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 |
Jump to newest |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"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 privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"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 privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"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 privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"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 privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"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 privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 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 privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 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 privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 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 privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"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 privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"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 privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"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 privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"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 privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 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 privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 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 privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"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 privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"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 privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Post new Message to Thread |
back to top |