FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

The right to defend yourself in war.

Jump to newest
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
2 weeks ago

From the land of haribos.

Before I ask the question. I will set the scene. I watched the rules of engagement with samuel jackson, he was a marine veteran in yemen during a dangerous time. it was very good, have you also seen it? Not many movies are covering this topic which is very active today of what is happening in the world. I like how they brought it up to attention too.

It is about how a war hero is put on trial for a rescue mission that gone terribly wrong, he is on trial for ordering his troops to fire on civilians after they stormed a US embassy in a middle eastern country, he got cleared of all the charges and was free. I agreed with the outcome if it.

They said that when you get attacked in war, the rules changes, then murder isnt murder for those defending themselves in the same way.

What is your view about it, do you also agree with the right to defend yourself in war and how the rules changes?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostindreamsMan
2 weeks ago

London

Haven't seen the film. Sounds interesting and I will try to watch it.

Probably I am missing something here. But isn't self-defense a valid reason to kill even outside of war? What makes this situation more special?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
2 weeks ago

Border of London


"Before I ask the question. I will set the scene. I watched the rules of engagement with samuel jackson, he was a marine veteran in yemen during a dangerous time. it was very good, have you also seen it? Not many movies are covering this topic which is very active today of what is happening in the world. I like how they brought it up to attention too.

It is about how a war hero is put on trial for a rescue mission that gone terribly wrong, he is on trial for ordering his troops to fire on civilians after they stormed a US embassy in a middle eastern country, he got cleared of all the charges and was free. I agreed with the outcome if it.

They said that when you get attacked in war, the rules changes, then murder isnt murder for those defending themselves in the same way.

What is your view about it, do you also agree with the right to defend yourself in war and how the rules changes? "

Not seen it, sounds very interesting.

This is a principle that many struggle with. You see many (especially younger) keyboard warriors struggling to fit actions during war into a Western civil legal context. This is why war should be avoided at all costs. It unleashes a horrible state on all participants. Normal civic rules go out the window. And we wonder why soldiers returning from war have such a difficult time reintegrating.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irldnCouple
2 weeks ago

Brighton

I suspect this OP is eventually leading into whether Israel had/has a right to defend itself after the October Hamas attack?

As with any “in self defence” argument it comes down to a proportional response.

If one of us was in the pub and someone punched us in the face, we can punch back. But if we grab a chair and smash them over the head with it then when they are down get a glass and start stabbing them in the face, then that is a disproportional response and you will be in big trouble with the law.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolutionCouple
2 weeks ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club Stoke

[Removed by poster at 04/09/24 07:56:41]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolutionCouple
2 weeks ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club Stoke

The American view of everything is that if you don't understand it, shoot it. If it argues with you, shoot it. If it doesn't comply with you, shoot it. If it does it in numbers, go to war with it.

Once done. Find yourself innocent of any crime.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *idnight RamblerMan
2 weeks ago

Pershore

It's a thin line isn't it? At what point does a civilian become a combatant? If you genuinely feel your life is being threatened by the former then they become the latter, and military 'rules of engagement' apply. But then what about civilians who knowingly support combatants through human shields, escape routes, supply chains etc? Are they fair game too?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ebauchedDeviantsPt2Couple
2 weeks ago

Cumbria


"It's a thin line isn't it? At what point does a civilian become a combatant? If you genuinely feel your life is being threatened by the former then they become the latter, and military 'rules of engagement' apply. But then what about civilians who knowingly support combatants through human shields, escape routes, supply chains etc? Are they fair game too?"

So it’s about if you genuinely feel it? Does that apply to other contexts too?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
2 weeks ago

From the land of haribos.


"Haven't seen the film. Sounds interesting and I will try to watch it.

Probably I am missing something here. But isn't self-defense a valid reason to kill even outside of war? What makes this situation more special?"
That is good, it is interesting, yes, it is also valid outside of war too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
2 weeks ago

From the land of haribos.

[Removed by poster at 04/09/24 11:08:42]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
2 weeks ago

From the land of haribos.


"Before I ask the question. I will set the scene. I watched the rules of engagement with samuel jackson, he was a marine veteran in yemen during a dangerous time. it was very good, have you also seen it? Not many movies are covering this topic which is very active today of what is happening in the world. I like how they brought it up to attention too.

It is about how a war hero is put on trial for a rescue mission that gone terribly wrong, he is on trial for ordering his troops to fire on civilians after they stormed a US embassy in a middle eastern country, he got cleared of all the charges and was free. I agreed with the outcome if it.

They said that when you get attacked in war, the rules changes, then murder isnt murder for those defending themselves in the same way.

What is your view about it, do you also agree with the right to defend yourself in war and how the rules changes?

Not seen it, sounds very interesting.

