This England…….

Home Forum Chat Forum This England…….

Viewing 29 posts - 91 through 119 (of 119 total)
  • This England…….
  • 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 ?

    Premier Icon Lifer
    Subscriber

    Yeah, but, Falklands!

    Premier Icon teethgrinder
    Subscriber

    The only mistake was not remembering there were cameras.

    ninfan
    Member

    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.

    El-bent
    Member

    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 ?

    ninfan
    Member

    diversionary tactic of talking about a different completely unrelated thing

    A bit like:

    ernie_lynch – Member
    English and proud eh ?

    Eh? 🙄

    crankboy
    Member

    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.

    Scamper
    Member

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

    ndubya
    Member

    I was impressed with the use of shakespeare

    yunki
    Member

    Was that the all’s fair bollocks?

    ninfan
    Member

    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.

    crankboy
    Member

    I was impressed by the John Lyly quote.

    yunki
    Member

    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.

    ninfan
    Member

    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 comments/shouts on all this.

    POSTED 3 HOURS AGO #

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

    ndubya
    Member

    Shuffled off this mortal coil (hamlet)

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    I thought it was Monty Python? 😉

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    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

    surfer
    Member

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

    sv
    Member

    ahh Geneva Convention rule breaking – something a bit closer to home:

    One of many:
    Wiki link

    TooTall
    Member

    we all have different ideals and thoughts on stuff.

    You call those things ideals and thoughts? Blimey.

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

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

    cybicle
    Member

    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?

    sv
    Member

    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 🙄

    Premier Icon Lifer
    Subscriber

    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?

    Premier Icon Kryton57
    Subscriber

    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.

Viewing 29 posts - 91 through 119 (of 119 total)

The topic ‘This England…….’ is closed to new replies.