Is an embassy a valid military target?

2008-06-03 08:03:17

#26

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6630|what

wow a foal

https://www.valentineminis.com/images/foal_durango.jpg

ot: no

Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2008-06-03 08:03:33)

2008-06-03 08:05:09

#27

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6820|tropical regions of london

wow...a sole

https://www.biomorphic.co.uk/images/pix/feet_cropped.jpg

or soul

https://vettiliveinnorthcote.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/brown-james-sex-machine-the-very-best-of-james-brown.jpg

2008-06-03 08:06:14

#28

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6820|tropical regions of london

we need to play this rhyming game more often. thanks serge.

2008-06-03 08:07:08

#29

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|7019|Texas - Bigger than France

2008-06-03 08:07:49

#30

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6820|tropical regions of london

Wow!

2008-06-03 08:17:03

#31

m3thod: All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz; +2,197|7148|UK

whats with that music from 1727?

ot: I dont see why not, you wouldnt be a terrorist if you didnt terrorise.

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.

2008-06-03 08:17:26

#32

SEREMAKER: BABYMAKIN EXPERT √; +2,187|7045|Mountains of NC

God Save the Queen wrote:
Wow!

no ..... Mao!

https://multivitaminsaft.traenkler.net/mao.JPG

ot : yes .

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg

2008-06-03 08:17:48

#33

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6630|what

m3thod wrote:
whats with that music from 1727?

ot: I dont see why not, you wouldnt be a terrorist if you didnt terrorise.

it's nat king cole

2008-06-03 08:23:09

#34

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7128|USA

I do not think so. An embassy is a diplomatic building, a liaison from one country to the next. It needs to remain intact to continue open talks between enemies.

Besides without an embassy, how could the French formally express their desire to surrender effectively?

Last edited by lowing (2008-06-03 08:24:39)

2008-06-03 08:31:40

#35

m3thod: All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz; +2,197|7148|UK

lowing wrote:
I do not think so. An embassy is a diplomatic building, a liaison from one country to the next. It needs to remain intact to continue open talks between enemies.

Besides without an embassy, how could the French formally express their desire to surrender effectively?

Yeah like a terrorist will really give a toss if it's a diplomatic building. Body count is the only detail mr terrorist is bothered about.

Anyway according to the rightous book of lowing isn't open talks with the enemy......apppppppppppppppeasement?!

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.

2008-06-03 08:33:00

#36

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7234|Argentina

m3thod wrote:
lowing wrote:
I do not think so. An embassy is a diplomatic building, a liaison from one country to the next. It needs to remain intact to continue open talks between enemies.

Besides without an embassy, how could the French formally express their desire to surrender effectively?
Yeah like a terrorist will really give a toss if it's a diplomatic building. Body count is the only detail mr terrorist is bothered about.

Anyway according to the rightous book of lowing isn't open talks with the enemy......apppppppppppppppeasement?!

Lowing is an appeaser in denial.

2008-06-03 08:35:36

#37

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7234|Argentina

God Save the Queen wrote:
we need to play this rhyming game more often. thanks serge.

Don't mention it.

2008-06-03 08:36:52

#38

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6820|tropical regions of london

talking to your enemy is different than appeasement. WHo in the world thinks that the US will look weak if we talk to Iran? Everybody knows we could get dfeat them militarily. WHat makes us look weak in the eyes of the global community is the fact that we have put diplomacy on the back burner for a while now.

2008-06-03 08:38:25

#39

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|7019|Texas - Bigger than France

SEREMAKER wrote:
God Save the Queen wrote:
Wow!
no ..... Mao!

ot : yes .

Okay, one more and I'll quit:

https://www.powermaxconsulting.com/a_caray1.jpg

2008-06-03 08:39:43

#40

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7234|Argentina

Last year, when Iran took those British sailors as prisoners, many people called Blair an appeaser. He didn't start a war, and all the soldiers were sent back to home. Diplomacy is not appeasement.

2008-06-03 08:48:59

#41

God Save the Queen: Banned; +628|6820|tropical regions of london

well that was a calculated move by the iranians. they tried to do the same to american and australian forces. they got lucky with those british sailors. it was a PR stunt, a successful PR stunt on the part of Iran.

2008-06-03 08:59:46

#42

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7128|USA

m3thod wrote:
lowing wrote:
I do not think so. An embassy is a diplomatic building, a liaison from one country to the next. It needs to remain intact to continue open talks between enemies.

