The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain.

Discussions
User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain.

Post by Balsamo » Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:22 pm

Ok,
let's see if one can have a debate on this one, as it seems to be overused by deniers and misunderstood by others. Let see if one can leave "moral equivalencies" outside the debate.

It has been often repeated that strategic bombings were legal and could not be considered as a war crime. The Statement is not necessarily false nor is it totally true. It all depends on factors such as our views on international laws, the datation of the incriminated facts, etc.

Now if one wants to make something constructive out of this discussion, it’s maybe time to address this question based on Taylor’s book on Dresden which was a topic on rodoh not so long ago as this author seems to represent the view of the majority here.

Taylor starts his chapter on air war laws with Warsaw – which I consider biased as a start, and basically don’t present the pre-existent international norms on the subject.

The two conventions of The Hague were too early to take in consideration the capabilities of air warfare. That does not mean that the fate of civilians was not covered as a matter of concerns. It is to be found in the siege chapter. The idea was already to limit civilian casualties the more it was possible. Before the possibility of Aerial bombings, the artillery was the most deadly weapon available in inflict broad damage on towns and civilians.
Starting with art. 25 and 26 of the 1907 convention was clear on the principle:
“The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.”
“The officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in cases of assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.”
Basically that is about it when it comes to restrictions.

After ww1, a draft to update the regulation of air warfare was written in February 1923. It was like an application of the formal siege rules to the aerial new capabilities. Unfortunately, it was never ratified, nor signed by any power. But as the ideas behind the proposals are recurrent it is still worth mentioning them:

Article 24 goes like this:
(1) Aerial bombardment is legitimate only when directed at a military objective, that is to say, an object of which the destruction or injury would constitute a distinct military advantage to the belligerent.
(2) Such bombardment (as defined in point 1) is legitimate only when directed exclusively at the following objectives: military forces; military works; military establishments or depots; factories constituting important and well-known centers engaged in the manufacture of arms, ammunition or distinctively military supplies; lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes.
(3) The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings not in the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces is prohibited. In cases where the objectives specified in paragraph 2 are so situated, that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment.
(4) In the immediate neighborhood of the operations of land forces, the bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings is legitimate provided that there exists a reasonable presumption that the military concentration is sufficiently important to justify such bombardment, having regard to the danger thus posed to the civilian population.
Another disposition was taken 15 years later by the League of Nations – even though the organization was on its decline by then (note that Germany was no longer member of the league):
This document is interesting through its consideration – which are the expression of pre-existent ideals regarding warfare. One of them states:
Considering that this practice, for which there is no military necessity and which, as experience shows, only causes needless suffering, is condemned under the recognized principles of international law;
Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighborhood are not bombed through negligence.
Finally, the very start of the war, under pressure from President Roosevelt, France, Great Britain and Germany (the later after her polish campaign) agreed to sign the following document:
The President of the United States to the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and His Britannic Majesty, September 1, 1939
The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.
If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives.
I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply.
The last bolded sentence is of vital importance. As I have already written in previous debate on international laws, those can only pretend to have some validity/force if they are based on reciprocity, that is if/and only if all the belligerents respect it.

It is strange that Taylor choses to remain silent about the two first dispositions – which contrary to some doctrinal concepts that he mentions(Douhet, etc.) are what international norms is all about.

Up to that point, Taylor has already mentioned Warsaw, Guernica…and massacres of civilians in Poland, mixing his study with unrelated crimes. Massacres of civilians do constitute a crime, but unrelated with the preset topic)

Taylor does mention the Roosevelt pact though. But without giving it too much importance. He is clearly mistaken when he said that except a couple of strikes on German ports, all the Belligerents stick to their engagement.

I'll stop here for now, so that everyone can make his mind on the topic.
To be continued.

User avatar
Cerdic
Poster
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:55 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Cerdic » Tue Mar 18, 2014 5:53 pm

My background is in law. I'll offer three points of evaluation.

1. Strictly legal point of view: The Hague conventions were written before area bombing became possible. Thus possibly not directly applicable as the results were different. German cities were arguably not undefended (plenty of anti-aircraft guns for example). The German authorities also clearly knew their cities were to be bombed.

2. Common law: No conviction I am aware of for area bombing and atleast one statement by a judge I am aware of rejecting it as a crime.

3. International law and precedent: Some draft laws but these did not come into force. Atleast one statement by an international organisation against it, but this organisation was not representative (like the UN now is). Atleast one statement by a head of state.

To conclude: I think by the time of WW2, it was already considered by many that bombing civilians was wrong but there was and is not a real foundation for saying such an action is unequivocally illegal.

Though honestly I think the real question here is not whether it was illegal, but whether it was immoral.
„(...) Wenn wir irgendetwas beim Nationalsozialismus anerkennen, dann ist es die Anerkennung, daß ihm zum ersten Mal in der deutschen Politik die restlose Mobilisierung der menschlichen Dummheit gelungen ist.“ Kurt Schumacher 23. Februar 1932

Vote Your Conscience.

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Balsamo » Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:48 pm

Thanks Cerdic for your imput.

As you have law as background, maybe you could put some depth in your statements. The point here is to have a deeper look into the issue.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by David » Fri Apr 04, 2014 5:09 am

Hello Balsamo-
Coming in with the Revisionist view.

1. All Revisionists I know are pacifists. War makes brutes of us all.
Aerial bombing is just a way to kill women and children from a safe distance.
2. People with the bombers will ignore legalities. Victors will ignore their crimes.

Look at the totally criminal (and stupid) United States attack on Iraq. Let's reconvene when Dick Cheney is wearing striped pajamas and breaking rocks.

Unfortunately Cedric is correct, not one flier (let alone a general) has been
convicted of dropping a bomb on any Cambodian, Vietnamese, Japanese, Iraqi,
Afghani, Korean women or child.

