Get your dancing on grave boots ready

Ernie – from some opinion polls I saw it looks like the public have already seen thru this.

Two things.
I don’t think smurf mat believes to his own arguments. 🙄

rkk – I’m not some die hard Tory boy (I didn’t vote for them)

And the picture above, surely he should be showing her his gratitude however possible. 😉

Secondly, the forum mirrors reality.

This thread just won’t fukking die either!!!!!!!!!! 👿

Blaming previous administrations seems the norm. If I recall, Labour spent about 10 years blaming the Tories for anything and everything after 1997 with a recovering economy already underway. “we’ve made a good start, let us finish it”, i think is how Blair put it after 4 years. Unfortunately he got side tracked by Iraq which is what Labour of recent vintage will be judged on, more than the now laughble “prudency – no return to boom and bust”.

If i recall Labour spent years blaming the Tories after 1997, on the back of an already recovering economy with no more “boom or bust”, but “prudency”. Before they got distracted by Iraq, of course. Seems like an easy answer to difficult questions for any new administration.

Although I do think this strategy has a limited shelf-life.

Oh I don’t know. Just to come back to the original topoic, this forum still blames Facha for everything 20 years later.

Please excuse the crap double post above!

this forum still blames Facha for everything 20 years later

no she is held responsible for the legacty she left which seems reasonable

Secondly, the forum mirrors reality.

This thread just won’t fukking die either!!!!!!!!!!

😆

Gladstones fault, or Disraelis, and Pitt the Younger…. bastard he was.
Don’t get me started on Ethelred the Unready!

“Tell everyone I’ll see them somewhere, sometime.” Roibeárd Gearóid Ó Seachnasaigh MP : 9 March 1954 – 5 May 1981.

Although Blair is recorded as saying that he admires Margaret Thatcher, he doesn’t (despite trying really hard) to seem to have managed to generate QUITE the same level of spite and loathing.

That’s because he was merely a Religious Fanatic in a position of power, not a Sociopath.

I’m interested why is the sinking of the Belgrano considered, by some, to be a war crime?

Because it is claimed by some that during a war you shouldn’t do material damage to the enemy, or something very similar to that theory.

I’m interested why is the sinking of the Belgrano considered, by some, to be a war crime?

Because it was outside the Exclusion Zone, not really posing a ‘threat’, and the deaths of hundreds of sailors was ultimately unjustifiable, and definitely avoidable.

Whatever any politicians might say.

If i recall Labour spent years blaming the Tories after 1997

They didn’t actually – far from it. In fact New Labour heaped praise on Thatcher, not least Tony Blair. And just in case anyone thought Brown would be different, this is what he did soon after moving into number 10 :

Does that ^^ look like a Labour PM blaming the Tories for everything ?

Both Blair and Brown were committed Thatcherites and where extremely reluctant to criticise anything about the Thatcher legacy. Where the **** do you get “Labour spent years blaming the Tories” ?

In the 13 years New Labour where in power the only period in which imo, they behaved in an acceptable manner, was when faced with the banker’s recession, they temporarily ditched Thatcherism.

But even then, they refused to blame Thatcher for the mess Britain found itself in. Well I suppose they couldn’t really, after following her economic policies for over 10 years.

Now, to be a “war crime” you have to meet certain tests, just as the majority of deaths in combat should not be treated as murder, however tragic.

Most of the tests are contained in the various Geneva conventions – dealing with treatment of the injured, Prisoners of War, and civilians (and their property) in the war zone. Under the relevant UK law, Section 50 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, you are referred to the Article 8.2 of the Statute of International Criminal Court.

Reading this, it seems clear that there is no way attacking, or ordering the attack on, a warship of a hostile power which represented a clear (although not immediate) danger to your operations, however great (and tragic) the loss of life is can be a war crime.

For it to be a War Crime, under the ICC Statute, you would have to establish that the persons involved were not acting in accordance with lawful ROE or within the Geneva Conventions, Furthermore, it would appear to be extremely difficult to convict of a War Crime the “Commander in Chief”, or in Maggie’s case, political leader, who caused those ROE to be set even if, as it clearly didn’t here, one or more persons following those ROE could be charged with War Crimes.

Creating and following unlawful ROE that contradicted the Geneva Conventions could be chargeable as a War Crime and, for the political leadership, there is also the different definitions of “Crimes against Humanity”, in the same statutes.

However, given again, the relevant situation: the killing of serving military personnel, who had neither surrendered or indicated a desire to surrender, as a consequence of the destruction of the military asset in which they were travelling, cannot possibly fit any category of potential transgression – even more so given the fact that military operations had taken place in the conflict -shots had already been fired, a hostile military force had invaded and used force of arms against sovereign troops and territory.

