FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > A question for the military
A question for the military
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"No because that contravenes the law of armed conflict" I know little of the military - can you explain what this means please? Do you mean that soldiers etc don't have to obey orders in this circumstance? What about Bloody Sunday? | |||
 | |||
| |||
"No because that contravenes the law of armed conflict I know little of the military - can you explain what this means please? Do you mean that soldiers etc don't have to obey orders in this circumstance? What about Bloody Sunday?" They have to obey orders,but it was a new situation for the army,and a lot of young lads joined to see action,they still do and when they go to a war zone after trg it changes people,some leave.can we leave b sunday out of this. | |||
"I expect many of you will know about this..however ....googling The Stanford Prison Experiment is fascinating ....well to me lol "Bit naughty posting that in hindsight ...I thought it was aposite ....hope I ain`t queered yer pitch OP ...sorry .. | |||
"No because that contravenes the law of armed conflict I know little of the military - can you explain what this means please? Do you mean that soldiers etc don't have to obey orders in this circumstance? What about Bloody Sunday? They have to obey orders,but it was a new situation for the army,and a lot of young lads joined to see action,they still do and when they go to a war zone after trg it changes people,some leave.can we leave b sunday out of this. " Bloody Sunday was a pertinent example of my question in point - have laws changed since then to prevent it happening again? | |||
"No because that contravenes the law of armed conflict I know little of the military - can you explain what this means please? Do you mean that soldiers etc don't have to obey orders in this circumstance? What about Bloody Sunday?" The law of armed conflict is a set of rules, as such, which must be met before you can open fire. Before you can open fire, you, or persons in the vicinity must be under armed attack, or, if a person is committing, or about to committ, an act likely to endanger human life, then you can open fire. They are the rules to go by, if ordered to open fire, and the person does not meet the conditions above, then I would disobey the order, as you will not be protected by the law. This, of course, is in force today. What would be enforced in a civil war, we do not know. Hope this helps. | |||
"No because that contravenes the law of armed conflict I know little of the military - can you explain what this means please? Do you mean that soldiers etc don't have to obey orders in this circumstance? What about Bloody Sunday? The law of armed conflict is a set of rules, as such, which must be met before you can open fire. Before you can open fire, you, or persons in the vicinity must be under armed attack, or, if a person is committing, or about to committ, an act likely to endanger human life, then you can open fire. They are the rules to go by, if ordered to open fire, and the person does not meet the conditions above, then I would disobey the order, as you will not be protected by the law. This, of course, is in force today. What would be enforced in a civil war, we do not know. Hope this helps. " That is very helpful, thank you. This bit concerns me though:- "Before you can open fire, you, or persons in the vicinity must be under armed attack, or, if a person is committing, or about to committ, an act likely to endanger human life, then you can open fire." There's a worryingly large amount of leeway in that statement - it would seem open to interpretation as to exactly what level of act would be likely to endanger human life, and whose definition it would be at the time and location of the event. | |||
"No because that contravenes the law of armed conflict I know little of the military - can you explain what this means please? Do you mean that soldiers etc don't have to obey orders in this circumstance? What about Bloody Sunday? The law of armed conflict is a set of rules, as such, which must be met before you can open fire. Before you can open fire, you, or persons in the vicinity must be under armed attack, or, if a person is committing, or about to committ, an act likely to endanger human life, then you can open fire. They are the rules to go by, if ordered to open fire, and the person does not meet the conditions above, then I would disobey the order, as you will not be protected by the law. This, of course, is in force today. What would be enforced in a civil war, we do not know. Hope this helps. That is very helpful, thank you. This bit concerns me though:- "Before you can open fire, you, or persons in the vicinity must be under armed attack, or, if a person is committing, or about to committ, an act likely to endanger human life, then you can open fire." There's a worryingly large amount of leeway in that statement - it would seem open to interpretation as to exactly what level of act would be likely to endanger human life, and whose definition it would be at the time and location of the event." And I would have thought, not for the low ranked, common soldier to decide or there would be complete chaos | |||
"From reading many forum posts I know that there are a lot of current and ex-military personnel on Fab. I’ve read how you serve our country, keep us safe in our beds and protect our freedoms etc but there is something I’ve always wondered. If there was a revolution in this country, and the civilian police were somehow out of the picture, and military rule was in place, would you open fire on unarmed civilians if ordered to do so by your commanders, or would you refuse and then lay down your arms and join the revolt? " I think what you would find is that most would disobey the order to shoot or that’s what I would say of the British Armed Forces. When you go through training there is a big emphasis placed on when and when not to use force. Its not at all the shoot at what your told to blindly anymore. The boys respect their officers, they obey them but they know there is a chain of command running upwards too and are not going to be swayed by rogue commands. What I also doubt would happen and that is to join the mob. Your training is all about teamwork, loyalty to your colours and there is no way you would lay down your arms as they could be used against you. I think what would be more likely to happen is what happened before in Ireland. There we were shot at, bricked, petrol bombed, blown up but it was rare (although regrettably it did happen that troops would open fire in a fire fight) there would be an armed retaliation. The use of batons, shields and rubber bullets along with tazers would be the order of the day and to that extent the troops would obey orders. | |||
"And I would have thought, not for the low ranked, common soldier to decide or there would be complete chaos " In most situations yes. In a day to day combat situation, you reply on the chain of command to follow the army's values. But we teach LOAC to all ranks for a reason - for example to prevent situations like Abu Ghraib happening again. So if a soldier felt the action was unlawful, like firing on unarmed citizens, many probably would not. Otherwise, when convoys were surrounded and became the focus of a riot for example, we'd just shoot the lot to make it easier to pass  | |||
"I think what would be more likely to happen is what happened before in Ireland. There we were shot at, bricked, petrol bombed, blown up but it was rare (although regrettably it did happen that troops would open fire in a fire fight) there would be an armed retaliation. The use of batons, shields and rubber bullets along with tazers would be the order of the day and to that extent the troops would obey orders. " Agreed. | |||
 | |||
 | |||