God created war so that Americans would learn geography.”
― Mark Twain

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:11 am

David the insane holocaust denier wrote:1. All Revisionists I know are pacifists.
Jerzy Ulicki-Rek's first hearing for distributing illegal firearms and knuckledusters is coming up next month. I'm going. Do you think he will be extradited to face further charges in Poland ( where he operated a holocaust denial website)
:D

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Nessie » Sat Apr 05, 2014 11:14 am

Why not look at the history of artillery and shelling as well? It is only in modern times as in after WWII that targetting accurately became possible using gps, lazers and electronic gyroscopes.

The first use of bombing of civilians from the air was German raids on London in WWI. Then at Guernica then cities in Poland and then Rotterdamn. Sorry for thexdenier/revisionists, but you cannot expect to bomb civilians and not be retaliated against.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
iwh
Poster
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by iwh » Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:27 pm

Nessie wrote:Why not look at the history of artillery and shelling as well? It is only in modern times as in after WWII that targetting accurately became possible using gps, lazers and electronic gyroscopes.

The first use of bombing of civilians from the air was German raids on London in WWI. Then at Guernica then cities in Poland and then Rotterdamn. Sorry for thexdenier/revisionists, but you cannot expect to bomb civilians and not be retaliated against.
For an excellent account of the bombing of London in WW1 see Neil Hansen's book, "First Blitz"
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

User avatar
iwh
Poster
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by iwh » Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:31 pm

David wrote: 1. All Revisionists I know are pacifists.
...but of course they are David...
So see if you can deal with the evidence and go stick your stupid sh*t comments back
up your A**.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... &start=520

;)
For a debunking of new boy on the block John Wear see:

https://wearswarts.wordpress.com

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Nessie » Sat Apr 05, 2014 3:57 pm

iwh wrote:
Nessie wrote:Why not look at the history of artillery and shelling as well? It is only in modern times as in after WWII that targetting accurately became possible using gps, lazers and electronic gyroscopes.

The first use of bombing of civilians from the air was German raids on London in WWI. Then at Guernica then cities in Poland and then Rotterdamn. Sorry for thexdenier/revisionists, but you cannot expect to bomb civilians and not be retaliated against.
For an excellent account of the bombing of London in WW1 see Neil Hansen's book, "First Blitz"
Thanks for that. My Uni dissertation was on the Clydebank blitz.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Apr 06, 2014 2:18 am

Nessie wrote:Thanks for that. My Uni dissertation was on the Clydebank blitz.
Tony Robinson hosted a TV series on bomb damage.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1649942/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I learned that V2 missiles, dug themselves into the dirt due to velocity and thus were not as effective as V1 drones and normal bombs. It was a surprise to me.

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Sat Apr 19, 2014 7:23 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Nessie wrote:Thanks for that. My Uni dissertation was on the Clydebank blitz.
Tony Robinson hosted a TV series on bomb damage.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1649942/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I learned that V2 missiles, dug themselves into the dirt due to velocity and thus were not as effective as V1 drones and normal bombs. It was a surprise to me.
So you believe the Holocaust happened because you didn't know V2 bombs dug into the dirt?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Darren Wilshak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1485
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:16 pm

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Darren Wilshak » Sat Apr 19, 2014 8:34 pm

So you think the Holocaust didn't happen because a poster is unaware of the impact velocity of the A4?
"We are still waiting for anyone to rebut the main theme of the article that the decode in question and the numbers it quoted perfectly match those in the Korherr report.

Until such a rebuttal comes to light and goes through peer review the article stands the test of time. And after 10 years since the article was published both Peter (Witte) and I have moved on to other research projects. "

AHF

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Apr 20, 2014 2:27 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote: So you believe the Holocaust happened because you didn't know V2 bombs dug into the dirt?


Fascinating logic Mary. You seem to be getting more and more confused lately. I imagine holocaust deniers are running around like chickens with their heads cut off at the moment, clutching at any straw they can.

Did you see the new photos of the old gas chamber excavated at Treblinka?

:D

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:07 am

Darren Wilshak wrote:So you think the Holocaust didn't happen because a poster is unaware of the impact velocity of the A4?
What kind of idiot logic is that?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:09 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote: So you believe the Holocaust happened because you didn't know V2 bombs dug into the dirt?


Fascinating logic Mary. You seem to be getting more and more confused lately. I imagine holocaust deniers are running around like chickens with their heads cut off at the moment, clutching at any straw they can.

Did you see the new photos of the old gas chamber excavated at Treblinka?

:D
No I missed those. Why don't you show them to me? You always have the most convincing photographic evidence.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Nessie » Sun Apr 20, 2014 2:23 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Darren Wilshak wrote:So you think the Holocaust didn't happen because a poster is unaware of the impact velocity of the A4?
What kind of idiot logic is that?
It is a parody of your logic, which you have just admitted to being idiotical.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Darren Wilshak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1485
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:16 pm

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Darren Wilshak » Sun Apr 20, 2014 4:52 pm

Maryzilla: So you believe the Holocaust happened because you didn't know V2 bombs dug into the dirt?

That was his post Nessie and it was every bit as idiotic as you have just written.
"We are still waiting for anyone to rebut the main theme of the article that the decode in question and the numbers it quoted perfectly match those in the Korherr report.

