If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Should we allow a war criminal lead a British political party and appear on national TV?
Hadn't Saddam paid his arms bill? Is this the retribution heaped on late payers by Phoney Blair? We need to be told.
Like Maggie "sink it anyway" Thatcher?
The daft old trout sank a harmless ship outside the warzone knowing full well that it was harmless and outside jurisdiction. That's a war crime. Tony's war is also bogus, so they are both war criminals. Sloppy logic, RK.
She got her arse publicly spanked about it if i remember rightly by some housewife with a bit of gumption.
Feels a bit weird quoting myself, but hey...
Back to the "inciting" law. The more I think about them, the harder I find it to defend them. What you are talking about here is a law which restricts the right of free speech which we all assume that we have. The "crime" does not cause any real harm to an individual - the harm comes from those whom act on the words used. IMHO there is little difference between this and me telling someone to rob a man and then being convicted for "incitement to rob".
One of the most celebrated miscarriages of justice is that of Derek Bentley, a boy convicted of murder and hanged because he [allegedy] told his accomplice to "Let him have it, Chris". Again, I find little difference between the two.
It is the action which is the crime. Not the words.
You seem to understand nothing about military tactics. It was an enemy ship, equipped with exocet missiles. As long as the Belgrano remained afloat it was a threat to British lives.
Interestingly enough the Belgrano's Captain felt that the sinking was justified. I suspect he knows more about the rules of war than any housewife.
Only if it was in range
Er - not true at all. It was about to enter some 'shallows' where the Conquerer couldn't follow, so all contact would have been lost. If they'd lost contact the next time the Brits knew where it was would be when there own ships started sinking.
Anyway it still doesn't make it a war crime. The geneva convention doesn't say anything about not attacking the enemy just because they can't currently hurt you
I understand military tactics thank you. Militarily it was the correct thing to do.
It was still illegal and still a war crime.
Yeah shame we are talking about points of law, innit.
Which would mean that it was in range.
A weapon is just a lump of metal until it can be used for it's purpose. In this case for the Belgrano to be a "threat" it would need to be close enough for it's weaponry to cause damage...
I wasn't arguing that it was. I was just pointing that the arguement you put forward was false. The Belgrano was suck not because it was a threat, but because it could become a threat.
As you say, perfectly acceptable under the geneva convention during a time of war. Having said that, war was never declared...
It wasn't a war crime. It was an enemy ship. Argentinia had de facto declared war on the UK the minute its forces set foot on the Falklands. Sinking enemy ships is not a war crime.
A weapon is just a lump of metal until it can be used for it's purpose. In this case for the Belgrano to be a "threat" it would need to be close enough for it's weaponry to cause damage...
I wasn't arguing that it was. I was just pointing that the arguement you put forward was false. The Belgrano was suck not because it was a threat, but because it could become a threat.[/QUOTE]
OK a very pedantic argument, but technically true. Its rather like us sinking a U-boat in the Bay of Biscay during WW2 - they weren't in torpedo range of any allied shipping either
See above post - de facto it was.
This is getting away from the main topic, but on what basis do you make this claim?
Are you arguing that it was because Argentina invaded a British territory? If so, the we should have gone to war with the US when they invaded Grenada...
How come she got a grilling by some no-mark essex housewife she couldn't wriggle out of?
Two different cases. The Queen was head of state of Grenada, but it was an independent country responsible for its own defence and foreign policy and with no power by the UK Government to intervene in its domestic matters.
The Falklands were a British Overseas Territory, over which the UK had full control of defence and foreign policy and right to intervene in its domestic policy.
Declerations of War are not needed to say something is a war.
Whilst the Hague Convention says 'that hostilities ... must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form of a declaration of war, giving reasons, or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war' However this was replaced by article 2 of the Geneva Convvention - 'In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.'
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/5aa133b15493d9d0c12563cd0042a15a?OpenDocument
Wasn't the technicality that it wasn't actually a war crime
Irrelevant - unless the woman concerned was a judge it was her opinion and a wrong one based on any understanding of the laws of war.
However lets twist this and use your tax argument of innocent unless prooven guilty - what is your evidence it was a war crime. Please use International Law as it existed at the time as your sources.
I have to agree with NQA here, your stance on courts of law means that even you don't agree with what you are saying there...
the technicality was that statute of limitations was exceeded so the case could not start. And also - and this amazes me - that the relatives hadn't exhausted all options under the IK justice system first!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/falklands/story/0,11707,889576,00.html
OK fair enough, but this doesn't mean it was a war crime, as the judges didn't even look at the issue. It wasn't that Mrs T was found not guilty because of it.
And from the Guardian article
So basically those who know the most about it and have a knowledge about the rules of armed conflict think it was a legitimate act of war.
Also from the granaiuad article.
The Clive Ponting stuff, neh?
It's a scotch "not proven" I admit. It's an alleged war crime at best and I apologise if I got it wrong in any major way. (Blagsta seems to think I don't acknowledge when I am wrong but heres some proof)
A matter of opinion - and I trust a military officer's opinion on attacking it rather than a journalist. And even if one accepts the Guardian's view that still does not make it a war crime.
All that Clive Ponting stuff shows is that it was sailing away at the time. That a) doesn't mean that it was always going to be sailing away and b) even if was going to port never to set sail again (which it wasn't btw) sinking an enemy vessel in time of war is not a war crime.
I think you should check your figures again
I cant believe in 2005 some morons really believe a political party should be banned, you might not agree with it but the BNP have got millions of votes in the past and how can you ban a party that hundreds of thousands of people vote for, madness? I realise Aladdin uses racism accusations as loosely as anything Ive ever seen or heard but calling for bans is pathetic.
btw I though the PPB was very good, story of an old war hero being stuck on the scrapheap and then Griffin at the end. Excellent.
Expect the BNP's vote to rise AGAIN this year and keep a special eye out on that Keighley seat
Yeah I know.
I already posted -
I already dropped the point. Now it may seem that i normally fight like a loony over stuff but on this I am genuinely wrong. Sorry for the mix up it was my poor understanding initially that got me out of my depth.
British Govt says no war crime - argie widows say it is. No judge has ruled so it's just an allegation, unproven either way.
Done? Dusted?