that Sgt Fowler acted in the best of motives, so as to alleviate human suffering'

I've read of accounts from Argentinian witnesses who said the medic was a hero for doing what he did.

ninfan "Prisoners of war shall not be unnecessarily exposed to danger while awaiting evacuation from a fighting zone."art 19 geneva convention .
so arguably yes a war crime to have them doing the work in the first place.

Shooting an unsaveable man burning to death is an act of humanity so that bit not.

What a thoroughly dispiriting and unpleasant thread. Have a word with yourselves.

Quite! When I read the title I didn't expect it to be quite so literal

[img] [/img]

Ernie

A subsequent military inquiry concluded that no war crime had been committed.

So why have you mentioned it on this thread then ?

Do you think that evidence from another, completely unrelated incident, should be submitted to the present court martial, and all the evidence from the actual event which they are investigating, should be ignored.....is that it ?

Yeah, but, Falklands!

The only mistake was not remembering there were cameras.

Ernie - simply pointing out that there are circumstances that present themselves at times of war that are legally and morally ambiguous, and that its not automatically a war crime if a wounded prisoner was shot - i.e., accept nothing at face value

crankboy - unnecessarily being a key word - the senior argentinian POW officer had agreed to his men taking part in the operation to clear the ammunition and to collect other weapons and collect and bury the dead, no complaints there and they accepted the explanation.

Classic bit of Z-11 sideways action/distraction there Ernie.

Interesting he picked Argentina eh?

The jury at the court martial includes four Marines, so they will be judged by their peers.

Ernie - simply pointing out that there are circumstances that present themselves at times of war that are legally and morally ambiguous, and that its not automatically a war crime if a wounded prisoner was shot - i.e., accept nothing at face value

So what has this got to do with this case ? Are you saying there shouldn't be a court martial ? Is that it ?

Or is it just simply your usual diversionary tactic of talking about a different completely unrelated thing ?

diversionary tactic of talking about a different completely unrelated thing

A bit like:

ernie_lynch - Member
English and proud eh ?
[img] [/img]

Eh? 🙄

ninfan
Prisoners of war may in no circumstances renounce in part or in entirety the rights secured to them by the present Convention, and by the special agreements referred to in the foregoing Article[ Link ] , if such there be.article 7
so keeping them in the shed war crime unessesary danger getting them to handle the ammo war crime shooting the burning man not.

the inquiry focused on the shooting not the conditions cos we won so only go after the squadies not the officers.

In the middle of a war in harsh conditions, the available places to keep 1200 pow's was probebly quite limited.

I was impressed with the use of shakespeare

Was that the all's fair bollocks?

Crankboy - again that word "unnecessarily"

Given the fact that neither the Argentinians or the ICRC (both of whom received a full report in accordance with s121 of the convention) raised an objection, I would suggest that due consideration has likely been given to your point, and not taken further.

I was impressed by the John Lyly quote.

You're off your face z-11 😆

ninfan - Member

A bit like:

Not even vaguely like that. My post was in direct reference to a previous post.

This thread is a classic ton thread. It's designed purely to wind people up right down to using the term "This England" despite the fact that the marine court martial, the security chiefs in parliament, and the missing terror suspect, are not in any way exclusive to England, but he knew he would get extra wind up mileage if he used the term England.

As expected he gets a reaction, and true to the script he comes out with the usual excuse "I didn't mean any harm, I'm sorry if I offended anyone". And he likes to emphasize that he isn't very clever, we're all suppose to feel sorry for him 'cause he's just a bit dim.

Only the reality imo is that he thinks he's a bit of a clever **** who knows how to wind people up. Although I don't think he's as clever as he likes to think he is. Poor ol' lovable ton.

Only the reality imo is that he thinks he's a bit of a clever **** who knows how to wind people up.

Seems to be working on you though, doesn't it?

Only if you think I've been wound up.

teamhurtmore - Member
PSA: Niggle Farridge on the box tonight (BBC QT) in an odd looking bunch. He may have some[s] comments/[/s]shouts on all this.

POSTED 3 HOURS AGO #

He's certainly shouting like most bullies! True to form!!

Shuffled off this mortal coil (hamlet)

I thought it was Monty Python? 😉

so how many other times have our brave lads murdered wounded soldiers but kept their videos secret?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24870699

Dont know Kimbers. Do you? or are you just extrapolating?

ahh Geneva Convention rule breaking - something a bit closer to home:
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

One of many:
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jean_McConville ]Wiki link[/url]

we all have different ideals and thoughts on stuff.

You call those things ideals and thoughts? Blimey.

so sv are you saying the royal marines are now just as good as the IRA?

I don't get it.

Obviously not.

Ok, let's try to explain:

the heads of our national security having to go public like naughty kids,

No; they're having to be answerable to the society they are meant to serve. Which is proper and correct. Can't see why you'd have a problem with that really.

soldiers doing their job, in court for doing so,

Murdering someone and acting in breach of the Geneva convention is definitely not part of a member of the armed forces job.

and a on the run terrorist suing us for being tortured in Somaliland

Interesting case this one. As a British citizen, he has every right to sue, and I'd doubt he'd be doing so unless his lawyers believed he had a strong case. Remember that this is someone who has not, as yet, actually been charged let alone convicted of any actual terrorist offences; innocent until proven guilty, no?

TPims restrict the movements of people thought to pose a risk to the public, but who cannot be tried for reasons of national security and who cannot be deported.

Roughly translated means; 'we can't actually do anything to you, as we don't have any evidence against you, but we don't like you because you look a bit shifty'. Often applied to brown people.

TPIMs go against the British traditions of justice and liberty. They undermine the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/terrorism/control-orders/index.php

Getting it yet?

so sv are you saying the royal marines are now just as good as the IRA?

I am pointing out that breaking the Geneva Convention can lead to a pretty good job and a decent work expenses account, it'll just depend on who you are 🙄

As 'irregular' forces, weren't the IRA's actions governed by the domestic laws rather than the Geneva convention? Otherwise arrested members would have been held as PoWs?

ton - Member
cheekyboy, correct, but I for one, am happy to have these rough nasty men looking after my back while I sleep happily in my bed.

I bet you'd change your tune if a couple of blokes turned up at your door and hauled you blindfolded to an unknown basement and were chatting about how they were going to do you.

Can't believe the ignorance of that statement TBH.