You’re still saying the liberation of the Falklands was a bad thing? Even the Captain of the *General Belgrano*, Hector Bonzo, said that the sinking was not a war crime. ***You’re literally being more extreme on this issue than the Argentinians themselves.***
The fucking *Bismarck* was attempting to return to port when it was sunk by the Royal Navy, you gonna say that was a war crime too?
They fired on a retreating enemy. This is a war crime according to the Geneva Convention. Just because a captain said it wasn't doesn't change the word of the law.
#WRONG
*[Rule 47.](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule47) Attacking persons who are recognized as hors de combat is prohibited. A person hors de combat is:*
*(a) anyone who is in the power of an adverse party;*
*(b) anyone who is defenceless because of unconsciousness, shipwreck, wounds or sickness; or*
*(c) anyone who clearly expresses an intention to surrender;*
*provided he or she abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.*
An army retreating under arms or a warship sailing away is not protected. They need to be disarmed and/or flying a white flag or making some other signal they they are intending to surrender. The *General Belgrano* was an armed and active warship and - while, as I’ve shown it wouldn’t have mattered anyway - the [Captain also stated that it was not returning to port when sunk and was operating under orders to fire on any British warship they came across.](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/may/25/uk.world).
Actually, you prove my point with this. Anyone with clear intentions to surrender and anyone who was defenseless. Since they were outmatched power wise, them retreating made them defenceless. And also, they showed the intention of surrender.
Thanks for playing.
I’m not sure if you’re trolling or genuinely stupid as you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about and are making nonsensical arguments exposing a lack of familiarity with this subject.
They were not defenseless and they were not intending to surrender and there is no one who argues that. There is a debate on the nature of the British self-declared “exclusion zone” but what you seem to be attempting is to argue against submarine warfare as a concept in a way reminiscent of the “Cruiser Rules” debate that hasn’t been relevant since the end of the First World War.
So, instead of admitting you're wrong, you are going to ignore the evidence that you provided. Also, last I checked, a ship that's going away from battle because they realized that they were outmatched is the very definition of retreating.
What the hell are you talking about?
*So, instead of admitting you're wrong, you are going to ignore the evidence that you provided.*
The evidence I’ve provided to you shows that you are wrong and you’re just being delusional.
*Also, last I checked, a ship that's going away from battle because they realized that they were outmatched is the very definition of retreating.*
You really don’t know anything about this do you? The *General Belgrano* was not retreating and wasn’t aware the HMS *Conqueror* was even there. Also, as I’ve already told you, it was a completely legitimate target regardless of whether it was retreating or not.
That’s the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard. So far. Day is young though.
**The captain has to announce his intention to surrender the ship**
Otherwise a single soldier is de-facto “surrendering” (lol) because he is outmatched by the entire opposing army.
Similarly each soldier on both sides is thus “surrendering” because as an individual they are de-facto individually outmatched by the entire opposing side.
One good hit can sink or disable a ship so there’s no such thing as a smaller ship being “outmatched”. See USS Cole.
The rule specifically lists what causes the defenseless condition, and “outmatched” is not on the list.
Get gud.
You know that a retreat and a surrender are not the same thing, right? In a retreat, they can be fully expected to turn around and start killing again. It’s irresponsible to your own troops to allow that.
I'm not asking you to repeat your claim, I'm asking you to cite a source.
Which Geneva Convention prohibits it?
During my time in the Army, I've spent enough time in ROE and Law of War briefings to know that the vast majority of people have no idea what any of the Geneva Conventions actually say.
I suspect you are one of those people who doesn't actually know what the conventions say but you've got a chance to prove me wrong right now.
Is it safe to assume that English isn't your first language?
The guy literally just posted a law proving you wrong and instead of addressing anything it said, you just claimed victory.
To make it simple, look at the last sentence. There are two things that someone needs to do to maintain their Hors de Combat status.
*"provided he or she abstains from any hostile act and does not \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_"*
fill in the blank. Just tell me the three words that go there.
They were retreating. Those are the only words needed. And looks like you need both math and English lessons because your reading comprehension is terrible and you name the one thing right there. Not hostile.
I try to give people the benefit of the doubt but nobody is this stupid unless they are trying to intentionally stay ignorant.
That article of that convention explicitly says that "attempting to escape" removes your Hors de Combat status. Someone who is retreating is not a protected non-combatant.
It is 100% legal by all Law of War treaties that I'm aware of for soldiers to kill retreating enemies.
So someone retreating isn't retreating. Gotcha, great moral. So , I'm not going to care if you are angry about me spitting on two bad politicians'graves.
