Release the tape!!!

Tobytone said:
Okay very good, now stick with me. So obviously knowing what you now know, because you're a drone that had no idea the extent of Obama's little habit, you now would call for the arrest of President Obama for war crimes. Is that a fair statement?
Click to expand...
I would have to know more details, I have not yet called for TACO's arrest. I need more details on both, those details are not publically available.


Do you believe what Obama did was something he should be arrested for, but what TACO is doing is not?
 
Damocles said:
Well, assuming that narcotics are the weapon of a "narco-terrorist" it would seem gathering weapons would mean they were "still in the fight". You'd need to ask the JAG, he's the expert in the legal maneuvers required for international "war" with "narco-terrorists".
Click to expand...

What you are asking is the incorrect question or issue.

To avoid 'discretion' being used by each and every military leader of soldier, some of which might say or think a disabled opponent is 'trying to turn the capsized and burning boat over to put it out', or the 'parachuting pilot will land on the ground and start fighting on the ground', they made the RULES CRYSTAL CLEAR and NOT up to discretion and the example cited is SPECIFIC to boats and this situation that played out.

The below states clearly and undeniable that if the boat is disable, the people are NOT to be considered a threat and to be considered 'out of combat'.

So if you want to get around that you MUST explain by what authority any soldier can ignore it while substituting their own judgement.




----------


From the U.S. Military Code of Conduct
  • personnel who are disabled and no longer a threat
  • and survivors of maritime warfare who are “out of combat” due to ship destruction



  • Enemy personnel in the water from a destroyed vessel are considered hors de combat (out of the fight)
  • They may not be intentionally attacked unless they take hostile action or present a threat
  • There is a duty to render assistance if feasible, consistent with mission requirements


These rules come primarily from:


  1. Law of Armed Conflict
    (also called the Law of War — the core legal standard the U.S. military must follow)
  2. DoD Directive 2311.01
    which makes compliance with the Law of War mandatory for the U.S. military.
  3. Geneva Conventions
    which the U.S. adheres to and trains under as part of LOAC.
  4. U.S. Navy Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations
    which does explicitly address people in the water after a ship is destroyed.
 
Jarod said:
I do not believe he was shot, I think he was nicked in the ear by a piece of glass.

What would having been shot in service of the country have to do with it? He was a civilian when he was allegedly shot.

There is a reason Trump will not release the medical records from that day.
Click to expand...
He was not hit by a bullet. That is almost certain as they would have paraded the proof out, if he was.

All sorts of gun and ballistic experts have said there would no ear left, where it hit, if it was the bullet, and thus it was likely a tiny fragment shrapnel that hit him.

I personally do not think it matters. He was shot at... it was super close... and he was injured and survived... so whether a bullet or shrapnel is semantic difference with no real meaning to me.
 
QP! said:
He was not hit by a bullet. That is almost certain as they would have paraded the proof out, if he was.

All sorts of gun and ballistic experts have said there would no ear left, where it hit, if it was the bullet, and thus it was likely a tiny fragment shrapnel that hit him.

I personally do not think it matters. He was shot at... it was super close... and he was injured and survived... so whether a bullet or shrapnel is semantic difference with no real meaning to me.
Click to expand...
I agree it matters very little, and being shot or not shot does not make you any more trustworthy or correct about anything.
 
Jarod said:
I agree it matters very little, and being shot or not shot does not make you any more trustworthy or correct about anything.
Click to expand...
Do you think @Damocles or any other magat here addresses the crystal clear Code of Conduct which ends the debate over whether the killing of those two men was legal and proper or not, or they just all skip over it, as has happened the last 4 times i posted it and it was ignored, often ending the discussion until the post was moved past only then for the same people to come back later to repeat the SAME already proven wrong arguments?
 
Jarod said:
Sure they might be, certain "weapons" are unusable when they get wet, that does not mean you cannot collect them.

Other weapons are unusable because they are out of range of the enemy, but you could still collect them.
Click to expand...
As I said, if I am in the "field of battle" collecting the weapons that I was targeted for it is likely that I am still a combatant. It is just your own absurdity to say that collecting the weapons of "terrorism" in a field of battle makes them somehow "hors de combat"...

I will reiterate, I am happy to watch the video once it is available so we will be able to see why the JAG had that opinion.
 
QP! said:
Do you think @Damocles or any other magat here addresses the crystal clear Code of Conduct which ends the debate over whether the killing of those two men was legal and proper or not, or they just all skip over it, as has happened the last 4 times i posted it and it was ignored, often ending the discussion until the post was moved past only then for the same people to come back later to repeat the SAME already proven wrong arguments?
Click to expand...
Damocles who knows
 
Damocles said:
As I said, if I am in the "field of battle" collecting the weapons that I was targeted for it is likely that I am still a combatant. It is just your own absurdity to say that collecting the weapons of "terrorism" in a field of battle makes them somehow "hors de combat"...
Click to expand...
You ignored my point that they are disabled "weapons".

Ill ask the question your comment beggs, do you believe those drugs are weapons of war?
 
Jarod said:
Damocles who knows
Click to expand...
I have personally objected to calling what amounts to criminal behavior as terrorism. I do not think they bring the drugs here as anything other than a criminal enterprise, they are not using the weapons to affect political change. I dislike the idea that we just blow up boats that are simply suspected of bringing drugs here...

In this I am playing Devil's Advocate. Giving you what I believe the JAG will give you in response to your insistence that video you haven't seen says what you believe it says.
 
TOP said:
Interesting ...what does that mean?
Click to expand...
I am not shocked at all you have no clue what 'try to be less stupid' means, and if you can try and improve yourself the beneficial side effect will be you will then understand what the statement means.
 
Jarod said:
You ignored my point that they are disabled "weapons".

Ill ask the question your comment beggs, do you believe those drugs are weapons of war?
Click to expand...
I do not believe that they are disabled, they are collecting the "weapons" because they continue to be usable. Why do you think they'd turn into garbage collectors suddenly while being hors de combat?
 
AProudLefty said:
Yep.
Click to expand...
It is honestly not to her.

She reads it and what little is functional in her brain goes to ...

DuH9Rd-W4AE9IWj.jpg
 
Damocles said:
I have personally objected to calling what amounts to criminal behavior as terrorism. I do not think they bring the drugs here as anything other than a criminal enterprise, they are not using the weapons to affect political change. I dislike the idea that we just blow up boats that are simply suspected of bringing drugs here...

In this I am playing Devil's Advocate. Giving you what I believe the JAG will give you in response to your insistence that video you haven't seen says what you believe it says.
Click to expand...
I can respect that, glad you shared your opinion.

So you see the absurdity of TACO's argument?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top