to get DD a white poppy to wear at a remembrance service?

[GallumDrawnAndQuartered]

She is 14 and has been selected by the school to represent her house at their service.

DD is vehemently pacifist and anti-war.

Rather than her get in trouble for refusing to go (which is what she is planning on doing) would it be unreasonable for her to go but to wear a white poppy instead of a red one?

[kitten30]

''I guess these same people would still be happy to see them if the shit ever hit the fan and you relied on them for help if not you and your families lives.'' Yes I am sure they would but that doesnt mean I want to see my tax being spent deploying them in despicable act abroad!

[begonyabampot]

kitten,

that's fine, i didn't say that the armed forces weren't open for criticism or debate. Just that there is some really anti sentiment on this thread showing almost hate for them. It's never that black and white.

[kitten30]

I dont think its real anti forces sentiment I think it is more the frustration that this ridiculous hero worship creates a situation (clearly illustrated by this thread actually) where you cant criticise their activity abroad or you are seen as anti forces.

[earwicga]

Appletrees -

'But Remembrance Day has and should have such an important place in the nation's psyche. It's a way for me of saying, it's not taken for granted, none of it, the service, the deaths, the freedom, the terrible decisions, the trauma.'

Agreed.

[GailFawkes]

I'm wonder how many members of the services are happy seeing their taxes spent abroad too kitten.

[catinthehat2]

I wonder who tweeted this:

"I've just read The Nuremberg Defense being used by a serving RAF officer on Mumsnet. Sickening. "

Anyone care to own up?

[LookToWindward]

1. The war in Iraq was not "illegal". No body with sufficient judicial oversight has made a pronouncement one way or another. There is plenty of informed opinion one way or another and I'd be the first to agree that the legality of the war if it were to be ever tested would be highly suspect but that is very different to simply saying that the conflict was "illegal".
   

1. The Nuremberg defence relates only to individuals following direct orders that are directly and clearly a warcrime. E.g. if in the case of WingDad he was ordered by a superior officer to execute a captive, the Nuremberg defence would apply in that the order is in direct conflict with the GC and being classed as a war crime the "following orders" maxim would not be accepted as a defence.
   

The Nuremberg defence does not say anything about issues that are considered to be beyond the scope of the average enlisted member of the services - for example the issue of the legality of a conflict. This is the reason why the Nuremberg trials were only directly relevant to a small number of the SS involved in Death Camps (and similar) and not the German military as a whole. Likewise during the recent Israeli / Palestinian exchange the military staff involved with firing white phosphorous were not liable for prosecution as the decision as to whether the the use of white phosphorous in the theatre was a valid given the civilian population was a political one.

1. The US and the UK are not in breach of the GC - there is a legal tussle over the nature of "enemy combatants" but again this isn't the same thing as claiming that the UK and the US do not pay any heed to the GC.
   

Personally I consider anyone willing to server in the armed forces worthy of my respect - as I've said to put your life on line for your belief is something that in my opinion commands respect.

I would also include members of the emergency services in with that so please, off you fuck with your half arsed clueless wikipedia quoting and stick to threads on shopping or whatever bullshit past time you enjoy.

[kitten30]

''The war in Iraq was not "illegal". No body with sufficient judicial oversight has made a pronouncement one way or another''.

Oh well obviously totally justified then?

[kitten30]

catinthe hat2 whoever wrote that clearly hasnt been someone following the thread or understanding it.

[LookToWindward]

"Oh well obviously totally justified then?"

Fuck me? I despair I really do. Are you really that stupid? Did I say that? Did I imply that?

Where in your - obviously very simple and very stupid - brain does pointing out that the legality of the recent conflict in Iraq is an issue still up for debate equate to a full guns blazing yee-ha "god-and-guns-NRA" style rant in support of it.

My opinion of the conflict has never actually been discussed.

Now fuck off and come back when you are able to actually construct a valid argument and address what I have actually posted and not what you imagine I have posted.

[kitten30]

So why talk about the legality then?

Also dont be so irate and rude, just makes you look a twat!

[earwicga]

catinthehat2 - you know that was my tweet - it was attached to my user name. And I had already written it above.

Totally childish behaviour.

LookToWindward -

'3. The US and the UK are not in breach of the GC - there is a legal tussle over the nature of "enemy combatants" but again this isn't the same thing as claiming that the UK and the US do not pay any heed to the GC.'

Absolute and utter bullshit. Shame on you.

[Appletrees]

Windward you're right. There's been a lot of that. Fuck off is lowering yourself to the same level though. It's like getting cross with that one out of the Young Ones that rik mayall played. I think a lip curl should suffice.

[LookToWindward]

"'3. The US and the UK are not in breach of the GC - there is a legal tussle over the nature of "enemy combatants" but again this isn't the same thing as claiming that the UK and the US do not pay any heed to the GC.'"

Completely accurate. The GC has specific definitions and terms for treatment of individuals involved in a theatre of combat - the three general terms are "(lawful) combatant", the related "prisoner of war" and the obvious "civilian".

The definition of "Combatants" and the related "Prisoner of War" are explicity defined in article 4 of the third geneva convention. The full definition is too long to quote but the most relevant points are below:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
   
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
   

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Unlawful combatants (for example foreign fighters captured in Afghanistan) fall in to the grey area known as "unlawful combatants" as they do not meet the requirements of the definition above - indeed they are not dealt with at all in the GC.

There is some debate as to how these unlawful combatants should be handled. There is one school of thought that considers enemy combatants as effectively the same status as spies or merceneries in that a national of a neutral state, with normal diplomatic representation, is not a protected person and as such can be executed pretty much on the spot. There is another (and I gather more accepted) view that unlawful combatants are protected under the 4th GC and should be treated humanely with the combatant receiving a "fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention", to decide on guilt and punishment.

But as I say, it's very much a grey area.

So no, not utter bullshit.

[kitten30]

Appletrees do you just come on threads to be sanctimonious but never really say anything worth reading? My god I dread the day I have to come on here to make myself feel superior by playing the 'older and wiser' card..which is actually bullshit as I have not read one decent articulate well informed post from you. You are really cringe worthy.

[Appletrees]

I have been on this thread for a week or I don't know maybe several years

Amateur

You haven't read my posts, haven't a clue, are extremely rude and probably a little bit stupid

[kitten30]

''Amateur''...ah sorry..I didnt realise I was dealing with a 'pro'.

[Appletrees]

It was a joke because you're saying you've read stuff, and haven't, and are generally being a bit silly

[kitten30]

To be honest I am getting off this thread as its nonsense. It is just people getting a cob on and wont allow anyone to say anything perceived negative about the forces..there is clearly a few people on here who agree with Britain's foreign policy abroad..very sad really because they are not even the people who benefit from all the blood shed despite what they think. This is a country of massive wealth inequalities. Any way I am 'fuckig off' as that other aggressive poster (who actually is also just taking chunks off the net themselves..accusing others of the same shit..lol)suggested I should. Clearly this is not a forum for reasoned argument.

[LookToWindward]

With exception of the first two points defining prisoners of war, everything I have posted here is my own work. I have checked the odd reference in own library (old age I'm afraid) but the work posted above is my own (which is why it has taken me so long to post).

Please do come back when you have a "reasoned argument" and I'll be happy to discuss it. I'll probably be waiting a long time but never let it be said I haven't tried.

And for the record you have no idea of my opinion on any conflict. I think you might actually be surprised.

[WingDad]

"I've just read The Nuremberg Defense being used by a serving RAF officer on Mumsnet. Sickening."

For fuck's sake people, grow up.

I'm done with this thread.

[earwicga]

LooktoWindward - still bullshit.

Come back when you develop a closer relationship with the truth.

Over and out.

[LookToWindward]

"LooktoWindward - still bullshit."

Well that's a carefully crafted exercise in debating technique. I am well and truly floored by your critical insight and careful exposition and reduction of my argument.

Alternatively you're some clueless flag waving simpleton with the debating technique of a blanched cabbage. I'll leave it to the good ladies reading this to decide which.

Now, please do explain exactly where my argument and reference to the legal definitions of combatant and prisoner of war breaks down? Alternatively please explain why Knut Dormann (legal advisor to the ICRC) takes 40+ pages to explain the ICRC position on the legal status of "unlawful combatants" if it's all so straightforward?

From there, you can then explain how this one issue wrt to the GC and treatment of unlawful combatants translates in to a wholesale rejection of the principles of the GC by the UK and the US?

If its such bullshit you shouldn't have a problem doing this should you?

Go on, prove me wrong. Show me you aren't the simpleton I currently think you are.

[LookToWindward]

"Come back when you develop a closer relationship with the truth."

By truth I assume you mean "the complete and total agreement with everything I post"?

[nappyaddict]

White poppies aren't disrespectful. They were made by women who had lost loved ones in WW1 and didn't want there to be another war like it ever again.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/13498