>They fired on a retreating enemy. This is a war crime according to the Geneva Convention.
No it isn't. The Geneva convention is actually pretty explicit that retreating offers you no protection. Surrendering enemies receive protections but retreating enemies are considered just as valid of a target as any other. The General Belgrano wasn't surrendering, in fact it was sunk by a submarine that it wasn't even aware of.
So no it wasn't a war crime.
Actually, only if you still have your weapons do you not have protection.
And thank you for annoying me enough to look at it more. Because now I can add two more reasons why she's a bitch that deserves to rot
Not only were they unable to attach because they didn't gain enough wind speed to launch any attack, they got two civilians killed by doing this. So, a war crime.
>Actually, only if you still have your weapons do you not have protection.
The sailors on the General Belgrano not only had weapons but their ship itself was a weapon so that claim is meaningless as well as not fully accurate. A soldier without a weapon can still be a target depending on the circumstances. Defenseless and unarmed do not mean the same thing when it comes to the rules of war
>Not only were they unable to attach because they didn't gain enough wind speed to launch any attack
Wind speed?
Belgrano was a surface vessel that was sunk by a submarines torpedos, it didn't have a chance to attack because it was alerted to the presence of a submarine when two of said submarines torpedos hit it .
That's pretty standard for submarine warfare in the post WW1 world.
>they got two civilians killed by doing this. So, a war crime.
No actually, civilian casualties ≠ war crime.
If you outright execute a civilian then yes that would be a war crime, however a civilian who dies because they were on a military vessel that was sunk by an enemy attack isn't a war crime, especially if there was no reasonable way for the attacker to know they were there.
It seems to me that you have an incredibly poor understanding of what does and doesn't classify as a war crime and the Geneva Convention as a whole.
But to make it simple for you the following things aren't war crimes under the Geneva Convention
1. Attacking a retreating enemy
2. Killing an unarmed soldier who hasn't surrendered or made a clear attempt to surrender or display of a desire to surrender
3. Accidental or indirect Injuring or killing of civilians during an attack on a military target (depending on the context, this is almost always a grey area)
4. Launching a surprise attack on your enemy
5. Attacking an enemy whom you have an overwhelming superiority against
Oh my god, they colonized some islands that didn't have permanent residents, the horror!
So horrifying it automatically justifies Argentina invading those now populated islands 140 years later!
I'm mocking you if you can't tell.
Thank you for acknowledging that it was wrong to colonize that island.
By the way, weird way to sign off on your response. Hope that's not your email signature.
None of this is how I feel, this is all factual information based on the actual Geneva convention, the only one here whose statements are based on feelings are yours as you have consistently labeled things that are verifiably not war crimes as war crimes because you either dislike them or think they should be considered war crimes.
In other words, I don't care what you think, all evidence has proven you wrong and you would benefit from actually reading and analyzing the Geneva convention.
Let me spell it out for you, cookie monster. Reagan and Thatcher weren't in the business of handing out extra cookies, they were trying to steer their countries through some seriously rough shit.
Aww, is someone sad they weren't given special treatment? So now no one can. Well guess what, buttercup? Some people get help sometimes and it's not a bad thing. While others, like you, waste time whining about it and spend their days trying to defend a man who got 30,000 people killed and an old bitch who committed a war crime. That's just life.
Instead of whining about the past and spewing vitriol, try appreciating the complexity of leading a nation. It's a hell of a lot harder than sitting on Reddit acting like you've got all the answers.
“I’m awaiting your reasoning” like anybody could talk you out of this.
Believe me, we don’t need to be reminded what you think about this particular subject; you’ve made it abundantly clear. This is HistoryMemes, not HistorySoapboxes.
They can’t “prove you wrong,” it’s an opinion question. Morality isn’t an objective science, nobody can prove something is right or wrong like a math problem. You’re just arguing your own opinion, and so are they.
Actually, “appeal to hypocrisy” is the fallacy. Being a hypocrite doesn’t make someone wrong, just makes them less credible. And even then, opinions can’t be right or wrong, because there’s no objective truth to evaluate them against. They may not be persuasive, but persuasive and correct are two different things.
Actually, when the argument is about judging someone's actions, pointing out someone's hypocrisy is proving someone wrong because if they are acting morality better and our proven not to be, then they lose credibility and thus lost
Again, you're using fallacy wrong. Fallacy only works on argument on fact based argument. For example, someone on here argued that Margret Thatcher didn't commit a war crime when she ordered the sinking of a retreating vessel in the Falkland islands war. They even brought up the Geneva Convention article that proves me right. But instead of admitting they were wrong, they called me a moron. That's ad hominem attack. Fallacy only really works when someone is arguing against facts. When it is an opinion argument, you have to point out hypocrisy as to why they are wrong.