Besides without an embassy, how could the French formally express their desire to surrender effectively?
Yeah like a terrorist will really give a toss if it's a diplomatic building. Body count is the only detail mr terrorist is bothered about.

Anyway according to the rightous book of lowing isn't open talks with the enemy......apppppppppppppppeasement?!

I thought someone would try and make a comparison between open talks with nations at war and open talks with terrorists who break every law of war set forth between nations. There is a difference, see if you can guess what that might be.

2008-06-03 09:06:01

#43

m3thod: All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz; +2,197|7148|UK

lowing wrote:
m3thod wrote:
lowing wrote:
I do not think so. An embassy is a diplomatic building, a liaison from one country to the next. It needs to remain intact to continue open talks between enemies.

Besides without an embassy, how could the French formally express their desire to surrender effectively?
Yeah like a terrorist will really give a toss if it's a diplomatic building. Body count is the only detail mr terrorist is bothered about.

Anyway according to the rightous book of lowing isn't open talks with the enemy......apppppppppppppppeasement?!
I thought someone would try and make a comparison between open talks with nations at war and open talks with terrorists who break every law of war set forth between nations. There is a difference, see if you can guess what that might be.

What if the embassy belong to an nation that supports terrorists. Can you guess who they might be?

Anyway I love that term 'laws of war'...lol like anyone gives a shit when you bomb shit out of each other. Opps I'm sorry old boy i seem have bombed the buggery out of your civiliation population. My bad oh and do mind those cluster bombs that seem to have leaked where all those people live....NOW HAVE AT YE!

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.

2008-06-03 09:11:08

#44

lowing: Banned; +1,662|7128|USA

m3thod wrote:
lowing wrote:
m3thod wrote:

Yeah like a terrorist will really give a toss if it's a diplomatic building. Body count is the only detail mr terrorist is bothered about.

Anyway according to the rightous book of lowing isn't open talks with the enemy......apppppppppppppppeasement?!
I thought someone would try and make a comparison between open talks with nations at war and open talks with terrorists who break every law of war set forth between nations. There is a difference, see if you can guess what that might be.
What if the embassy belong to an nation that supports terrorists. Can you guess who they might be?

Anyway I love that term 'laws of war'...lol like anyone gives a shit when you bomb shit out of each other. Opps I'm sorry old boy i seem have bombed the buggery out of your civiliation population. My bad oh and do mind those cluster bombs that seem to have leaked where all those people live....NOW HAVE AT YE!

Well like it or not, absurd or not, there are rules to war between nations. As far as your "what ifs", you can do that to me until the cows come home, that does not change the purpose of an embassy and I happen to agree with their existence and importance.

2008-06-03 10:21:51

#45

m3thod: All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz; +2,197|7148|UK

lowing wrote:
m3thod wrote:
lowing wrote:

I thought someone would try and make a comparison between open talks with nations at war and open talks with terrorists who break every law of war set forth between nations. There is a difference, see if you can guess what that might be.
What if the embassy belong to an nation that supports terrorists. Can you guess who they might be?

Anyway I love that term 'laws of war'...lol like anyone gives a shit when you bomb shit out of each other. Opps I'm sorry old boy i seem have bombed the buggery out of your civiliation population. My bad oh and do mind those cluster bombs that seem to have leaked where all those people live....NOW HAVE AT YE!
Well like it or not, absurd or not, there are rules to war between nations. As far as your "what ifs", you can do that to me until the cows come home, that does not change the purpose of an embassy and I happen to agree with their existence and importance.

Christ sake. I was refering to Iran (was it that hard?) It's not like its a mythical notion that they (justifiably?) support terrorists.

Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.

2008-06-03 11:11:19

#46

mikkel: Member; +383|7078

Well, of course it's a valid military target. It's a slab of land belonging to a sovereign state, and if you're at war with that state, there's really nothing illigitimate about crossing their borders to fight the war.

2008-06-03 11:14:48

#47

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6968|Northern California

The embassy is sovereign territory of the nation represented. If someone would attack the sovereign nation itself, then an embassy is a target. Why is this such a hard question. The better question is in deciphering what is in a "target" to be attacked by an enemy..what is gained, sought after, etc. Obviously an embassy has been and will always be a valid target depending on the definition of what a target is to the aggressor.

And for what it's worth, here's a fat roll: