Would you fight in a civil war?
-
perhaps you could point me to the relevant statute?Originally posted by wisefool83:And legally speaking, every soldier is required not to obey such order.
It disturbs me to no end when someone claims that some acts are legal/not without some form of supporting statute. -
well, reasons for civil wars vary, but really, it all comes down to a difference in political ideals or mere power struggle.Originally posted by dakkon_blackblade:Well, it depends on what the civil war is about and what both sides are fighting for. If I reallly have to fight I'll probably choose the side whose values best reflect my own. But I will definitely not carry out nor condone atrocities such as rape, pillaging, torture or any other form of abuse against non-combatants.
The trouble with the army is that you're NOT supposed to choose a side; you're supposed to take orders, not unlike a waiter in a restaurant. Hence the chain of command thinggy yah?
hence the irony of "the thinking soldier"
I think most saf soldiers, in the event of a war, wouldn't hesitate too much if the threat was external. Troubles ring when there's a possible conflict of personal interests vs direct orders. -
ya true true. but the real question is delving into how a citizen army might work against itself...Originally posted by missqi:let's face it.... the chance of sg being involved in a war is quite small.....
i dont think the white men would destroy the upgraded precincts just like tt.. -
we are simply too "bochap" to even think of that.....Originally posted by nomood:ya true true. but the real question is delving into how a citizen army might work against itself... -
illegitimate as in leader who clings on to power outside a constitutional system of election.Originally posted by nomood:how then would you define an illegitimate leader? are you the one deciding based on your personal political ideals, compassion, etc etc? or would it be the armed forces which you have pledged your allegiance to?
and by refusing a direct order from an appointed leader, how would you then expect your men to do the same?
I think mantaining a citizen army is quite "huh" sometimes. the question of how it would work in the event of getting citizens to turn on one another is quite disconcerting sometimes. -
Previous quoteOriginally posted by LazerLordz:illegitimate as in leader who clings on to power outside a constitutional system of election.
"I will refuse an order made by an illegitmate leader to fire on my fellow citizens, and I expect my men to do the same. "
Given these definitions, you would follow an order to fire on your fellow citizens if the order was given by an elected legitimate leader? -
I was referring to the killing of unarmed civilians by Armed combatants so the relevant statues will be:Originally posted by nomood:perhaps you could point me to the relevant statute?
It disturbs me to no end when someone claims that some acts are legal/not without some form of supporting statute.
Geneva Conventions Act 1985 Common Article 3
Geneva Conventions Act 1985 Additional Protocol Art 51
If you are a commander and your subordinate kills unarmed civilians, you are also liable if you
1) knew or ought to have known that those forces were committing or about to commit a crime; and
2) failed to take all necessary and reasonable steps within his or her power to suppress the crime or cause it to be investigated and prosecuted
(The above's legal source is the "Far East Tribunals. USA v Tomoyuki Yamashita", not statue. But international law's sources include more than just statutes.)
If you are a soldier and you have been ordered by your superior to kill an unarmed civilian, please remember that you are only required to obey
lawful orders and I can assure you that in Singapore, killing an unarmed civilian is not a lawful order.
And the fact that a person who his alleged to have committed a breach of the Law of Armed Conflict has done so pursuant to the order o his or her government or superior does not relieve that peron of criminal responsiblility unless:
1) the person was under a legal obligation to obey the orders in question; (meaning there must be a law in Singapore that actually say it is unlawful not to shoot an unarmed civilian)
2) the person did not know that the order was unlawful; and
3)the order was not manifesly unlawful
An order is manifestly unlawful if it would appear to a person of ordinary sense and understanding to be clearly illegal. (I hope that killing an unarmed fellow Singaporean would appear to be manifestly unlawful to all who read this thread)
The sources: Canadian case (R v Finta), Nuremberg Chart Art VIII, Control Council Law 10 Art 2(4)(b) ... just to name a few -
I honestly cannot say for sure.Originally posted by nomood:Previous quote
"I will refuse an order made by an illegitmate leader to fire on my fellow citizens, and I expect my men to do the same. "
Given these definitions, you would follow an order to fire on your fellow citizens if the order was given by an elected legitimate leader? -
Let say if u saw ur best friend is on the other side, will you be willing to shoot at him if u're being order to
-
i will if he still dun wanna return the $$$ he owes me.Originally posted by riken1974:Let say if u saw ur best friend is on the other side, will you be willing to shoot at him if u're being order to
-
of course fight lah.