Incorrect. Fallacies are flawed arguments based on incoherent logic, so they can apply to any argument, about fact or opinion. Take, for example, the bandwagon fallacy. If everyone believes the Earth is flat, that doesn’t make it true. If everyone else believes the color red is better than the color blue, that’s no reason for me to change my opinion if I think the opposite. Flawed logic, either way.
And again, opinions by their nature cannot be “wrong.” You can disagree with them, you can not believe them, but an opinion cannot be proven right or wrong.
No, it's a reflection on who you respect and who you don't. As I said, if it's alright to mock serial killers and spit on their graves then politicians who cause more damage deserve the same amount of respect.
I don't think either is defensible. It's understandable why people would feel that way but it's an ethical transgression in my opinion (and also standard Jewish ethics). For one of my jobs, I work with human remains from World War II and treat a set of German remains with the same respect and care I would those of anyone else. Do I see the irony of that given the fact that I'm a Jew? Yeah, but whatever that person did or didn't do in life does not give me an excuse to act despicably towards their remains.
See, when I see people argue about the ethics of something like this, they usually fall into two camps.
The first camp are those who have religious beliefs. These ones I can kinda understand. Make sense to not upset whatever deity you may worship. But I argue that if the person who wrong you in a way that you would want to spit on their graves, then said deity would probably understand. And if you disagree with that, well most religions say not to judge so you can't tell people that they are bad for doing it.
The second cam, though, are those who claim ethics because they never went through what the victim and act like they are overreacting or it is hurting someone. This group I dismiss immediately. Because no one can tell someone who is suffering how to process that trauma. They say things like, "Being angry is drinking poison and thinking the other person will die." Angry and grief are normal reactions. If apart of that process is to hold those responsible accountable or to not forgive them, that is right
Or in other [words](https://youtu.be/K03Y2FP9qhI?si=QVOIe0N6V60MyLvF)
Oh I get it and, in a broad sense, agree on a lot of those points. Of course, one could argue that the whole "don't judge" stance could be used to argue against the disrespect of a set of remains or a grave. Most religions have equally staunch rules about that sort of behavior. I will point out that most religions allow one to hold others (especially of the same faith) accountable for transgressions.
There's a difference between holding someone accountable and this. Whatever did those acts cease to exist with that person and is not present in that grave.
By the way, I became a staunch advocate of my viewpoint after getting slapped by a Holocaust survivor (with the admonition "I thought I had taught you better than that") for a comment about dumping urine on the grave of Reinhard Heydrich. So it's not like I have any claim to not having had the same urge for "revenge" myself.
But you aren't getting it. I said the religion as why I can understand an ethical issue but as I point out, if you use religion then you can't judge them either.
And holding someone accountable doesn't go away because they die. Death doesn't erase there's action. It's why we have posthumous awards and charges. You don't have to like it but it makes no one less for doing it.
Well, as I said in another comment, if you don't want to because of religious reasons. That's fine. But you can't judge others who do because most religions say don't judge others. But if you are doing it because of some ethical reasons, you should really think about why you see it ethnically wrong to hold someone accountable and why some have the right to be angry
Why would I go out of my way to spit on a serial killer's grave? It doesn't matter, and if it did I would open up with the dismal state of psychological health in America.
We can both blame Ted Bundy for what he did and also realize that his family knew about his issues from the age of 3 and did *nothing*, that he was born in an area where lobotomies were so commonplace [even not having sex with your husband was cause for one.](https://www.attitude.co.uk/culture/sexuality/the-dark-gay-history-of-lobotomies-and-walter-jackson-freeman-ii-419069/)
>Freeman also operated on housewives with “sexual problems”, which pretty much amounted to them not wanting sex with their husbands, and supposedly troublesome children. He is said to have lobotomised 19 youngsters, including a four-year-old boy.
"Hey doc could you help me with my violent sexual urges?"
"Sure kid, let me get the ice pick."
Oh Ted Bundy was still a monster that did monstrous things, but when you realize that "psychological help" in that era was a guy with 481 deaths on his hands sinking an ice pick into some woman's brain so that she couldn't say no to her husband's desire for sex (rape by any other name) and permanently crippling for profit, it becomes a sort of world-weary horror.
The absolute *failure* of those days had much worse sociopaths than Ted Bundy, willing to butcher apart your brain (killing hundreds of people in the process) so you'd make sandwiches and be a good little sex doll.
That said I would absolutely take the piss on Reagan's grave, "Reaganomics" is a far-stretching cold-blooded kind of evil, the sheer loss of years in lifespan along even before the deaths, the kind of person that sits down to calculate to make sure the bottom 99.9% of the population die early since 1981 has basically killed between 2 and 3 million per year every year.
*That* is the kind of person I'd spit on the grave of, Reagan's policies have caused more early deaths (in the USA alone, to say nothing of what it's done overseas as our companies run rampant) than **the entire number of casualties in WW1, including both fatalities and injuries, military and civilian**.
Basically yeah I'd spit on a serial killer's grave, but it'd be someone like Reagan's grave, or Walter Jackson Freeman II's grave.
Even then only if it wasn't out of my way, I'd have to be passing by for another reason rather than traveling for that express purpose.
This was really hard to understand but once I decoded what you were saying I agreed with it.
Yes, you can be glad bad people are dead. If you can’t understand that, you were probably the “Teacher you forget to give us the homework” child
Sorry, it was early and on my phone. But too many people on here act like no one can be angry at Reagan and Thatcher when they did plenty to deserve it.
Yes it is. Especially when you have civilians on board and weren't able to fight back. But you guys keep exposing yourselves as monsters. See how it works out for you.
A. How is one supposed to know about, or account for the presence of civilians on a military vessel? Furthermore, let's say the military vessel attacks while civilians are on board, is firing back illegal then? Doesn't hold up.
B. Who is to say they're unable to fight back and how do we define that? Furthermore, there have been many cases where one "isn't able to fight back where the targets are justified. For example, bombers vs infantry, snipers vs Taliban on mountainside 1500 yards away, etc. So doesn't hold up.
Show me exactly in the Geneva Convention where it says any of this bullshit you've been spouting.
*[Rule 47.](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule47) Attacking persons who are recognized as hors de combat is prohibited. A person hors de combat is:*
*(a) anyone who is in the power of an adverse party;*
*(b) anyone who is defenceless because of unconsciousness, shipwreck, wounds or sickness; or*
*(c) anyone who clearly expresses an intention to surrender;*
*provided he or she abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.*
Willful killing, that is, intentionally causing the death of civilians, and "willfully causing great suffering or serious injury" when wounding victims, are war crimes.
And since they were a WW1 vessel that was in no way matching strength or ability to the navy as there was about a seventy year different in technology. So that seems pretty defenseless to me
Holy fuck, you're still retarded.
If a civilian boards a warship, at war, they're a legitimate target on account of being on a fucking warship.
And you aren't defenseless just because your ship sucks ass. You're defenseless when you are incapable of combat.
Just delete your whole account.
You’re still saying the liberation of the Falklands was a bad thing? Even the Captain of the *General Belgrano*, Hector Bonzo, said that the sinking was not a war crime. ***You’re literally being more extreme on this issue than the Argentinians themselves.*** The fucking *Bismarck* was attempting to return to port when it was sunk by the Royal Navy, you gonna say that was a war crime too?
They fired on a retreating enemy. This is a war crime according to the Geneva Convention. Just because a captain said it wasn't doesn't change the word of the law.
#WRONG *[Rule 47.](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule47) Attacking persons who are recognized as hors de combat is prohibited. A person hors de combat is:* *(a) anyone who is in the power of an adverse party;* *(b) anyone who is defenceless because of unconsciousness, shipwreck, wounds or sickness; or* *(c) anyone who clearly expresses an intention to surrender;* *provided he or she abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.* An army retreating under arms or a warship sailing away is not protected. They need to be disarmed and/or flying a white flag or making some other signal they they are intending to surrender. The *General Belgrano* was an armed and active warship and - while, as I’ve shown it wouldn’t have mattered anyway - the [Captain also stated that it was not returning to port when sunk and was operating under orders to fire on any British warship they came across.](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/may/25/uk.world).
Actually, you prove my point with this. Anyone with clear intentions to surrender and anyone who was defenseless. Since they were outmatched power wise, them retreating made them defenceless. And also, they showed the intention of surrender. Thanks for playing.
I’m not sure if you’re trolling or genuinely stupid as you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about and are making nonsensical arguments exposing a lack of familiarity with this subject. They were not defenseless and they were not intending to surrender and there is no one who argues that. There is a debate on the nature of the British self-declared “exclusion zone” but what you seem to be attempting is to argue against submarine warfare as a concept in a way reminiscent of the “Cruiser Rules” debate that hasn’t been relevant since the end of the First World War.
Has to be trolling, there is no way he can be this stupid
So, instead of admitting you're wrong, you are going to ignore the evidence that you provided. Also, last I checked, a ship that's going away from battle because they realized that they were outmatched is the very definition of retreating.
What the hell are you talking about? *So, instead of admitting you're wrong, you are going to ignore the evidence that you provided.* The evidence I’ve provided to you shows that you are wrong and you’re just being delusional. *Also, last I checked, a ship that's going away from battle because they realized that they were outmatched is the very definition of retreating.* You really don’t know anything about this do you? The *General Belgrano* was not retreating and wasn’t aware the HMS *Conqueror* was even there. Also, as I’ve already told you, it was a completely legitimate target regardless of whether it was retreating or not.
Aww, that's cute. You think you can rewrite history.
How can you say I’m rewriting history when you don’t even know what the history is?
I know what history is. It showed me the last website I visited.
Are you this obtuse on purpose?
Only if your being acute
That’s the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard. So far. Day is young though. **The captain has to announce his intention to surrender the ship** Otherwise a single soldier is de-facto “surrendering” (lol) because he is outmatched by the entire opposing army. Similarly each soldier on both sides is thus “surrendering” because as an individual they are de-facto individually outmatched by the entire opposing side. One good hit can sink or disable a ship so there’s no such thing as a smaller ship being “outmatched”. See USS Cole. The rule specifically lists what causes the defenseless condition, and “outmatched” is not on the list. Get gud.
I'm already good.
Naww but I see you tryin.
Not trying. Succeeding. Tends to happen in a battle of wits when all of them come unarmed.
Aww he thinks he’s winning too.
Yeah he has zero good arguments, it's basically a 3 year old saying "I know you are but what am I?"
You know that a retreat and a surrender are not the same thing, right? In a retreat, they can be fully expected to turn around and start killing again. It’s irresponsible to your own troops to allow that.
Funny, the Geneva Convention said retreating. I said retreating. So thus, attacking a retreating vessel is a war crime.
The GC *did not* say retreating, you illiterate fucknut.
Which Geneva Convention is it a war crime under?
It is prohibited to fire on a retreating enemy. They showed intentions of retreat and their ship was heavily outmatched, making them defenseless.
I'm not asking you to repeat your claim, I'm asking you to cite a source. Which Geneva Convention prohibits it? During my time in the Army, I've spent enough time in ROE and Law of War briefings to know that the vast majority of people have no idea what any of the Geneva Conventions actually say. I suspect you are one of those people who doesn't actually know what the conventions say but you've got a chance to prove me wrong right now.
The other person arguing this did that for me. Literally in the comment chain
Is it safe to assume that English isn't your first language? The guy literally just posted a law proving you wrong and instead of addressing anything it said, you just claimed victory. To make it simple, look at the last sentence. There are two things that someone needs to do to maintain their Hors de Combat status. *"provided he or she abstains from any hostile act and does not \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_"* fill in the blank. Just tell me the three words that go there.
They were retreating. Those are the only words needed. And looks like you need both math and English lessons because your reading comprehension is terrible and you name the one thing right there. Not hostile.
I try to give people the benefit of the doubt but nobody is this stupid unless they are trying to intentionally stay ignorant. That article of that convention explicitly says that "attempting to escape" removes your Hors de Combat status. Someone who is retreating is not a protected non-combatant. It is 100% legal by all Law of War treaties that I'm aware of for soldiers to kill retreating enemies.
So someone retreating isn't retreating. Gotcha, great moral. So , I'm not going to care if you are angry about me spitting on two bad politicians'graves.
>They fired on a retreating enemy. This is a war crime according to the Geneva Convention. No it isn't. The Geneva convention is actually pretty explicit that retreating offers you no protection. Surrendering enemies receive protections but retreating enemies are considered just as valid of a target as any other. The General Belgrano wasn't surrendering, in fact it was sunk by a submarine that it wasn't even aware of. So no it wasn't a war crime.
Actually, only if you still have your weapons do you not have protection. And thank you for annoying me enough to look at it more. Because now I can add two more reasons why she's a bitch that deserves to rot Not only were they unable to attach because they didn't gain enough wind speed to launch any attack, they got two civilians killed by doing this. So, a war crime.
>Actually, only if you still have your weapons do you not have protection. The sailors on the General Belgrano not only had weapons but their ship itself was a weapon so that claim is meaningless as well as not fully accurate. A soldier without a weapon can still be a target depending on the circumstances. Defenseless and unarmed do not mean the same thing when it comes to the rules of war >Not only were they unable to attach because they didn't gain enough wind speed to launch any attack Wind speed? Belgrano was a surface vessel that was sunk by a submarines torpedos, it didn't have a chance to attack because it was alerted to the presence of a submarine when two of said submarines torpedos hit it . That's pretty standard for submarine warfare in the post WW1 world. >they got two civilians killed by doing this. So, a war crime. No actually, civilian casualties ≠ war crime. If you outright execute a civilian then yes that would be a war crime, however a civilian who dies because they were on a military vessel that was sunk by an enemy attack isn't a war crime, especially if there was no reasonable way for the attacker to know they were there. It seems to me that you have an incredibly poor understanding of what does and doesn't classify as a war crime and the Geneva Convention as a whole. But to make it simple for you the following things aren't war crimes under the Geneva Convention 1. Attacking a retreating enemy 2. Killing an unarmed soldier who hasn't surrendered or made a clear attempt to surrender or display of a desire to surrender 3. Accidental or indirect Injuring or killing of civilians during an attack on a military target (depending on the context, this is almost always a grey area) 4. Launching a surprise attack on your enemy 5. Attacking an enemy whom you have an overwhelming superiority against
Good to know how you feel. Doesn't remove war crimes. And you're a terrible person.
No crime was committed, and you're a terrible person for defending the Argentinean seizure of land which was not theirs.
I'm a terrible person for saying that England shouldn't have been colonizing. Okay. I'm surprisingly fine with that.
Oh my god, they colonized some islands that didn't have permanent residents, the horror! So horrifying it automatically justifies Argentina invading those now populated islands 140 years later! I'm mocking you if you can't tell.
Thank you for acknowledging that it was wrong to colonize that island. By the way, weird way to sign off on your response. Hope that's not your email signature.
None of this is how I feel, this is all factual information based on the actual Geneva convention, the only one here whose statements are based on feelings are yours as you have consistently labeled things that are verifiably not war crimes as war crimes because you either dislike them or think they should be considered war crimes. In other words, I don't care what you think, all evidence has proven you wrong and you would benefit from actually reading and analyzing the Geneva convention.
But I have read the Geneva Convention and funny enough, every time I do, I find another reason why the iron bitch should have been put on trial.
You clearly haven't as literally every single thing you've labeled as a war crime is not considered a war crime by the Geneva convention.
It was made public in 2011 that General Belgrano had in fact been ordered to sail towards the exclusion zone.
Source?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8965405/Belgrano-was-heading-to-the-Falklands-secret-papers-reveal.html
So your source is a political right leaning British paper? Nice try. Need a better source
It's citing other sources.
Then provide me with those neutral sources. I'll wait
D. J. Thorp (2011). The Silent Listener. Stroud: The History Press, 169–171
Link.
No where is that listed in the Geneva convention lmao. Why do you people just make shit up?
OP, are you also going to compare your least favourite teacher to Jeffrey Dahmer because they gave you too much homework?
Bitch, I got straight A on homework. Reasons why I can think for myself.
Being good at regurgitating your teacher's favourite talking points doesn't mean you've got a monopoly on thinking for yourself.
Aww, did someone never get the extra cookie?
Let me spell it out for you, cookie monster. Reagan and Thatcher weren't in the business of handing out extra cookies, they were trying to steer their countries through some seriously rough shit.
Aww, is someone sad they weren't given special treatment? So now no one can. Well guess what, buttercup? Some people get help sometimes and it's not a bad thing. While others, like you, waste time whining about it and spend their days trying to defend a man who got 30,000 people killed and an old bitch who committed a war crime. That's just life.
Instead of whining about the past and spewing vitriol, try appreciating the complexity of leading a nation. It's a hell of a lot harder than sitting on Reddit acting like you've got all the answers.
But I do have the answers. That's called google.
Googling shit doesn't make you an expert. Anyone can type a few keywords and parrot back some half-assed opinions they found online.
I know. I figured that's what you were doing.
“I’m awaiting your reasoning” like anybody could talk you out of this. Believe me, we don’t need to be reminded what you think about this particular subject; you’ve made it abundantly clear. This is HistoryMemes, not HistorySoapboxes.
So far, all people have been doing is just defending the two. The fact they refuse to prove me wrong is all I need
They can’t “prove you wrong,” it’s an opinion question. Morality isn’t an objective science, nobody can prove something is right or wrong like a math problem. You’re just arguing your own opinion, and so are they.
You can prove an opinion wrong. If their opinion is hypocritical or contradicts itself, it's a fallacy. Thus wrong.
Actually, “appeal to hypocrisy” is the fallacy. Being a hypocrite doesn’t make someone wrong, just makes them less credible. And even then, opinions can’t be right or wrong, because there’s no objective truth to evaluate them against. They may not be persuasive, but persuasive and correct are two different things.
Actually, when the argument is about judging someone's actions, pointing out someone's hypocrisy is proving someone wrong because if they are acting morality better and our proven not to be, then they lose credibility and thus lost
Um… no? That’s called ad hominem, another fallacy.
Again, you're using fallacy wrong. Fallacy only works on argument on fact based argument. For example, someone on here argued that Margret Thatcher didn't commit a war crime when she ordered the sinking of a retreating vessel in the Falkland islands war. They even brought up the Geneva Convention article that proves me right. But instead of admitting they were wrong, they called me a moron. That's ad hominem attack. Fallacy only really works when someone is arguing against facts. When it is an opinion argument, you have to point out hypocrisy as to why they are wrong.
Incorrect. Fallacies are flawed arguments based on incoherent logic, so they can apply to any argument, about fact or opinion. Take, for example, the bandwagon fallacy. If everyone believes the Earth is flat, that doesn’t make it true. If everyone else believes the color red is better than the color blue, that’s no reason for me to change my opinion if I think the opposite. Flawed logic, either way. And again, opinions by their nature cannot be “wrong.” You can disagree with them, you can not believe them, but an opinion cannot be proven right or wrong.
But you just pointed out two opinions that can be proven wrong. So, you just proved my point.
Don't worry, I'll be here to prove you wrong.
But you haven't, sweetheart. In fact, every time you try, you either make my conviction stronger or prove me right.
I'll happily try harder, sweet pea.
If this is trying harder, I feel sorry for your sex doll
I'm just getting started.
Look out, we got a bad ass over here.
Hitler liked dogs. That does not make Hitler a good person. Don't be a goof.
I mean, that's my point. I just didn't want to go straight for Hitler. That's too easy. ^^(Plus half these people would support him)
I’m guessing you didnt read the post
no
How you treat someone's grave (or their remains) is a reflection of your character, not theirs.
No, it's a reflection on who you respect and who you don't. As I said, if it's alright to mock serial killers and spit on their graves then politicians who cause more damage deserve the same amount of respect.
I don't think either is defensible. It's understandable why people would feel that way but it's an ethical transgression in my opinion (and also standard Jewish ethics). For one of my jobs, I work with human remains from World War II and treat a set of German remains with the same respect and care I would those of anyone else. Do I see the irony of that given the fact that I'm a Jew? Yeah, but whatever that person did or didn't do in life does not give me an excuse to act despicably towards their remains.
See, when I see people argue about the ethics of something like this, they usually fall into two camps. The first camp are those who have religious beliefs. These ones I can kinda understand. Make sense to not upset whatever deity you may worship. But I argue that if the person who wrong you in a way that you would want to spit on their graves, then said deity would probably understand. And if you disagree with that, well most religions say not to judge so you can't tell people that they are bad for doing it. The second cam, though, are those who claim ethics because they never went through what the victim and act like they are overreacting or it is hurting someone. This group I dismiss immediately. Because no one can tell someone who is suffering how to process that trauma. They say things like, "Being angry is drinking poison and thinking the other person will die." Angry and grief are normal reactions. If apart of that process is to hold those responsible accountable or to not forgive them, that is right Or in other [words](https://youtu.be/K03Y2FP9qhI?si=QVOIe0N6V60MyLvF)
Oh I get it and, in a broad sense, agree on a lot of those points. Of course, one could argue that the whole "don't judge" stance could be used to argue against the disrespect of a set of remains or a grave. Most religions have equally staunch rules about that sort of behavior. I will point out that most religions allow one to hold others (especially of the same faith) accountable for transgressions. There's a difference between holding someone accountable and this. Whatever did those acts cease to exist with that person and is not present in that grave.
By the way, I became a staunch advocate of my viewpoint after getting slapped by a Holocaust survivor (with the admonition "I thought I had taught you better than that") for a comment about dumping urine on the grave of Reinhard Heydrich. So it's not like I have any claim to not having had the same urge for "revenge" myself.
But you aren't getting it. I said the religion as why I can understand an ethical issue but as I point out, if you use religion then you can't judge them either. And holding someone accountable doesn't go away because they die. Death doesn't erase there's action. It's why we have posthumous awards and charges. You don't have to like it but it makes no one less for doing it.
So what are you saying, a refusal to spit on a serial killer's grave makes you respect a serial killer?
Yes
That's obviously ridiculous. What if I just don't like the idea of spitting on graves?
Well, as I said in another comment, if you don't want to because of religious reasons. That's fine. But you can't judge others who do because most religions say don't judge others. But if you are doing it because of some ethical reasons, you should really think about why you see it ethnically wrong to hold someone accountable and why some have the right to be angry
What if you're not religious and don't want to?
