Zebb Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 I think your being a bit naive mate, no offence.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkVanDamme Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 the coalition is above such violations of the convention - unless you know different? THe coalition has the moral upper hand, if you will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkVanDamme Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 double reply, strange. How so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zebb Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 I can only speak from my experience, but once people are confronted with the reality of war they do tend to become quite flexible in the "moral" department, but very focused on the survival aspect of themselves, and funnily enough even more so their "buddies". Things that would seem totally unacceptable in a peacetime enviroment, suddenly take on a logic all their own when you realise that by doing them you increase the chances of you and your mates coming home in one piece, thats all i know, to make any specific examples out of this context would not explain things any better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mamon Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 The point is, though, if your country uses hollow point ammunition and causes horrific wounds on your enemy - they will use it on you. Clearly this is a severve breach of the Geneva Convention - and if it is broken like that, what is to stop it being broken elsewhere? Shooting medics, non-combatants, what next? I would think bullets of any type cause these Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkVanDamme Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Yes, but Hollow Points are renowned for thier brutality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sup Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 Yes, but Hollow Points are renowned for thier brutality. So are plenty of the people we fight. (we being most countries, not just the US.) I'm not defending the use of JHP (is that right?) ammo, just pointing that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F'n New Guy Posted April 9, 2004 Share Posted April 9, 2004 i would of liked to use the tumble rounds insted of these darts we use in my 16. alot of the stories i read say that these things dont do anything past 150m xcept make holes in people. thats just useless . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budgie Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Sitting on the beachfront in Koh Samet, the Geneva Convention seems like a pleasant fiction. Until it outlaws shooting enemy combatants altogether it doesn't matter to me what they get shot with. Soup is a grunt and has to take what they give him - I would to for me and my buddies' lives. Anyway the old BAC is getting her hair braided so I better get back out there. I'll send some pics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parabellum Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 Yes, but Hollow Points are renowned for thier brutality. Yeah... when they work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyovan4 Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 the old BAC ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F'n New Guy Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 (edited) sweet jesus... is that all u have to say? u should be saying that to the geneva convention when youre comparing the wounded. take a look at the guy shot by the "illegal" 7.62 round and someone shot by a 5.56m. the one shot by the 5.56m is still standing while the other, is trying to figure out where his arm went . thats like the geneva convention saying we cant use the .50 against combatants only their equipment. well, if theyre wearing a magizine pouch thats a piece of equipment for me Edited April 10, 2004 by F'n New Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordo_Viper Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 I can only speak from my experience, but once people are confronted with the reality of war they do tend to become quite flexible in the "moral" department, but very focused on the survival aspect of themselves, and funnily enough even more so their "buddies". Things that would seem totally unacceptable in a peacetime enviroment, suddenly take on a logic all their own when you realise that by doing them you increase the chances of you and your mates coming home in one piece, thats all i know, to make any specific examples out of this context would not explain things any better. Unlike Zebb I have no experience, but I know people who have and have read rather than watched Black Hawk Down. To those that have only read the book so far and advocate total relience on rules of armed conflict I suggest you buy it and read it. It highlights a few area's that following the rules would get you and your mates killed in a combat situation. There are other Roe - either UN implemented or based on the current precieved threat level that are just as shoddy as Un regulations at times- Rwanda and Bosnia come to mind. At leats in East Timor the Troops there had a robust ROE first up when the intial insertions went in. Later on after the intial INTERFET (not UN command) - under UNTAET (UN coomand) it became quite a farce where people could throw a grenade at a outpost and walk away as they were no longer carrying a weapon or where retreating etc- that was changed down the track and as a result the enemy learnt there lesson quite well. Australian Soldiers also have witnessed a massacre in Rwanda- all they could do was look on according to the ROE as 5,000 people where murdered- women and children- they did what they could- dragged kids etc out of there or medivaced the seriously wounded- avoid fire aimed at them etc and occasionally "bend" the Roe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F'n New Guy Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 see thats the stuff that makes me sick ! i could not stand by and watch a guy walk by my post with a grenade and throw it in and then walk away with out me shooting him . and watching woman and children get murderd in front of me, im sorry ill shoot the killers and take my reduction in rank and pay thank you or whatever the ucmj wants to do to me , at home id be considered a good guy and i can live with that. btw the law in fallujah right now is if u (iraqi) have a weapon youll be shot. thank goodness we can change the rules when we have to ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dekela Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 we're talking about afganistan rebel's, believed terrorist's. i may be silly but does the geneva convention cover terrorist's. i don't believe it does, therefore JHP's would not be a breach. i could be wrong though. and soup stated that they weren't strictly hollow point's cheers...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F'n New Guy Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 i think your right dek, thats something to look into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dekela Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 as far as i'm aware th GC will cover the recognised army of a nation, which terrorist's are not. take a look at the person's held in g/bay, if they were normal POW's they could not hold them that long. but because they are suspected terrorist's they can. a lot has changed towards these kind of people lately in regards to how they are treated cheers...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kewl Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 see thats the stuff that makes me sick ! i could not stand by and watch a guy walk by my post with a grenade and throw it in and then walk away with out me shooting him . and watching woman and children get murderd in front of me, im sorry ill shoot the killers and take my reduction in rank and pay thank you or whatever the ucmj wants to do to me , at home id be considered a good guy and i can live with that. btw the law in fallujah right now is if u (iraqi) have a weapon youll be shot. thank goodness we can change the rules when we have to ! If you tried that in Rwanda during its genocide you wouldnt have gone home alive. With only 450 troops over there during the genocide, any direct engagement with the enemy is just going to get you and your men overran and killed. Sad thing is, with more troops the chapter 6 mission could probably have worked (probably because its a "what if" situation in the past). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kewl Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 thats like the geneva convention saying we cant use the .50 against combatants only their equipment. well, if theyre wearing a magizine pouch thats a piece of equipment for me are you sure about this? I believe there was a thread about this and if i recall correctly, theres no restrictions here. But if you know of a particular section that lists this, feel free to point that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkVanDamme Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 the .5 is listed as an "anti-material" rifle isn't it? Total overkill for an anti-personnel weapon IMO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chems Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 I havent read through any of this, but i was reading a Chris Ryan book, and he mentions how many mags he had, and it was 10, with 260 rounds or something. No need to say it was a 203 he was carrying. He even mentions how he packs them in his webbing so he knows which way there coming out etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avey Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 are you sure about this? I believe there was a thread about this and if i recall correctly, theres no restrictions here. But if you know of a particular section that lists this, feel free to point that out. I believe Soup told me on MSN that its against the Geneva Convention to shoot at someone under 200m with a 50 cal rifle. 200m may not be correct, Im going from memory! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mamon Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 are you sure about this? I believe there was a thread about this and if i recall correctly, theres no restrictions here. But if you know of a particular section that lists this, feel free to point that out. I believe Soup told me on MSN that its against the Geneva Convention to shoot at someone under 200m with a 50 cal rifle. 200m may not be correct, Im going from memory! In the confusion of battle where you're in a life and death scenario and seconds make all the difference in the world....do you really stop to think about these things? Does a soldier put down his rifle and pick up his handy pocket-size Geneva Convention notebook and check if he's cleared to engage said enemy with said weapon given such and such ammunition with a certain amount of daylight still left? The whole concept just seems preposterous to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chems Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 I wouldnt get into all this guys, my sister is training as a lawer and shes done european law, and ive been used as a guiny pig on her cases shes been given, and its all down to how you interpret the law, so there isnt a black white line can cant, you cant judge it till its happened. So if i were you guys, and want to avoid a headache, id drop your critique of the geneva convention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kewl Posted April 10, 2004 Share Posted April 10, 2004 are you sure about this? I believe there was a thread about this and if i recall correctly, theres no restrictions here. But if you know of a particular section that lists this, feel free to point that out. I believe Soup told me on MSN that its against the Geneva Convention to shoot at someone under 200m with a 50 cal rifle. 200m may not be correct, Im going from memory! In the confusion of battle where you're in a life and death scenario and seconds make all the difference in the world....do you really stop to think about these things? Does a soldier put down his rifle and pick up his handy pocket-size Geneva Convention notebook and check if he's cleared to engage said enemy with said weapon given such and such ammunition with a certain amount of daylight still left? The whole concept just seems preposterous to me The Geneva Conventions govern how a war should be waged legally. They arent there to say "well sorry guy you cant shoot the guy 10 feet from you, whos about to kill you, because you're behind a .50 cal" (hell check the body count from Mogadishu as attributed to the .50 cal). The conventions, imo, are more important when addressing aspects such as civilians, prisoners...etc. I dont want to start a political discussion or anything but the Geneva Conventions are best suited to be examined at the policy level behind the war as i'm sure militaries have their own rules and regulations which they adhere to on the ground. But scenarios, as they always seem to pop up with any questions regarding the legality of war, which involve "the heat of the moment" are really moot points regarding the Geneva Conventions. (if you dont understand what i mean or dont agree with me, go read the conventions). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.