Your sense of virtue and justice seems to be failing you!

We know that when the Police try and take a people into custody sometimes they turn violent, threatening injury or worse and causing the Police to use force like tasering them.

So would you think it would be justified in the Police tasering everyone upfront because other people have caused trouble out of the blue and they cannot afford to take a chance?



Maggie

Virtue signalling? What a cop out of a phrase.

And your sense of perspective seems to have deserted you completely. As follows:


The events leading to the slaughter of Japanese soldiers happened in wartime, during which one half of the world was in conflict with the other. Incidents in which drunks get tasered because their behaviour might result in serious injury to those around them involve only a tiny handful of people. Such incidents rarely lead to even a single death, let alone the millions caused in wartime and the subsequent need for extreme caution in the kind of circumstances described in previous posts.

Really, I should have stopped engaging with you as soon as you tipped your hand with the 'virtue signalling' comment. But it's cold out, and I haven't got anything better to do, so..

I bet his former chums are very popular.

No she isn't. What she is doing is using a British soldier to shout out to everyone how "British" she is and how she supports all things "British", so she can bring in more "British" followers who think she must be doing some good in her "British" way.
Then she lays on the hate, telling all her gullible followers who to hate.

She's a purveyor of post 1984 hate-speech.
Paid to spread the hate by the right wing Daily Fail.

I wonder if this means her endless pro Brexit articles are equally factually challenged.

Russian ambassador assassinated in Turkey and Trump about to be confirmed by the electoral college as the next President of the USA and the most posted thread today on the politics forum is about a libel case involving Katie Hopkins.

Surreal!

All she cares about is the large amount of money it brings in for her

Hopkins writes sensationalist shite and the rabid DM readers lap it up every time

Why is it surreal?

Politics at home - nothing odd about that is there?

Is it even politics. Katie Hopkins is a radio presenter and journalist.

What's more surreal is you wanting to deflect from Katie Hopkins embarrasment...

Oh is that right?

I agree with you, these extra judicial killings took place in wartime and in an environment where certain of the opponents were prepared to blow themselves up, if not incapacitated, to take out an opposing soldier.

You seem to understand that now and feel there is some justification for it.

Why do you therefore regard the British soldier, who killed an opposing person in a war situation, where suicide bombers are common, as a common murderer deserving of our harshest punishment?

You seem a bit conflicted.



Maggie

What's wrong Marty?
Your blue eyed girl is getting called out for her lies?

Do you disagree with the prosecution and conviction of 101 year old Ralp Clarke for 30 sex offences against children?

No.

Do you think we should investigate, with a view to prosecution, those old soldiers who didn't take any Japanese prisoners and who didn't seem to find any incapacitated wounded either?



Maggie

Only if it was a crime at the time and only if witnesses or other credible evidence against individuals is known to the authorities.

There were second world war crimes by members of the UK military that are documented, illegal orders that were made and followed, log books detailing actions taken that were war crimes, etc. They in my opinion should have resulted in prosecutions but did not. A notorious example is Anthony Miers in command of the submarine HMS Torbay they machine-gunned survivors of the ships they sank, that was a war crime at the time. A German submarine captain who did the same was prosecuted for war crimes by the Allies. The Nuremburg trials only prosecuted those on the Axis side.

No, because as I explained to you earlier in the thread, that wasn't a crime during WW2. Geneva Convention rules were only extended to non-signatories after 1945.

Is that a yes or no?

Of course shooting prisoners was a crime.

Evidence comes through investigation. The allegations and testimony of soldiers are already out there. There is even broadcast film of surrendering Japanese being gunned down. Pretty sure there must be lots of un-broadcast film showing the same thing or worse.



Maggie

Then the answer is yes.

"In case, in time of war, one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall nevertheless remain in force as between the belligerents who are parties thereto,"

The UK, Germany, USA and Australia were signatories. Japan did sign the convention as well, though it was not ratified before the war commenced.

Japan was a signature to the Hague conventions and therefore there can be no question that their combatants were covered.

The Empire also violated international agreements signed by Japan, including provisions of the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) such as protections for prisoners of war


Maggie

I actually feel sorry for this Hopkins person, her only discernible talent is to upset, not really something to be proud of even if it does pay, must be that British value thingy Sajid Javid is looking for. Just pretty sad reflection on her and the media that employs the thoughts.

Luckily you weren't on the jury. Soldiers are not supposed to lower themselves to the level of terrorists.

Rolling out technicalities when you've clearly lost the argument is also rather pathetic.

Technicalities?

Oh, is that what you call most basic facts of the case now? Why not claim he was dismissed from the Salvation Army? Both are about as accurate.

What a sad little man you are if that is what counts as a win in your world.