Battlezone Forums

of course you don't. attacking your sovereign territory as opposed to our sovereign territory is...different.

A terrorist attack is not a war in and of itself.

What happened in the Falkland Islands was an invasion. The Argentine military invaded British land, after much diplomacy and as an act of war. The British military then defended the islands.

Your embassy was attacked by a terrorist organisation, not the Libyan government. Our sovereign territory was attacked by a military, whose land we were defending ourselves on. Al Qaeda =/= Libya; opening fire on Libyan territory, be it against Al Qaeda or not, would be an act of war against the Libyan government.

No its not different, its just that you cannot fly a gunship inside an embassy and you are not at war with Libya. You were saying that they should have opened fire from an aircraft in "friendly" Libyan airspace on Libyan people while not really knowing what was happening on the ground. If you go round doing stuff like that, people are not going to want American embassy's in their nations at all.

so, following your logic, if there's a terror attack on a british embassy launched from a country's soil, you are not allowed to fire on those attackers, be it from the embassy or from overhead.

furthermore, you are saying if those terrorists fire missiles at your embassy from, say, france, you are not allowed to fire back at them since they are firing from another nation's soil.

it looks like it's open season on british embassies then...

Red Devil wrote:so, following your logic, if there's a terror attack on a british embassy launched from a country's soil, you are not allowed to fire on those attackers, be it from the embassy or from overhead.

furthermore, you are saying if those terrorists fire missiles at your embassy from, say, france, you are not allowed to fire back at them since they are firing from another nation's soil.

it looks like it's open season on british embassies then...

- If open fire upon, you may return fire defensively.
- Except in this circumstance, opening fire when on another country's soil is an act of war.

The gunship was not fired upon. Therefore, if it opened fire it would amount to a casus belli and war with Libya.


Answering your scenarios:
- If there is a terror attack on a British embassy launched from another country's soil, you may return fire ONLY if you are within the embassy (and thus on British soil) OR were under fire yourself (see exception).

- If missiles were fired at the embassy from France, you could fire back ONLY if you were within the embassy.

yes...in your dreams.

embassy soil is considered sovereign territory. any attack on it is considered an act of war.

period.

So it would be ok for a Libyan gunship to open fire on Americans on (real)American soil if the Libyan embassy was attacked would it? You would all just sit back and say fair enough and not have it blown out of the sky?
Some years ago a Libyan opened fire from the Libyan embassy in London, killed a police woman, and we ended up storming the place. Embassy's may be considered to be the territory of that nation, but only in a very limited way, Diplomatic Immunity does not cover murdering people.
In this case it was quite clear at the time that they didn't actually figure out it was a deliberate terrorist attack until some time afterwards.
Your argument seems plausible with hindsight only and utterly ignores the realities of diplomacy. It is quite clear that those who planned the attacks did so because they knew you would be unable to effectively defend it. Just got to face facts, you have made enemies who are cowardly women & child murdering fascist scum. Your conventional war fighting methods just don't work against them, in fact they are highly counter productive, as that is exactly what they want you to do. They would have been overjoyed if they had provoked your forces into a massacre of protesters.

That I will probably never go on route 66.

Red Devil wrote:yes...in your dreams.

embassy soil is considered sovereign territory. any attack on it is considered an act of war.

period.

You are missing the distinction that the embassy was not attacked by Libya. al Qaeda, who attacked the embassy, are not a country. You cannot declare war on them, no matter what the right wing would like.

al Qaeda =/= Libya.

That I should never, ever, trust my goddamn parents with a phone.

Red Devil wrote:embassy soil is considered sovereign territory. any attack on it is considered an act of war.

period.

All nice and well, but in the end you do reside in an other country.
Dont respect their laws, morals, values and beliefs, and I have no problem if somebody offers you their foot .. on sovereign territory .. good luck opening fire with the belief it will save you ....

the "distinction" doesn't matter; no matter who is attacking, your country is required to defend it, no matter how.

and where was the so-called libyan government while our embassy was being attacked - for two hours - with guns and mortars?

when your embassies are attacked by them, will you have the same attitude? probably...

trying to make my point with people who are obviously on the side of the terrorists is pointless. enjoy.

So you defend your embassy to the point of starting a war that could cost thousands more lives?

The Libyan government was in quite the mess at the time as I recall. They're not obliged to help you anyway; the embassy is US property and US soil, remember. You're welcome to defend it, so long as you don't do it from their land.

And remember that we're not having a political debate here, this isn't a "what the UK would do against what the US would do", this is a "what we have to do because it's in the Geneva Convention". Your country incorporated that into law, remember.

So you're arguing that the Geneva Convention was written to support terrorists?

AHadley wrote:The Libyan government was in quite the mess at the time as I recall. They're not obliged to help you anyway; the embassy is US property and US soil, remember. You're welcome to defend it, so long as you don't do it from their land.

Thats pretty much why I said what I said. Certain countries talk big in an other country knowing very well that they have diplomatic immunity and none can even get behind the fence if the ambassador doesnt like it, yet when sh*t does hit the fan the ambassy all of a sudden expect the country they've been lecturing to come to their aid.
Life doesnt like 2 standards and those who do apply them pretty much by definition end up paying for their ignorance, at one point or an other and often with a severe interest.

Edit:
Also, RD, you do know that those who we call terrorists are called such because the party that does the naming is seen as the 'power to beat'? If everybody else would be hanging on the middle east we'd probably be called the terrorists.

One gust is all it takes and your front door is gone.