But if I am on the losing side, will defect immediately to the winning side.
-
lee con you has stated that if there is a FREAK ELECTION RESULT, MARTIAL LAW will be declared and the army may have to come in---> military coup. is anyone willing to shoot in this case?
for me, i will shoot...the whites first. -
Gimme a .50 Caliber machine gun.. gimme lots of ammo.. put me to the front lines n cellotape my finger to the trigger..
-
If I am in a position to influence things, I will make sure there is no bloodshed.Originally posted by The Peacemaker:lee con you has stated that if there is a FREAK ELECTION RESULT, MARTIAL LAW will be declared and the army may have to come in---> military coup. is anyone willing to shoot in this case?
for me, i will shoot...the whites first.
We need a unity government and a Republic. Any shooting cannot be even considered. Singapore must never come to such a stage. Regardless whoever is in power, our institutions must remain loyal to Singapore and to the new government. -
well-said..hopefully it's just empty talk by lee con you...Originally posted by LazerLordz:If I am in a position to influence things, I will make sure there is no bloodshed.
We need a unity government and a Republic. Any shooting cannot be even considered. Singapore must never come to such a stage. Regardless whoever is in power, our institutions must remain loyal to Singapore and to the new government. -
I will not fire unless fired upon. I will take down threats foreign without hesistant, but for threats domestic, unless I can visually affirm that they have the intention to kill,injure, harm people or damage property then will I open fire.
Killing a citizen is far more difficult then killing a terrorist for they are your countrymen. Agreed? -
To fight is a civil war is liken to be used by some power hunger citizen for their own benefit. I waill not fight
-
if there is civil war.. i will fight with the side that has control over Changi Airport....
then slowly... slowly..... "disappear". -
Statute is... The SAF ActOriginally posted by nomood:perhaps you could point me to the relevant statute?
It disturbs me to no end when someone claims that some acts are legal/not without some form of supporting statute.
An NCO may arrest a superior NCO if he believes that the superior NCO has not acted in good faith and his capacity to act as such has cease to exist.
Like wise an Officer may arrest any NCO and Superior officers.
read it .. it is inside the SAF Act. -
singapore so small...how to have civil war?
hougang & PP vs the rest of sg?
if sg ever go into a war, i would be glad to stay and fight...not for the PAP, but for my country -
sounds like gundam seed destiny
" i dun wanna fight so don't make me "
but shoots just the same
fight who fight what
still fighting each other for what
for the reason that they cannot agree to anything
so fight lor
the point is power with power u can put ur ideals through
and people have to agree
without power even if u are great good guy no point -
He really said that? Defeats the whole purpose of elections really, doesn't it, if he said that?Originally posted by The Peacemaker:lee con you has stated that if there is a FREAK ELECTION RESULT, MARTIAL LAW will be declared and the army may have to come in---> military coup. is anyone willing to shoot in this case?
for me, i will shoot...the whites first.
haiz.. Politics is such a dirty game. And worse still, the armed forces and the police have to clean up after the mess.
-
Quite right here, tat's aint no civil war, tat's a civil unrestOriginally posted by wisefool83:Err... your topic and question does not seem to match. Citizen control Tiananmen style is not a civil war. A civil war is like Chiam Sitong declare independent in Potong Pasir and rose its own army, then SAF sent in to attack Potong Pasir. Tiananmen is like crowd/riot control.
Will I gun down a mob? Depends on if they are civilians, armed or unarmed. If like Tiananmen style where the "target" is a bunch of students, hell no! And legally speaking, every soldier is required not to obey such order. -
Curious thoughts by Max Cryer.Older man declare war, but its the youth who must fight and die.
-
siam to JB stay awhile, take a break... fight finish then return.