So, TJ, Fred, and others, you may not like what was done during the war but, please, if you are going to throw around the allegations of “war criminal”, please justify it with reference to the current statutes, or to those that applied in 1982 , rather than merely restating or referring to the hyperbole and ranting of Tam Dalyell and old copies of Socialist Worker

Oh be’ave yerself Labby. Sinking the Belgrano wasn’t necessary; it was an act to show British military might. Your bit of waffle there proves nowt one way or the other.

So, justify your claim of war crimes!

Which of the articles of war were breached?

or ordering the attack on, a warship of a hostile power which represented a clear (although not immediate) danger to your operations

there is the rub many think the fact it posed no immediate danger makes it wrong – not the argentinians – see wiki for quotes.
I tend to think it was neither necessary nor unlawful.
Pedantically was it not a conflict rather than a war – is there any real difference?

The murder of human beings who pose no threat to others is crime. This act happened during a war. Ergo, a ‘war crime’. Unless you are under attack from someone, killing them can never be justified.

Thatcher ordered their deaths. Makes her a criminal. Don’t start with all yer armchair lawyer bollox labby.

articles of war

That’s like me saying to you ‘no weapons, just fists’, you agreeing, then me battering your skull in with an axe. It’s bollox. There are no ‘rules’ in War. It’s war, ffs.

Enough already. She’s a War Criminal. I spose you’re going to defend her support for Pol Pot and Pinnochet next? 🙄

This thread is like a metal detector but for cocks.

You should have more self-esteem crikey.

It was no war crime.

The exclusion zone applied to neutral shipping only, not to enemy combatants. Indeed, the Argentinians didn’t even recognise it.

Some of their vessels had been skirting the periphery of it, popping in to mount an attack, then leaving in the mistaken belief that they wouldn’t be attacked, but that was their mistake.

A cock detector you mean.

Their biggest mistake was missing the big hammer and sickle on the Russian sub.

So Fred – you really, really just cannot substantiate your claim that she’s a war criminal then? so revert to the classic approach of yelling “well, its true, coz I say it is!”

Indeed, Junky makes a good point, even the Argentinians no longer claim that the sinking if the Belgramo was a war crime – so, its just the small minded, Che Guevara wearing, left wing loons with a chip on their shoulder and a Napoleon complex, like yourself Fred, who are tied to the outdated, childish thought that if they shout “war crime” loud enough, it will make it true.

Not forgetting the British quite clearly said they still reserved the right to attack threats outside their exclusion zone. The Argies and even the battle cruiser captain admit as much it was a legitimate target, and himself had orders for his ship and his exocet armed escort ships to attack any british ships on sight, regardless as to where they were.

The cock detector is flashing like crazy.

Argies = Baddies
Brits = Goodies

Regardless of wether or not she is a War Criminal by any official definition, the truth is she is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people, in that one episode alone. And is a supporter of murderous dictators. IE, a right nasty piece of work.

You strike me as the whiny kid in school, the one who’d have no real friends, who’d talk bollocks and get beat up a lot by the rest who couldn’t stand you. Probbly why you need to play with guns.

Your resorting to insults means your opinions and comments are no longer worthy of any consideration or respect. Good night.

The cock detector is flashing like crazy.

+1 😆

Yes, whenever you post deadlydarcy.

It isn’t about goodies and baddies.

Jesus Fred – sorry, I didn’t mean to upset you, my sincere apologies – I guess I overdid it with the Napoleon comment?

QUOTE: Elfinsafety – Member
Regardless of wether or not she is a War Criminal by any official definition UNQUOTE.

Having failed to score, move the goalposts.

Oh **** off bravo, can’t you tell when someone’s taking the piss?! Next thing you’ll be calling me a republican. Oh hang on, you already have. The flashing’s died down, have you gone to bed?

It’s just started up again, whenever you post…it’s uncanny.

Tuck yourself up under your Bobby Sands duvet cover.

Bobby Sands duvet cover

Bit thin for this chilly time of year, no?

Whilst you little Thathcherites are creaming yourselves over definitions, there are families of sailors who died on the Belgrano, who never got to see their loved ones again. Because some power-mad **** wanted to show how ‘tough’ she was. An act of complete cowardice.

Zulu; I’m not the one who needs to play with guns to make themselves feel all tough, mate. 😉

, its just the small minded, Che Guevara wearing, left wing loons with a chip on their shoulder and a Napoleon complex

Che Guevara wearing ?

A “Che Guevara” is an item of clothing ?…………..where can I get one ?

I think I should be wearing one of those.

And there you go again bravo…

You appear to have a lot of pent up anger, what with the offensive insults you throw about with gay abandon. Maybe see someone about it?

I’m not angry. But I’ll be a lot happier when I get my hands on a “Che Guevara”