Killings of off-duty Military personel.

Sponsored Links
Just to make my position clear:

2. I think the Geneva Convention is an excellent arrangement...

...as long as both sides are signatories. If not, we should not feel the need to have our hands tied behind our backs by it.

Funnily enough thats what the nazis thought...After all, how could 'jews' be signatories as a whole?

(and yes there were signed protocols before 1949 when the term 'convention' was ultimately coined!)

A nonsensical comparison, if I may be so bold. The Jews were non-combatants so of course they were not signatories to the GC.

If a non-signatory to the GC wants to benefit from the provisions of the GC, it should also sign - and abide by - the Convention.
 
Just to make my position clear:

2. I think the Geneva Convention is an excellent arrangement...

...as long as both sides are signatories. If not, we should not feel the need to have our hands tied behind our backs by it.

Funnily enough thats what the nazis thought...After all, how could 'jews' be signatories as a whole?

(and yes there were signed protocols before 1949 when the term 'convention' was ultimately coined!)

A nonsensical comparison, if I may be so bold. The Jews were non-combatants so of course they were not signatories to the GC.

If a non-signatory to the GC wants to benefit from the provisions of the GC, it should also sign - and abide by - the Convention.
Thank you for reinforcing my point...

Although obviously you don't quite get it yet... :rolleyes:
 
Just to make my position clear:

2. I think the Geneva Convention is an excellent arrangement...

...as long as both sides are signatories. If not, we should not feel the need to have our hands tied behind our backs by it.

Funnily enough thats what the nazis thought...After all, how could 'jews' be signatories as a whole?

(and yes there were signed protocols before 1949 when the term 'convention' was ultimately coined!)

A nonsensical comparison, if I may be so bold. The Jews were non-combatants so of course they were not signatories to the GC.

If a non-signatory to the GC wants to benefit from the provisions of the GC, it should also sign - and abide by - the Convention.
Thank you for reinforcing my point...

Although obviously you don't quite get it yet... :rolleyes:

No I don't. You'll have to explain. :rolleyes:

Are you comparing the British Army v. the taliban
with the Nazis v. the civilian Jews?

These are two completely different situations.

Perhaps I should explain.

The British Army are fighting an opponent who is fighting back. Actually, the reverse is more correct: the taliban are fighting the British Army, who are attempting to defend themselves and innocent civilians.

The Nazis were under orders to, at first, segregate the Jews and later to kill them. The Jews were not trying to attack anyone.
 
Sponsored Links
Well I look forward to his response (he won't*), because I confess that I don't know what he's getting at.

(* OMG, Joe's legacy. I'm doing it now!)
 
Well I look forward to his response (he won't*), because I confess that I don't know what he's getting at.
*Oh yes he will...

You don't know what I'm 'getting at' because you are too thick to realise that what you said vindicates my point...

But hey ho...you carry on showing yourself up.

Softus would be proud of his latest disciple... ;)
 
Funnily enough thats what the nazis thought...After all, how could 'jews' be signatories as a whole?


The clue is in this sentence (unless Ellal is on a whole different plane to my thunking)........
 
Harsh fact is that there is price to be paid to keep "here" like it is and "there" over "there". Clearly it works as people from "there" keep coming "here" but no one "here" wants to go "there". Enjoy being "here" and be grateful to those who try to maintain "here". If anyone is that narked by how we protect "here" maybe they could fek off over "there".
All figurative of course. No race or religious hate intended just a deep love of good old blighty! Maybe we should all embrace the land we live in and thank our gods that we are "here" and not "there", wherever "there" is.
Happy Christmas to you all!!!!

:LOL: :LOL: I'd like to compliment you on a very eloquent post. Unfortunately, as there was so little real substance to your argument, I'm inclined to think it was niether here nor there.
 
It seems to me that the only possible vaild reason offered for the differing terms used in the description of the various acts of killing civilians and off-duty military personnel, is that argument of loyalty to one side or other.
Which, to my mind, makes all such incidents amoral.

Now if I may compare this situation of killing others and the accompanying loyalty argument for its support, to the loyalty displayed by parents of wayward offspring (often described as scroats or scrags on this forum). That loyalty displayed by such parents, towards their wayward children is often desribed as immoral on this forum. Comments such as "the parents are to blame" etc, abound.

So, I must assume that, according to some on this forum, the killing of people is amoral, whereas the support of wayward offspring is immoral.

Hmmm, how do I reconcile that in my mind?

Other than that, I have to go very soon, for today. Sorry if I disappoint those who think that my lack of time to contribute is seen as an act of submission. But, the very nature of an on-line discussion means dipping in and out, as time permits.
 
You don't half talk some rubbish at times Dex.

Blimey, I'm pushed for time and I'm rattling off a quickie respone.
If I was so short of resources that the above response was the best I could conceive, I wouldn't have bothered.

Really gotta go now!
 
You don't know what I'm 'getting at' because you are too thick to realise that what you said vindicates my point...

But hey ho...you carry on showing yourself up.

Softus would be proud of his latest disciple... ;)

Well, you know what they say about someone who had to resort to name-calling.

So at this point I feel I need say no more.

Merry Christmas.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top