Until such a rebuttal comes to light and goes through peer review the article stands the test of time. And after 10 years since the article was published both Peter (Witte) and I have moved on to other research projects. "

AHF

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:54 pm

Nessie wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Darren Wilshak wrote:So you think the Holocaust didn't happen because a poster is unaware of the impact velocity of the A4?
What kind of idiot logic is that?
It is a parody of your logic, which you have just admitted to being idiotical.
It wasn't a parody. I have learned here that the Holocaust is understood by Believers to be an undefined event that is either true or false. Further, the truth of the Holocaust is proven by an infinite number of related and unrelated facts any of which will prove the Holocaust false if altered in any way. Being a Skeptic, I of course recognize the absurdity of this way of thinking. But how else can you explain comments like
Cerdic wrote:Is this just a poor attempt to prove the Holocaust is fabricated because some footage was fabricated for propaganda purposes (something done by all sides, also in WW1)?
unless Cerdic believes that fabricated footage for propaganda purposes would actually be able to prove the Holocaust false?

Or Raskolnikov, asking way back in 2005
Anyway, doesn't it strike you as odd that you are using the deaths of the Frank family, where three out of four died, to argue that the Holocaust *didn't* happen?
can only make sense if Raskolnikov believes that the death or survival of members of a single family determines the truth of the Holocaust.

Even you said:
Yet another attempt to claim the Holocaust did not happen by reproducing some stories which were clearly false.
and
Do you understand that is if you want to deny the Holocaust because of some Polish propaganda, you also need to consider denying the whole of WWII did not take place?
No revisionist has ever said that the appearance of wartime propaganda is all the evidence anybody needs to prove the Holocaust (or any other undefined historical event) didn't happen. Unless you're intentionally misrepresenting your opponents argument for some deceitful purpose, the only reason you would understand that to be your opponent's argument is if you believe that it was a reasonable argument.

Even Crazy Matty believes that related, unrelated, and random facts can prove the Holocaust false:
You directly said that "they were cremated" at (3.18) and then argue that the holocaust didn't happen because there were no mass graves, when you knew they were there. You lied.
You are now claiming the "holocaust didn't happen" because a TV show didn't name the manufacturer of the tiles in the old gas chamber.
Given that this perception of the Holocaust is well entrenched within the Believer Cult, Darren Wilshak question:
So you think the Holocaust didn't happen because a poster is unaware of the impact velocity of the A4?
is perfectly consistent with the Believer way of thinking. Darren Wilshak has never tried to "parody" the idiot logic of Believers before so I see no reason to believe that he has done so here. He asked me that question because he is worried that the unrelated random fact that a poster is unaware of the impact velocity of some object actually is capable of proving that the Holocaust is false. I recognize that as "idiot logic" which is why I identified it as such.

Interestingly, when I asked Crazy Matty if he believes the Holocaust happened because Treblinka is in Poland, he didn't accuse me of employing idiot logic. He didn't deny that the reason he believes the Holocaust happened is because Treblinka is in Poland. He replied that David doesn't know that Treblinka is in Poland. I guess Crazy Matty thinks that knowing Treblinka is in Poland is sufficient evidence that the Holocaust happened and that maybe if David knew where Treblinka was, he would believe everything professional historians tell him about the Holocaust is true as well.

I call that "idiot logic."
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Darren Wilshak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1485
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:16 pm

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Darren Wilshak » Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:29 pm

Blather and a guy who once posted at JREF standing up upon a soap box is all I can see. My first thought was "not sure if he is trolling." There is no "believer cult," Mary, there is a small denier cult however but it doesn't do you any long term good to try and project your sadly miniscule delusions and those of your friends about history onto historians and history.

Worried? LOL and you call Matthew crazy. No I'm not worried, I'm astonished though that you would attempt that level of rambling BS, which is patent sophistry mixed in with the usual interminable denier self and public justifications for your crap as an answer, why not just simply walk away? But no, the chance, to give a boring weird speech was too good to resist.

Maybe Nessie will entertain you in this but I certainly am not going to. For further humilation edification, the A4 V2 was not a "bomb" as you describe it as the V1 was, it was the first fairly sophisticated ballistic rocket with an explosive payload.
"We are still waiting for anyone to rebut the main theme of the article that the decode in question and the numbers it quoted perfectly match those in the Korherr report.

Until such a rebuttal comes to light and goes through peer review the article stands the test of time. And after 10 years since the article was published both Peter (Witte) and I have moved on to other research projects. "

AHF

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:21 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote: I have learned here that the Holocaust is understood by Believers to be an undefined event that is either true or false.
No Mary. You are a holocaust denier whose entire knowledge of history comes from television shows. If you had actually read a book, say Arad, you would have read a definition of the holocaust.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:Further, the truth of the Holocaust is proven by an infinite number of related and unrelated facts any of which will prove the Holocaust false if altered in any way.
No Mary. You don't know any facts. That's why you are whinging like a little girl and not presenting any coherent arguments based on facts.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:Being a Skeptic
No Mary. You aren't a skeptic. Skeptics explain their arguments against specific claims. You presented a propaganda video from someone who got out of an asylum and didn't even watch it yourself.
Mary Q Contrary wrote: Even Crazy Matty believes that related, unrelated, and random facts can prove the Holocaust false:
No Mary. You are lying again. Can you list any fact I used to support the conventional view of the holocaust which is not true? You can't because you are lying.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:Given that this perception of the Holocaust is well entrenched within the believer cult.
There is no believer cult. There are qualified historians and peer review. You belong to the holocaust denial cult that has no historians, no peer review and your cult's latest propaganda video was produced by a person from a lunatic asylum.

