Hobsons Choice

Haha, fair play.

Rice has been good today as well I think.

Yeah I don't like that either, but today was particularly noticeable. Anyway, come on England.

Hostility wrong word, probably disrespect is better. I don't like how most fans boo anthems now, but they were particularly annoying. I really enjoyed that first goal. Ssssssshhhhhhhhhhh.

Makes me a bit melancholy when I think about how close we've got in the last few tournaments, and then seeing how good our attackers can be when the brakes are off.

All that hostility before the kickoff. F*** em.

So nice seeing Grealish unleashed like he was at Villa. Such a joy to watch.

What a **** goal that was.

1. No-one can know that.(Edit- someone obviously knows that, but unless they go there the Ukrainians can't). 2. The original point, and question posed was whether the act was not in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and as far as I can tell the only stipulations are a) is it an incendiary weapon and b) is it a wooded area. I feel that I've tangentially wandered into trying to justify the meaning behind this clause when my original question/point was point 2 above. Ultimately I personally don't think the use of thermite as a weapon is a thing I would consider justifiable.

I've been unable to respond for a bit at work. Poster 2 got it right. Doing something unethical to respond to something unethical is unfortunately not ethical, even if it seems that way. One principal reason is set out below. Poster 3. It's not just punching someone who punched you though, because there is a distinction between military and civilian, or potentially civilian targets. That is ultimately the distinction of what is 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' in the sphere of war. A better equivalent would be punching the child of an adult who had punched your child. I can't think of a circumstance where that would be acceptable. The 'children' in this scenario being civilians. I'm assuming that the principal reason for including the clause which prevents the use of incendiary weapons in forested areas specifically is that it is not possible to determine whether civilians are there, for example when napalm was used in Vietnam leading to horrific scenes. Once again I am very much pro Ukraine and anti Russian in this, obviously, but this is a discussion of ethics, and one cannot take a stance of moral superiority, as Ukraine currently occupies, and should continue to occupy, if one also acts unethically. Anyway this is all a friendly hypothetical discussion. Edit, I should add that the Geneva Convention is there to protect civilians in a warzone as much as it is to protect combatants.

I guess we're getting into the morality of killing someone by shooting them versus burning them alive, and I appreciate I don't have an answer to that as the end result is effectively the same. It's quite emotive I guess.

But this is the military using thermite dropped from a drone, they are not trying to remove weeds. If a government wants to set fire to it's own land they would need to take steps to ensure no one is there first. They wouldn't just drop 1000 degree molton iron onto a random patch of woodland not under their military control. If they knew the area was unoccupied they would not need to send drones in to do this, ergo they do not know if anyone is in there. Brass tacks this is a horrible way to wage war, regardless of how it is being presented.

I'll answer this with another question- Are you happy for war crimes to be committed as long as it is your side committing them? Again what Russia have done is absolutely appalling, bombing civilian targets such as shopping centres, but I personally don't think that is a mandate to also commit war crimes.

That is not a requirement. As far as I understand it the rule is that it is not to be used in forests or plant cover in case any civilians on any side are in there. I'm 100% pro Ukraine, but thermite is an appalling weapon.

Genuine question- is that not against the Geneva Convention? I thought it was illegal: "it is prohibited in all circumstances to use incendiary weapons against the civilian population, civilian objects, forests or other kinds of plant cover"

Yes

We've had some thunder in Shropshire about 30 mins ago.

This. Really we either needed to get a quality CB upgrade to replace Konsa there, or a quality RB upgrade to allow Konsa to switch back. I'm not writing off Ned yet though, with a bit of time I think he could be just what we need. Tbh even if he is, I'd have liked another option there instead of Cash given the teams we'll be facing in the CL.

Oof, Stoke beating Plymouth. Rooney having fun again.

Fingers crossed.

Sorry just posted something similar, didn't see the earlier post.

Does he though? The only time he's been under pressure for his place, when Ings was here, he struggled.

Onaaaaaannnnaaaaaa! Dude's on fire!

Who is currently unavailable

So we've now got 0 right wingers? Is that right?