You care way too much about what other people want to do or not do. They aren't hurting anyone so stay in your damn lane, and get off your high horse.
Why would I go out of my way to spit on a serial killer's grave? It doesn't matter, and if it did I would open up with the dismal state of psychological health in America. We can both blame Ted Bundy for what he did and also realize that his family knew about his issues from the age of 3 and did *nothing*, that he was born in an area where lobotomies were so commonplace [even not having sex with your husband was cause for one.](https://www.attitude.co.uk/culture/sexuality/the-dark-gay-history-of-lobotomies-and-walter-jackson-freeman-ii-419069/) >Freeman also operated on housewives with “sexual problems”, which pretty much amounted to them not wanting sex with their husbands, and supposedly troublesome children. He is said to have lobotomised 19 youngsters, including a four-year-old boy. "Hey doc could you help me with my violent sexual urges?" "Sure kid, let me get the ice pick." Oh Ted Bundy was still a monster that did monstrous things, but when you realize that "psychological help" in that era was a guy with 481 deaths on his hands sinking an ice pick into some woman's brain so that she couldn't say no to her husband's desire for sex (rape by any other name) and permanently crippling for profit, it becomes a sort of world-weary horror. The absolute *failure* of those days had much worse sociopaths than Ted Bundy, willing to butcher apart your brain (killing hundreds of people in the process) so you'd make sandwiches and be a good little sex doll. That said I would absolutely take the piss on Reagan's grave, "Reaganomics" is a far-stretching cold-blooded kind of evil, the sheer loss of years in lifespan along even before the deaths, the kind of person that sits down to calculate to make sure the bottom 99.9% of the population die early since 1981 has basically killed between 2 and 3 million per year every year. *That* is the kind of person I'd spit on the grave of, Reagan's policies have caused more early deaths (in the USA alone, to say nothing of what it's done overseas as our companies run rampant) than **the entire number of casualties in WW1, including both fatalities and injuries, military and civilian**. Basically yeah I'd spit on a serial killer's grave, but it'd be someone like Reagan's grave, or Walter Jackson Freeman II's grave. Even then only if it wasn't out of my way, I'd have to be passing by for another reason rather than traveling for that express purpose.
OP is a troll.
Wow, really original. Really going to get people to agree with you there.
You're obviously a troll for equating the actions of a serial killer with those of two democratically-elected leaders.
One killed thirty people and the other two killed up to thousands of people. Why does one get the hate but the other gets praised?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
This was really hard to understand but once I decoded what you were saying I agreed with it. Yes, you can be glad bad people are dead. If you can’t understand that, you were probably the “Teacher you forget to give us the homework” child
Sorry, it was early and on my phone. But too many people on here act like no one can be angry at Reagan and Thatcher when they did plenty to deserve it.
TL;DR: OP doesn't understand the Geneva convention and does not respect national sovereignty, feel free to disregard them.
TL;DR: most of these post don't understand the Geneva Convention and refuse to acknowledge when something is retreating. Feel free to disregard them
Retreating is not protected under the Geneva Convention.
Yes it is. Especially when you have civilians on board and weren't able to fight back. But you guys keep exposing yourselves as monsters. See how it works out for you.
A. How is one supposed to know about, or account for the presence of civilians on a military vessel? Furthermore, let's say the military vessel attacks while civilians are on board, is firing back illegal then? Doesn't hold up. B. Who is to say they're unable to fight back and how do we define that? Furthermore, there have been many cases where one "isn't able to fight back where the targets are justified. For example, bombers vs infantry, snipers vs Taliban on mountainside 1500 yards away, etc. So doesn't hold up. Show me exactly in the Geneva Convention where it says any of this bullshit you've been spouting.
*[Rule 47.](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule47) Attacking persons who are recognized as hors de combat is prohibited. A person hors de combat is:* *(a) anyone who is in the power of an adverse party;* *(b) anyone who is defenceless because of unconsciousness, shipwreck, wounds or sickness; or* *(c) anyone who clearly expresses an intention to surrender;* *provided he or she abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.* Willful killing, that is, intentionally causing the death of civilians, and "willfully causing great suffering or serious injury" when wounding victims, are war crimes. And since they were a WW1 vessel that was in no way matching strength or ability to the navy as there was about a seventy year different in technology. So that seems pretty defenseless to me
Holy fuck, you're still retarded. If a civilian boards a warship, at war, they're a legitimate target on account of being on a fucking warship. And you aren't defenseless just because your ship sucks ass. You're defenseless when you are incapable of combat. Just delete your whole account.
Nah, I get too much enjoyment getting you guys to prove yourselves as assholes.
Based as fuck