Mary Q Contrary wrote: Interestingly, when I asked Crazy Matty if he believes the Holocaust happened because Treblinka is in Poland
No Mary. I was informing David the holocaust denier where Poland is. He didn't know. It is the same as we had to explain the difference between Treblinka Ii, Treblinka I and Treblinka railway station to you. You didn't know. You two are complete idiotic cult members who know absolutely nothing.
Mary Q Contrary wrote: He replied that David doesn't know that Treblinka is in Poland.
He didn't. You didn't know the difference between Treblinka I and Treblinka railway station. You're both really stupid remember?
Something about Mary.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Apr 22, 2014 11:33 pm

Darren Wilshak wrote:I'm astonished though that you would attempt that level of rambling BS.
It is even funnier than you think. Mary hasn't got one argument left and so she's copying David the holocaust denier's language.
Mary Q Contrary, the holocaust denier wrote: I have learned here that the Holocaust is understood by Believers
Mary Q Contrary, the holocaust denier wrote:Crazy Matty thinks
But then in the same breath.....
Mary Q Contrary, the holocaust denier wrote:I know they excavated the actual old gas chamber.
You should see if Eric Hunt can book you a bed in his ward at his psychiatric facility.

"Justice Dondero then addressed Hunt directly, saying, "the court expects you - I want to be very clear, you have got to maintain mental health treatment - this type of behavior cannot be allowed to happen again."

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by David » Wed May 28, 2014 10:50 pm

iwh wrote:
David wrote: 1. All Revisionists I know are pacifists.
...but of course they are David...
So see if you can deal with the evidence and go stick your stupid sh*t comments back
up your A**.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... &start=520

;)
However, Revisionists are often outspoken.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by David » Wed May 28, 2014 11:03 pm

[quote="Crazy wherebeeurope" Matty"]No Mary. I was informing David the holocaust denier where Poland is. He tried to insist that it was in Europe.
{snip remaining drivel} [/quote]

Hello Crazy Matty, On a related topic, I was wondering if you or other Believers have a defense of the use of atomic bombs against the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed May 28, 2014 11:22 pm

David the insane holocaust denier wrote: Hello Crazy Matty, On a related topic, I was wondering if you or other Believers have a defense of the use of atomic bombs against the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Yes I do. However I'm going to wait for you to answer all those questions you are avoiding in other thread first.
:D

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed May 28, 2014 11:27 pm

David the insane holocaust denier wrote:However, Revisionists are often outspoken.
Especially those who work for the Iranian foreign propaganda service.
:D

Jurgen Graf
"A very significant example is the vicious propaganda against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Jews and their stooges bitterly hate Iran because that country has dared to challenge the political, military and cultural imperialism of the world's only remaining superpower, the Zionist-led USA. It is of paramount importance to remember that the people who are constantly lying about "gas chambers" and "six million" are the same ones who relentlessly vilify Iran and the Islamic Revolution. They are, incidentally, the same people who propagate abortion, gay rights (including the right of homosexuals to marry a partner of their own sex and the right of homosexual couples to adopt children), hard-core pornography, and similar abominations."

You share his views, don't you David? What's your view on gay rights again?
:D

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of USA

Post by David » Wed May 28, 2014 11:51 pm

Hello Crazy Matty-
I marched against the invasion of Iraq and think that the US's invasion was
a criminal act.
I am firmly against military action against the Iranian people.
I do not like Islamic crazies anymore than I like Holocaust Believer crazies like you.
I think it is ok if you are gay but think that Daedalus was way to young for you, on a purely personal level.
I am for family planning and agree that women should have the right to abortions.

Now care to answer the question about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of USA

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu May 29, 2014 12:27 am

Jurgen Graf / Holocaust denier / Neo-Nazi / David's Hero
"A very significant example is the vicious propaganda against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Jews and their stooges bitterly hate Iran because that country has dared to challenge the political, military and cultural imperialism of the world's only remaining superpower, the Zionist-led USA. It is of paramount importance to remember that the people who are constantly lying about "gas chambers" and "six million" are the same ones who relentlessly vilify Iran and the Islamic Revolution. They are, incidentally, the same people who propagate abortion, gay rights (including the right of homosexuals to marry a partner of their own sex and the right of homosexual couples to adopt children), hard-core pornography, and similar abominations."
David the insane holocaust denier wrote:Hello Crazy Matty-
I marched against the invasion of Iraq and think that the US's invasion was
a criminal act.
Do you support holocaust denier Jurgen Graff's views that
1) The USA is a Zionist country?
2) That Zionists support gay rights which are an abomination?
3) That Zionists propagate abortion which is an abomination?


Did you march against Jurgen Graf, the neo nazi, holocaust denier? Oh that's right, you can't. He lives in Tehran working for the Iranian IPIS.
David the insane holocaust denier wrote: I think it is ok if you are gay but think that Daedalus was way to young for you, on a purely personal level.
Hey David, you are the "odd fellow" who changes my posts into pink. Why is that David? "Favourite colour" or an attempt at an insult by suggesting I'm gay. Which is it?
:D

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Aerial warfare: the case of USA

Post by David » Thu May 29, 2014 1:05 am

Crazy 'let's talk about my sexuality' Matty wrote:[
Do you support holocaust denier Jurgen Graff's views that
1) The USA is a Zionist country?
2) That Zionists support gay rights which are an abomination?
3) That Zionists propagate abortion which is an abomination?
Hello Crazy Matty. I really don't give a rat's ass about your sexual orientation. I am not sure who you mean by Zionists. In the US? In Israel?
Some are Jewish, Some are crazy Christians waiting for "End-times." Some are very liberal. Some are very conservative. Unfortunately, the Netanyahu types are in power. I classify Bibi as a racist reactionary. I admire those Israelis who stand up for Palestinian rights and are "Refuseniks". Basically your questions are too stupid to try and answer
.

Now can you tell us your defense of dropping atomic bombs on the women and children
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Thank you.


Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Aerial warfare: the case of USA

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu May 29, 2014 2:54 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Do you support holocaust denier Jurgen Graff's views that
1) The USA is a Zionist country?
2) That Zionists support gay rights which are an abomination?
3) That Zionists propagate abortion which is an abomination?
David the insane holocaust denier wrote:Hello Crazy Matty. I really don't give a rat's ass about your sexual orientation.
So why do you keep bringing it up and changing my posts to pink? Sigmund Freud can explain that to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_homosexuality" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
David the insane holocaust denier wrote: I am not sure who you mean by Zionists. In the US? In Israel?
Why are you asking me? It's your fellow holocaust denier Jurgen Graf who is making the claim, you complete idiot.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by digress » Thu May 29, 2014 10:06 pm

I've no idea whether or not Aerial warfare was legal in Britain during WWI or WWII but despite trying to address the legal question while leaving out the "moral equiv", as OP put it, it seems to beg the attention of thinkers here.

I believe pacifism is immoral and anybody here who takes that stance as the moral high-ground when trying to defend human values will find their own values defenseless.

Before any individual or community is able to determine whether or not a war is justified needs to first determine what/who their enemy is vs. the values they wish to protect. If you are unsure what those values are you will always be at a loss when trying to determine who is your enemy.

The citizen is not automatically exempt from war because the citizen is responsible for upholding the values of a society. If they want to take an irresponsible stance and claim they do not participate in political struggles in the face of oppression then they will also be spectators when the shells whistle passed their ears. Continuing to not have a say. And if they take a pacifist approach when trying to address internal reform are already taking a position of defeat when in a possibly dire situation, crying for action, in a defense for human values. This means that the citizen is not innocent and is a part of the situation regardless of their individual convictions as being "otherwise".

If your society decides it's going to be aggressive in it's attempts to oppress the rights and freedoms of other societies- it will be the responsibility of neighboring societies to now correct the abuse of the community who has been able to run amuck. Regardless as to whether they are directly under attack or not. Because it is not possible to co-exist with an aggressive or nihilistic neighbor and so the decision to take care of this menace will rest with a foreign, unfamiliar, power. In that resolve mistakes will ALWAYS be a result and critique of the after math of said engagements as being sloppy and disgusting reflect poorly of the situation which was at hand.

Taking an example or Britain bombing Germany in the face of a neighboring aggressive fascist dictatorship. They had to ask themselves how do they put a dent in this society gone amock. Well, you could try to determine how you will do the most damage with the least amount of artillery. So maybe targeting the most condense city buildings is a good start. However, the foreigner will not know if those condensed building house the only real opposition in Germany to the fascist problem. The engagement may take place and afterwords may be reviewed as a gigantic, maybe immoral, mistake but this is why war is hell. You do the best with what you've got to correct a problem you shouldn't have had to face in the first place. Had the society originally done their part correctly the citizen would not be crying mercy.

This brings me to those who say US invading Iraq was a crime. Suddam Husein was known for breaking all acts of the Geneva Convention. He, for years, gassed an estimated 800k citizens. He was notorious for aggression towards neighboring countries. The 8 year war with Iran estimated a million deaths in a single example. He housed international criminals known for assassination attempts all across Europe. And he was caught numerous times trying to acquire nuclear weaponry. Not just by trying to buy them off the shelf from N. Korea, but by finishing a centrifuge project lead by his own team of scientists. Which doesn't begin to dive into the internal oppression as a whole.

Anybody who looks at this picture and values anything about freedom or peace and says the USA is a criminal for trying to remove this global menace, I seriously have to ask if you've any moral capacity? How irresponsible does your position have to be to say Iraq wasn't an enemy to every value we uphold as a society? The enemy is not only there, but flagrantly breaking every peace-act it's sworn sovereignty to. Does no credit go to those who bravely say, We will punish this disgusting behavior?
  God is an idea.  
"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Post by David » Thu May 29, 2014 11:08 pm

digress wrote: This brings me to those who say US invading Iraq was a crime. Suddam Husein was known for breaking all acts of the Geneva Convention. He, for years, gassed an estimated 800k citizens. He was notorious for aggression towards neighboring countries. The 8 year war with Iran estimated a million deaths in a single example. He housed international criminals known for assassination attempts all across Europe. And he was caught numerous times trying to acquire nuclear weaponry. Not just by trying to buy them off the shelf from N. Korea, but by finishing a centrifuge project lead by his own team of scientists. Which doesn't begin to dive into the internal oppression as a whole.

Anybody who looks at this picture and values anything about freedom or peace and says the USA is a criminal for trying to remove this global menace, I seriously have to ask if you've any moral capacity? How irresponsible does your position have to be to say Iraq wasn't an enemy to every value we uphold as a society? The enemy is not only there, but flagrantly breaking every peace-act it's sworn sovereignty to. Does no credit go to those who bravely say, We will punish this disgusting behavior?
Hello digress- You raise several interesting points. However, I was trying to see
if Crazy Matty really did have any arguments for dropping atomic weapons
on Japanese civilians in August 1945.
He has been "Demanding" that I
answer a string of questions first…so, in fact I have allowed the discussion to digress.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Post by David » Thu May 29, 2014 11:11 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:So why do you keep bringing it up and changing my posts to pink? Sigmund Freud can explain that to you.
Why does it bother you so much?

Anyway, weren't you were going tell us all your great reasons for dropping atomic bombs
on Japanese women and children?


Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu May 29, 2014 11:31 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:So why do you keep bringing homosexuality up and changing my posts to pink? Sigmund Freud can explain that to you.
David the pink changing holocaust denier wrote:Why does it bother you so much?
It doesn't David. You are the person bothering to do it. Think about it.......

I just hope you are using both hands to type after you change my posts into pink

:mrgreen:

User avatar
Cerdic
Poster
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:55 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Cerdic » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:30 am

digress wrote:I've no idea whether or not Aerial warfare was legal in Britain during WWI or WWII but despite trying to address the legal question while leaving out the "moral equiv", as OP put it, it seems to beg the attention of thinkers here.