This is a principle that many struggle with. You see many (especially younger) keyboard warriors struggling to fit actions during war into a Western civil legal context. This is why war should be avoided at all costs. It unleashes a horrible state on all participants. Normal civic rules go out the window. And we wonder why soldiers returning from war have such a difficult time reintegrating."
Yes, it is very interesting, that is right, it seems that many are struggling with that principle, yes, that is why war should be avoided at all costs too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ebauchedDeviantsPt2Couple
2 weeks ago

Cumbria


"Before I ask the question. I will set the scene. I watched the rules of engagement with samuel jackson, he was a marine veteran in yemen during a dangerous time. it was very good, have you also seen it? Not many movies are covering this topic which is very active today of what is happening in the world. I like how they brought it up to attention too.

It is about how a war hero is put on trial for a rescue mission that gone terribly wrong, he is on trial for ordering his troops to fire on civilians after they stormed a US embassy in a middle eastern country, he got cleared of all the charges and was free. I agreed with the outcome if it.

They said that when you get attacked in war, the rules changes, then murder isnt murder for those defending themselves in the same way.

What is your view about it, do you also agree with the right to defend yourself in war and how the rules changes?

Not seen it, sounds very interesting.

This is a principle that many struggle with. You see many (especially younger) keyboard warriors struggling to fit actions during war into a Western civil legal context. This is why war should be avoided at all costs. It unleashes a horrible state on all participants. Normal civic rules go out the window. And we wonder why soldiers returning from war have such a difficult time reintegrating.Yes, it is very interesting, that is right, it seems that many are struggling with that principle, yes, that is why war should be avoided at all costs too."

Do normal civic principles go out the window though? I’m pretty sure there are some rules about treatment and f civilians during a war that keeps the basic principle of not killing someone very much front and centre.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
2 weeks ago

Border of London


"

Do normal civic principles go out the window though? I’m pretty sure there are some rules about treatment and f civilians during a war that keeps the basic principle of not killing someone very much front and centre."

Yes. Completely.

They are replaced by, as you say,"some rules". Which are completely different to what a Western society is used to in their day to day life. The Geneva Convention is a good starting point, but imagine living with the minimal standards in that under military law, as opposed to the very free society we live in now, with a light-touch police force (a good thing) who are rarely armed (an amazing luxury, by world standards).

War really, really, really sucks.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostindreamsMan
2 weeks ago

London


"

Do normal civic principles go out the window though? I’m pretty sure there are some rules about treatment and f civilians during a war that keeps the basic principle of not killing someone very much front and centre.

Yes. Completely.

They are replaced by, as you say,"some rules". Which are completely different to what a Western society is used to in their day to day life. The Geneva Convention is a good starting point, but imagine living with the minimal standards in that under military law, as opposed to the very free society we live in now, with a light-touch police force (a good thing) who are rarely armed (an amazing luxury, by world standards).

War really, really, really sucks."

People tend to mistakenly assume that the moral foundations in a rich society that's peaceful will automatically apply everywhere and all the time. The moment there is scarcity or there is war, most of these moral foundations wouldn't mean a thing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *resesse_MelioremCouple
2 weeks ago

Border of London


"

mistakenly assume that the moral foundations in a rich society that's peaceful will automatically apply everywhere and all the time. The moment there is scarcity or there is war, most of these moral foundations wouldn't mean a thing. "

Just look at the public and government response to COVID. That's about 1% of how bad things are in a state of war. Panic buying. Rationing. Loss of civil liberties. Decisions as to who will be sacrificed for the greater good.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ornucopiaMan
2 weeks ago

Bexley

[Removed by poster at 04/09/24 16:01:44]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ornucopiaMan
2 weeks ago

Bexley


"Before I ask the question. I will set the scene. I watched the rules of engagement with samuel jackson, he was a marine veteran in yemen during a dangerous time. it was very good, have you also seen it? Not many movies are covering this topic which is very active today of what is happening in the world. I like how they brought it up to attention too.

It is about how a war hero is put on trial for a rescue mission that gone terribly wrong, he is on trial for ordering his troops to fire on civilians after they stormed a US embassy in a middle eastern country, he got cleared of all the charges and was free. I agreed with the outcome if it.

They said that when you get attacked in war, the rules changes, then murder isnt murder for those defending themselves in the same way.

What is your view about it, do you also agree with the right to defend yourself in war and how the rules changes? "

If rules really meant anything, there wouldn't be any wars.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rMonkeyMan
2 weeks ago

Somewhere

This isn't open to opinion, the rules of engagement are very clear. Off the top of my head as it's been 17 years.

You are to use no more force than is necessary

Firearms must only be used as a last resort

A challenge must given before opening fire unless, to do so would increase the risk of death or injury to yourself or others other than the attacker or you are under immediate attack.

You are to challenge before opening fire

You can only open fire if a person is committing or about tom commit and act likely to endanger life and you cannot prevent the danger any other way.

If you open fire, fire only aimed shots and no more rounds than are necessary

Take all reasonable care not to injure anyone other than your target.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *usybee73Man
2 weeks ago

in the sticks

I could give you a lecture about it, but its pointless...

Best asking those that served in northern island, and the baltics

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irldnCouple
2 weeks ago

Brighton


"I could give you a lecture about it, but its pointless...

Best asking those that served in northern island, and the baltics "

Don’t leave us hanging like that you tease. Tell us what you think/know/experienced!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eroy1000Man
2 weeks ago

milton keynes


"Before I ask the question. I will set the scene. I watched the rules of engagement with samuel jackson, he was a marine veteran in yemen during a dangerous time. it was very good, have you also seen it? Not many movies are covering this topic which is very active today of what is happening in the world. I like how they brought it up to attention too.

It is about how a war hero is put on trial for a rescue mission that gone terribly wrong, he is on trial for ordering his troops to fire on civilians after they stormed a US embassy in a middle eastern country, he got cleared of all the charges and was free. I agreed with the outcome if it.

They said that when you get attacked in war, the rules changes, then murder isnt murder for those defending themselves in the same way.

What is your view about it, do you also agree with the right to defend yourself in war and how the rules changes? "

I would say the right to defend yourself while being attacked is accepted by most, if not all. Then comes the right to defend yourself until the threat is removed. With individuals that is probably simpler than county v country and is open to interpretation. Does an opponent need to be totally destroyed like what happened to Germany in WW2 or does Hamas need to be totally destroyed in Gaza to remove the threat. Who decides when or if the threat no longer exists.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *usybee73Man
2 weeks ago

in the sticks


"I could give you a lecture about it, but its pointless...

Best asking those that served in northern island, and the baltics

Don’t leave us hanging like that you tease. Tell us what you think/know/experienced! "

The actual rules are very stupid, if you feel threatened/attacked according to the rules you have to give 3 warnings ... British army, stop or I will shoot, 3 times before firing

Thar sounds great, reading in the paper, tv screen, courtroom etc

Think about the real world? Imagine someone messing around with a device or firebomb, and your meant to do the warning 3 times ... by that time you're on fire or lost limbs

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rMonkeyMan
2 weeks ago

Somewhere


"

The actual rules are very stupid, if you feel threatened/attacked according to the rules you have to give 3 warnings ... British army, stop or I will shoot, 3 times before firing

"

Not true, read my post above summarising rules. If you are under attack and there is an immediate threat to your life or anyone else other than the attacker no warning is needed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *usybee73Man
2 weeks ago

in the sticks


"

The actual rules are very stupid, if you feel threatened/attacked according to the rules you have to give 3 warnings ... British army, stop or I will shoot, 3 times before firing

Not true, read my post above summarising rules. If you are under attack and there is an immediate threat to your life or anyone else other than the attacker no warning is needed."

Read my post again, I mentioned someone messing with a petrol bomb or other incendiary device.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *altenkommandoMan
2 weeks ago

milton keynes

JSP383 is the 700 page manual on the Rules of Armed Conflict that are based in the Geneva Convention and covers everything from the legality of armed conflict (war and operationas short of war) right down to commander’s responsibilities and the rights and obligations of the individual soldier.

The Rules of Engagement are often Theatre Specific and are issued to Commanders as the situation on the ground changes. Soldiers are issued RoE cards as an aide memoir but they are allowed to use their judgement based on the circumstances, however all decisions must be defencible. There’s no “you must give 3 stop or I shoot warnings” rules, if there is an imminent threat to life and limb (say a civillians holding a petrol bomb, facing your direction, arms going up as if about to throw and you are in a position where you have no cover) then you are authorised to open fire without the need to shout a warning. Frankly if you are in a position to shout a warning then chances are opening fire would not be justifiable anyway. Enemy combatants (or those you reasonably - and reasonably is the operative word - believe to be enemy combatants) are a different story. Tje onyl time you cannot use lethal force is if they drop their weapons and signal their surrender (a tactic used by the “ten dollar Taliban” who would open fire then as soon as they were engaged they would just drop their weapons and walk away).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *idnight RamblerMan
2 weeks ago

Pershore


"It's a thin line isn't it? At what point does a civilian become a combatant? If you genuinely feel your life is being threatened by the former then they become the latter, and military 'rules of engagement' apply. But then what about civilians who knowingly support combatants through human shields, escape routes, supply chains etc? Are they fair game too?

So it’s about if you genuinely feel it? Does that apply to other contexts too?"

Yes I think so. It's a judgement call if you feel your life is threatened because we can't read other peoples minds - only gauge their actions. Not sure what you mean about other contexts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
2 weeks ago

From the land of haribos.


"This isn't open to opinion, the rules of engagement are very clear. Off the top of my head as it's been 17 years.

You are to use no more force than is necessary

Firearms must only be used as a last resort

A challenge must given before opening fire unless, to do so would increase the risk of death or injury to yourself or others other than the attacker or you are under immediate attack.

You are to challenge before opening fire

You can only open fire if a person is committing or about tom commit and act likely to endanger life and you cannot prevent the danger any other way.

If you open fire, fire only aimed shots and no more rounds than are necessary

Take all reasonable care not to injure anyone other than your target.

"
Yes, the rules are very clear too

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top