Lab 10,979 Posted March 29, 2017 Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 Same result either way surely? Murder is murder in my eyes sorry if that offends anyone xI'm not offended in the slightest. But neither am I naive ! If you pick a fire fight with one of the world's elite military units, you can expect consequences......for me, it's THAT simple ! What part of the law are you not getting.?? If a burglar broke into your house tonight and you caught him, tied him up and tortured him before stabbing him to death I'd agree with what you done but you know the law was going to f**k you right up. No doubt plenty laws are needing changed..?? But laws will never change if people don't express their outrage when laws are needing changing... Yes and I'm all for that in moderation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Silversnake 1,099 Posted March 29, 2017 Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 ? i am with you that one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,798 Posted March 29, 2017 Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 (edited) At the end of the day the law saw sence and he has the backing of millions of British people No one really cares what those think who would have rather the taliban fighter received the best medical care so he could return to his country to rape or even carry out a Westminster style attack Do you know what the Geneva convention is? x Do you? You do realise he wasn't prosecuted for breaking the GC right? Yes I do obviously or I wouldn't ask. He might not of been prosecuted under it but if he never broke it then he wouldn't be in all this trouble now would he? There are laws that govern the armed forces other than the GC Act you know. He was prosecuted under the Armed Forces Act. The conventions only apply to belligerents if both parties adhere to them. You don't have to be a signatory or to have ratified this piece of international law but you do have to adhere to it if you want your enemy, whether signatory or otherwise, to do the same. Although this link is clearly from a source that many would consider questionable, I found it explains this situation quite well. http://www.meforum.org/651/does-human-rights-law-apply-to-terrorists Edited March 29, 2017 by Born Hunter Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,317 Posted March 29, 2017 Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 Same result either way surely? Murder is murder in my eyes sorry if that offends anyone xI don't understand how you can think killing a heavily armed, confirmed enemy, after a fire fight and in a war zone is the same as murder in normal every day life, but who am I to judge. Me neither mate but those are the rules he signed up to.......break those rules and you f****d up nobody can make them up as they go along. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,798 Posted March 29, 2017 Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 At the end of the day the law saw sence and he has the backing of millions of British people No one really cares what those think who would have rather the taliban fighter received the best medical care so he could return to his country to rape or even carry out a Westminster style attack Do you know what the Geneva convention is? x Do you? You do realise he wasn't prosecuted for breaking the GC right? Yes I do obviously or I wouldn't ask. He might not of been prosecuted under it but if he never broke it then he wouldn't be in all this trouble now would he? There are laws that govern the armed forces other than the GC Act you know. He was prosecuted under the Armed Forces Act. The conventions only apply to belligerents if both parties adhere to them. You don't have to be a signatory or to have ratified this piece of international law but you do have to adhere to it if you want your enemy, whether signatory or otherwise, to do the same. http://www.meforum.org/651/does-human-rights-law-apply-to-terrorists Who did you serve with? x The Salvation Army.................. what difference does it make to a discussion of facts? If what I'm stating is wrong then prove it and I'll accept the GC is relevant in an argument against Sgt. Blackman. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,798 Posted March 29, 2017 Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 (edited) Sorry I thought you knew what you were on about rather than googling it that's all hun x LOL, Soldiers don't interpret the law hun, judges do.... And besides, if you have to be an industry professional to call out a fallacy then there's not many on this forum that has any place discussing law or ethics. Edited March 29, 2017 by Born Hunter 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
walshie 2,804 Posted March 29, 2017 Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 At the end of the day the law saw sence and he has the backing of millions of British people No one really cares what those think who would have rather the taliban fighter received the best medical care so he could return to his country to rape or even carry out a Westminster style attack Do you know what the Geneva convention is? x Do you? You do realise he wasn't prosecuted for breaking the GC right? Yes I do obviously or I wouldn't ask. He might not of been prosecuted under it but if he never broke it then he wouldn't be in all this trouble now would he? There are laws that govern the armed forces other than the GC Act you know. He was prosecuted under the Armed Forces Act. The conventions only apply to belligerents if both parties adhere to them. You don't have to be a signatory or to have ratified this piece of international law but you do have to adhere to it if you want your enemy, whether signatory or otherwise, to do the same. http://www.meforum.org/651/does-human-rights-law-apply-to-terrorists Who did you serve with? x Who did YOU serve with? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,798 Posted March 29, 2017 Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 Sorry I thought you knew what you were on about rather than googling it that's all hun x LOL, Soldiers don't interpret the law hun, judges do.... And besides, if you have to be an industry professional to call out a fallacy then there's not many on this forum that has any place discussing law or ethics. So your a judge? No, but clearly you are knowing all about the laws of war and what laws Blackman broke right? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BGD 6,436 Posted March 29, 2017 Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 Right I think it's time for everyone posting in this thread to post their full C.V and service history 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,798 Posted March 29, 2017 Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 (edited) No one lol i thought born hunter had as he knew so much sorry Fair enough, in that case I'll apologise for being sarcastic in response. And I don't know 'so much'. I'm just throwing stuff that I believe is factual out there. I welcome those facts being interrogated by others better than me. Edited March 29, 2017 by Born Hunter 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,317 Posted March 29, 2017 Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 In all fairness i think the young lady asked a perfectly logical and straight forward question we all like to think we know our shit on subjects but when you read the opinions of folk who do seem to know what they are on about you like to think their opinions have come from experience rather than books......works like that for me anyway hence chaps like Socks and Stiffmeister are such valuable contributors to this topic.....just my opinion like. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,798 Posted March 29, 2017 Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 In all fairness i think the young lady asked a perfectly logical and straight forward question we all like to think we know our shit on subjects but when you read the opinions of folk who do seem to know what they are on about you like to think their opinions have come from experience rather than books......works like that for me anyway hence chaps like Socks and Stiffmeister are such valuable contributors to this topic.....just my opinion like. I agree, which I guess will surprise you. That's why I'm not telling folks what war is like. The closest I'll ever get to that is relaying accounts of others. Any rational person should be able to make a decision based on facts and evidence. The only times I'm chirping up here are when things like that are being discussed and misconstrued. I certainly wouldn't argue with a Afghan veteran about how Blackman must have felt. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lab 10,979 Posted March 29, 2017 Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 Jo there is no point debating with Born. The lad makes Stephen Fry look like Mr Bean. I wish he would get on The Chase and steal the show...? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,798 Posted March 29, 2017 Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 Jo there is no point debating with Born. The lad makes Stephen Fry look like Mr Bean. I wish he would get on The Chase and steal the show... LOL, that's bollocks, I'm wrong plenty. Problem these days is that folks just want to listen to a credible source and believe their answer is the right answer, rather than going away a learning some of the established facts themselves. I like to do that. That doesn't mean that you can then form opinions on experiences because they aren't factual, they're subjective. But you can comment on facts as you see them. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shovel shy 4,033 Posted March 29, 2017 Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 Wouldn't of happened if the brits stayed at home. Simple. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.