I believe pacifism is immoral and anybody here who takes that stance as the moral high-ground when trying to defend human values will find their own values defenseless.

Before any individual or community is able to determine whether or not a war is justified needs to first determine what/who their enemy is vs. the values they wish to protect. If you are unsure what those values are you will always be at a loss when trying to determine who is your enemy.

The citizen is not automatically exempt from war because the citizen is responsible for upholding the values of a society. If they want to take an irresponsible stance and claim they do not participate in political struggles in the face of oppression then they will also be spectators when the shells whistle passed their ears. Continuing to not have a say. And if they take a pacifist approach when trying to address internal reform are already taking a position of defeat when in a possibly dire situation, crying for action, in a defense for human values. This means that the citizen is not innocent and is a part of the situation regardless of their individual convictions as being "otherwise".

If your society decides it's going to be aggressive in it's attempts to oppress the rights and freedoms of other societies- it will be the responsibility of neighboring societies to now correct the abuse of the community who has been able to run amuck. Regardless as to whether they are directly under attack or not. Because it is not possible to co-exist with an aggressive or nihilistic neighbor and so the decision to take care of this menace will rest with a foreign, unfamiliar, power. In that resolve mistakes will ALWAYS be a result and critique of the after math of said engagements as being sloppy and disgusting reflect poorly of the situation which was at hand.

Taking an example or Britain bombing Germany in the face of a neighboring aggressive fascist dictatorship. They had to ask themselves how do they put a dent in this society gone amock. Well, you could try to determine how you will do the most damage with the least amount of artillery. So maybe targeting the most condense city buildings is a good start. However, the foreigner will not know if those condensed building house the only real opposition in Germany to the fascist problem. The engagement may take place and afterwords may be reviewed as a gigantic, maybe immoral, mistake but this is why war is hell. You do the best with what you've got to correct a problem you shouldn't have had to face in the first place. Had the society originally done their part correctly the citizen would not be crying mercy.

This brings me to those who say US invading Iraq was a crime. Suddam Husein was known for breaking all acts of the Geneva Convention. He, for years, gassed an estimated 800k citizens. He was notorious for aggression towards neighboring countries. The 8 year war with Iran estimated a million deaths in a single example. He housed international criminals known for assassination attempts all across Europe. And he was caught numerous times trying to acquire nuclear weaponry. Not just by trying to buy them off the shelf from N. Korea, but by finishing a centrifuge project lead by his own team of scientists. Which doesn't begin to dive into the internal oppression as a whole.

Anybody who looks at this picture and values anything about freedom or peace and says the USA is a criminal for trying to remove this global menace, I seriously have to ask if you've any moral capacity? How irresponsible does your position have to be to say Iraq wasn't an enemy to every value we uphold as a society? The enemy is not only there, but flagrantly breaking every peace-act it's sworn sovereignty to. Does no credit go to those who bravely say, We will punish this disgusting behavior?
interesting post, and I have to agree that pacifism is not always the answer to stopping suffering and death. It hasn't worked for Tibetans and it certainly won't work for the western world in combating terrorism.

And how does Israel stop Iran, a theocratic state, from attempting to carry out their stated intention of destroying Israel if not by force? The Iranian's belief is based around religion and not anything rational, so there's no way to convince them to change their ways.

I'm sure there's an interesting discussion to be had about comparative actions during WW2- but not with revisionists, as they deny one of the combatants atrocities.
„(...) Wenn wir irgendetwas beim Nationalsozialismus anerkennen, dann ist es die Anerkennung, daß ihm zum ersten Mal in der deutschen Politik die restlose Mobilisierung der menschlichen Dummheit gelungen ist.“ Kurt Schumacher 23. Februar 1932

Vote Your Conscience.

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Balsamo » Wed Jun 04, 2014 9:14 pm

Disgress said
I've no idea whether or not Aerial warfare was legal in Britain during WWI or WWII but despite trying to address the legal question while leaving out the "moral equiv", as OP put it, it seems to beg the attention of thinkers here.
Actually, you are the first to address the issue I wanted to raise, here, even if by saying you don’t know. My intention was, of course, not to make any “moral equivalence” which is what I understand as a “non sequitur”.
Anyway, I guess that this forum is not the best place for this specific debate.

I find you post quite interesting, although I am not sure to understand what you mean by “pacifism” and even less of role of society’s values in international affairs.
But if one accept the intentions of International laws, and in this case, the Nurnberg trial and its legal consequences, one have to notice that the definition of “crime against peace” was an attempt to make most wars illegal.
In the US charter, there is a clear distinction between war and the use of force. And even then, the use of force is supposed to be the mean of very last resort. The Use of Force by any State is forbidden, unless it falls under “legitimate defense” or to defend “collective security”…Wars of aggression is explicitly forbidden…more precisely, the use of force in international relations is out of law!
That should temper the “immoral” qualification you give to “pacifism”, as peace should be the norm, which make pacifism in relations between States the ultimate Law and the ultimate objective of the United Nations.

Of course, those norms did not exist in 1939.

So when you say:
Taking an example or Britain bombing Germany in the face of a neighboring aggressive fascist dictatorship. They had to ask themselves how do they put a dent in this society gone amock. Well, you could try to determine how you will do the most damage with the least amount of artillery. So maybe targeting the most condense city buildings is a good start
For the sake of the context, let’s just say that “Wars” where not illegal in those times, for whatever reasons, a “casus belli” can be valid even if has no “moral foundation”, and seen as an extension of international Policies, but the way to do war did exist.
The question here being : did Britain broke the laws of war when it started bombing distant German city. It has nothing to do with the reasons that pushed England to declare war on Germany.

The historical context makes you next example irrelevant but worth to be noticed:
This brings me to those who say US invading Iraq was a crime. Suddam Husein was known for breaking all acts of the Geneva Convention. He, for years, gassed an estimated 800k citizens. He was notorious for aggression towards neighboring countries. The 8 year war with Iran estimated a million deaths in a single example. He housed international criminals known for assassination attempts all across Europe. And he was caught numerous times trying to acquire nuclear weaponry. Not just by trying to buy them off the shelf from N. Korea, but by finishing a centrifuge project lead by his own team of scientists. Which doesn't begin to dive into the internal oppression as a whole.
In you second example, the context is different, since the Nurnberg trials, and the US Charter, wars of aggression is forbidden, and the use of force is tight with precise limit and considered as the action of last resort, when every other options have failed.

My point here is of course not to pretend that Saddam Hussein was a good guy. He indeed led a war of aggression against Koweit and was punished for it. I guess that the Iran-Iraq war can be left aside.
The problem I have with your reasoning is that transposed to national law, it would make “legal” to attack, molest or even kill any well-known gangster, drug dealer, rapist or whatever perverse one could think of. Well, in most country, any avenger who does justice himself ends up in Jail, just because, whatever good the motives are, the act is illegal. The same logic applies to international laws.

On the legal aspect of this case, the most important thing is that the USA did not get any UN mandate or even approval for their action. But this topic is not about the legality of US invasion of Irak…even though both subjects have points in common.

Cerdic said
interesting post, and I have to agree that pacifism is not always the answer to stopping suffering and death. It hasn't worked for Tibetans and it certainly won't work for the western world in combating terrorism.
And how does Israel stop Iran, a theocratic state, from attempting to carry out their stated intention of destroying Israel if not by force? The Iranian's belief is based around religion and not anything rational, so there's no way to convince them to change their ways.
I'm sure there's an interesting discussion to be had about comparative actions during WW2- but not with revisionists, as they deny one of the combatants atrocities.
Again, coming from a lawyer, I am quite surprised.
Now again, moral value has no place in international affairs, and certainly not in the analysis of them. Now maybe WAR, drone bombing and missiles launched from nuclear submarines are great tools for stopping “suffering and death”…or should I say, I leave it to your appreciation…
But the issue is what is legal and what is not, and more importantly what was legal and what was not in 1940.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by digress » Wed Jun 04, 2014 11:11 pm

Cerdic wrote: And how does Israel stop Iran, a theocratic state, from attempting to carry out their stated intention of destroying Israel if not by force?
Isreal is not the only nation who has to worry about a nuclear Iran. Iran is a muslum state. Once they acquire nuclear weapons the rest of the world will be at odds to listen to their stupid barbaric, largely plagiarism of the bible, islamic rhetoric that says things like, Islam is the last revelation. All non-believers are subject to being chattel and slaves.

How do people look at this mentality and think a war is avoidable? We just need to give them more power to avoid war, right? Just let them have their way. Our values can take a back seat in the name of peace. I say a free society that lets you study anything you want in private and say anything in public(the US) is more than enough to accommodate Iran. But it isn't enough and they intend to fight. Get ready for it. The USA received nothing but grief for removing Saddam who was evidently way more maniacal, unpredictable, gangster, tyrannical than Iran has even been. It'll take a real leap of something to prevent Iran's recent goal.

Just remember Saddam said that his only regret was not finishing the bomb before invading Kuwait. Had he done so what would the international community have done?
Balsamo wrote: But the issue is what is legal and what is not, and more importantly what was legal and what was not in 1940.
Thanks for your input Balsamo. I came hear to read what people had to say about your topic, but found something different lol

On whether or not the USA had international approval to remove Saddam from power. Is it not the case that according to the Geneva Convention, signed by every member of the UN, that it is mandatory for all agreed parties to either prevent, or punish, attempts of Genocide on a people or society?

Now you and many others may boast about how the USA didn't have a legal right. I'd say the evidence shows that the parties who failed to recognize this problem for decades, because Saddam's Genocide of Kurdistans didn't start with Kuwait, is the first offender. Now I am not trying to say that approval isn't important, but this is why I asked if people have any real moral capacity to suggest the USA was wrong for making a move. We were legally obligated by written documents we swore our sovereignty to- to act. Every other UN member should have been the ones to lose face, NOT the USA.

I'd say the moment those with authority ignore law they agree to uphold is the moment when you've realized you've a scandal on your hands. The USA was the ONLY nation willing to stand behind what we believe to be true, and written in document form, with our invasion of Iraq.
  God is an idea.  
"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Balsamo » Thu Jun 05, 2014 2:10 am

Hum...how to put it in simple words...This topic is/was legality vs international actions taken by a Nation State.
You answer through convictions, ideological arguments...And, believe me, i don't mind. But if we imagined ourself in a court room, in front of a judge and a jury, you might well explain and justify why you had to kill a bunch of suspected bad guys that would have represented a threat to your family and your friends...you'd still be in front of a judge and jury because whatever your motives what you did was against the law.

Now, i personnally, don't believe in International laws, at least when i was working in the field, when applied to international relations. But i have noticed that especially in the West, there is this tendency to have both side of the coin...An international Justice based on international laws when it comes to deal with ennemies, and somehow, some value that is above justice when it comes to their own "not so legal" international actions.

This forum, or at least this subsection, is about Holocaust denial - and this subject is one of their favourite because it opens the door to their "moral equivalency" scheme. But on the other hand, force is to notice that the opposite is sometimes true - as explained in the former paragraph. Whatever the Allies might have done, it's ok because the ennemy was Hitler who was a genocidal evil.

But moral value has normally no place in a court room, the best you can get is what we call in french "circonstances attenuantes" or " extenuating circumstances", and you might end up with a less severe punishment for your "crime".

This would not have been a subject of debate without the Nurnberg trials which are presented as a step forward to a more concrete international law. As a concept, it supposes that one have some norms that apply to every Nation State, which is still not concievable in international relations and explains why there is no permanent international court.

I don't really want to be drag down to specific case involving Israel and the USA.
But this sentence is funny:
Isreal is not the only nation who has to worry about a nuclear Iran
Now, i am sure you are aware that it is absolutely illegal for Israel to have nuclear weapons. But It has enough to blow up the planet. Given that situation, how is Iran, and basically all arab nations in the region supposed to react? Because, you know, it might seem silly, but they have security concern on their own. So why shouldn't there be worry to have this small Israel with a Arsenal that could blow up the whole region.
Now, i guess that you are not so familiar with this topic, but you would be surprised that faced with what was for them the "US-Israeli threat", most countries, and especially Iran chose to respect their international engagements regarding "forbidden weapons"...remember they are the ones who suffered from Iraki's gaz aggressions.
Now, i challenge you to give one exemple of Iran breaking the UN rules and waging a war of aggression...they just didn't. One of the main responsible for the current mess, are the liberties we took with the norms We have imposed since the end of the cold war. Of course, we took those liberties in the the name of "our freedom, Goodness, and whatever".

The way this thread is going only confirms that international Laws is no more a concern for the majority. Although it could have been the ultimate legacy of the bloody world war 2.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by digress » Thu Jun 05, 2014 4:43 am

It's scary the way you talk because you say a morally superior motive may not uphold, or as you seem to imply, should not uphold, in a court room. This case being the fact the US enforced other laws over the vote of the international body in a direly immoral situation. Maybe a lawyer like yourself would like to profit off this code-of-conduct in the face of goons waving around their UN veto glow-sticks.

Reform is important in the face of reason. If I'm able to show why saving a life means taking a life and can show the life taken intended harm then I believe I've succeeded in defending human progress. And I'd claim that right.

Besides, USA was at war with Iraq since 1991. The UN can {!#%@} off because we've had a no fly zone over that country for over a decade to prevent them from... guess what? further gassing of citizens!! It was money hungry UN members who said, No let's just keep sanctioning them. Sending them further into poverty.
Balsamo wrote: Now, i challenge you to give one exemple of Iran breaking the UN rules and waging a war of aggression...they just didn't. One of the main responsible for the current mess, are the liberties we took with the norms We have imposed since the end of the cold war. Of course, we took those liberties in the the name of "our freedom, Goodness, and whatever".
Iran is a nation that uses the Ayatollah to impose Sharia law on citizens. Banning things like chess or satellite dishes. Known for raping women before an execution on the basis of forgetting to wear a veil because it's blasphemy to sentence a virgin to death. Who regularly feed their soldiers from a reservoir of American hate speech. A nation like this is telling the world that once they acquire nukes will punish western society for the damage it's done to Islam and to reclaim it's holy land.

Meanwhile I have to listen to Iranian apologists like yourself saying things like, What about Iran's national security? How do they protect their ways of life in the face of Isrealic threat? How can you use such piffle logic to defend an enemy like this and to say in their defense western laws like Freedom of speech and Equal rights are a threat. Common, get real!
  God is an idea.  
"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:12 am

digress wrote:Iran is a nation that uses the Ayatollah to impose Sharia law on citizens.
The Iranian judiciary does not follow Sharia law but rather legislation enacted by parliament including its pre revolutionary existing civil laws. There are only some laws that conform to Sharia law. Sharia law has no appeals system, unlike Iran. Iran also has prisoners and prisons which don't exist under Sharia law.
digress wrote: Banning things like chess or satellite dishes.
The Iranian chess grandmaster, Pouya Idani won the 2013 World Youth Chess championship. The government banned satellite dishes because of "Radio Free Europe". Satellite dishes don't get a mention in Sharia law.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/sports/11311 ... ampionship" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
digress wrote:Known for raping women before an execution on the basis of forgetting to wear a veil because it's blasphemy to sentence a virgin to death.
That was Romans in the novel I, Claudius not Iran.
digress wrote: Meanwhile I have to listen to Iranian apologists like yourself saying things like, What about Iran's national security?
He is not an apologist. He is a pragmatic peace maker. If we ask Iran what they want for their national security...well perhaps we can give them something close to what they want and they will be happy. The USA gave Israel 200 x 15 kiloton nukes to make them happy. Perhaps if we took the nukes away from Israel both countries could be happy. Why don't we ask them both and work on the best compromise? What's the problem with that?
digress wrote: How do they protect their ways of life in the face of Isrealic threat?
There are 25,000 Jews living in Tehran. No one is going to be bombing anyone. It all propaganda for domestic political consumption and Israel needs to justify its 6 billion a year in weapon grants from the USA. Iran spends half as much on all its military as Israel does and has no interest or ability to strike Israel.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Cerdic
Poster
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 3:55 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The legal aspects of Aerial warfare: the case of Britain

Post by Cerdic » Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:27 am

Iran has repeatedly and explicitly stated its intention to destroy the US and Israel
http://jcpa.org/article/20-threats-iran ... e-in-2013/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012 ... t2012b.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (2009-2012 statements)

And don't forget that Iran is the biggest sponsor of global terrorism. The Palestinian terror groups and Hizbollah are allies of Iran. The Iranians may not fight wars themselves - they use proxies to do it instead.

Yes, there are 25,000 or however many (the 2011 census recorded just over 8,000) Jews in Iran - down from 150,000 or so in 1948. The same pattern is seen all over the Middle East.
„(...) Wenn wir irgendetwas beim Nationalsozialismus anerkennen, dann ist es die Anerkennung, daß ihm zum ersten Mal in der deutschen Politik die restlose Mobilisierung der menschlichen Dummheit gelungen ist.“ Kurt Schumacher 23. Februar 1932

Vote Your Conscience.