True or false?

[georgswa (Georg Ruf) (RIP)]

Dont jump the gun

Read correct when you google son

Otto von Bismarck-Schönhausen
1865 Graf Bismarck,
1871 Fürst Bismarck,
1890 Herzog von Lauenburg,
Politiker,
*1.4.1815 Schönhausen bei Stendal,
†30.7.1898 Friedrichsruh, Krs. Herzogtum Lauenburg;
aus altmärk. uradligem Geschlecht,
Sohn des Gutsbesitzers Ferdinand von B. u. seiner dem höheren
Bürgertum entstammenden Frau Wilhelmine geb. Menkken.
24.9.1862 bis 20.3.1890 Preußischer Ministerpräsident
und Staatskanzler,
Reichskanzler von 1871 bis 1890.

[georg ruf jr.]

You're right. Germany was only grounded in 1871. He was Kanzler of the " Northen German Union" which was later part of the Deutsche Reich. How could I ignore that fact.
I feel ashamed and I'm blushing. I'll even stand in the corner for ten minutes.
Okay. Your firs "guess" wasv obviously right. Helmuth Kohl was the longest (and I think tallest lol) Kanzler. If I get it right: 1983 - 1998.

[georgswa (Georg Ruf) (RIP)]

Dont feel ashamed

Told you to read correct and dont come to conclusions to quick

Bismark is longer then the cabbage Kohl take the calculator it may help LOL LOL :emot172: :emot111:

[georg ruf jr.]

Geez! I think it's time to go to bed. Brain's not working anymore...
I'll start a new attempt tomorrow. Sorry guys.

[georgswa (Georg Ruf) (RIP)]

Geez! I think it's time to go to bed. Brain's not working anymore...
I'll start a new attempt tomorrow. Sorry guys.

Multitasking dont work for all only some  bling1

[Melanie Jonker]

True   -  due to the fact that they eat only eucalyptus leaves and that tree is indigenous to Australia.

Hope I am correct.

False - Koalas are often called as "koala bears" - this is not correct. Koala is not a bear but a marsupial. The closest relative of koala is a wombat, which also has cute and cuddly appearance, but it's never called a "wombat bear". Ha Ha that was a trick question. Koalas are synonymous with Australia but not 'koala bears'.

[georg ruf jr.]

lol

[Carl Wrbka]

True or False.

In times of war, it is possible for a soldier to be charged with murder, after he has killed an enemy.

[georgswa (Georg Ruf) (RIP)]

That is true

But........the circumstances must me very clear, when in combat i see no charge

My Father was killed by a german soldier who was never charged, the truth is unclear and can not be reconstructed

I.E. Poland was considered an enemy, many people were killed only few hanged for that after Nürnberg Trials.

Also see the world court The Hague.

I am lucky that i never had to take part in any of those things.

[georg ruf jr.]

That's true oldma. We in fact are very lucky living in Europe today. Probably the most stable part in the world.

[Carl Wrbka]

Ok let me rephrase the question a bit to make it clearer.

A soldier is in a combat situation. Standard rules of engagement and Geneva Convention laws apply. He encounters an enemy soldier and shoots him dead using the weapon and ammunition issued to him by his government. He can be charged with murder for this deed? True or false?

[georgswa (Georg Ruf) (RIP)]

Thats much clearer now.

He can not be charged for murder in that case.


Thats what i ment pending on circumstance. Many where killed under different circumstances but also never charged.

[Carl Wrbka]

Ok, so your answer is False?

[georgswa (Georg Ruf) (RIP)]

Ok, so your answer is False?

I take it,thats a question

No i think my answer is correct

[Carl Wrbka]

Georg, your answer can be right or wrong depending on from which viewpoint you look at it.
I read an article recently which got me thinking back to my time spent in the SA defence force. The main points of the topic were as follows:

"Under the laws of the Geneva Convention, it is a criminal offence for a soldier to in any way alter or modify the weapon or ammunition that he is issued with prior to entering into battle".

Military weapons and ammunition that are designed and manufactured according to the rules of the Geneva Convention must be of such a nature that they kill as humanely as possible without inflicting undue pain and suffering. This gave rise to the "full metal jacket" ammunition used by all countries that follow the Geneva Convention. What this boils down to is that if you use a standard issue rifle and ammunition when going to war, you are protected by the Geneva Convention, and are performing your deed as an act of war. No criminal charges in this case.

If, however, you decide to play Rambo, you are no longer seen in the eyes of the law as a soldier defending his country, but a soldier going out to commit murder. By altering your weapon and ammunition to inflict more damage to the enemy, you are showing "intent" to commit murder, which is punishable in most countries.

An example of this came to light during the bush war in Angola. South African soldiers would sometimes cut a cross into the point of their copper jacketed bullets with a nail file. The purpose behind this was to cause the bullet to explode upon entering the enemy soldier, inflicting horrendous injuries. I'm not sure if anybody was charged during this time, but the practice was soon outlawed after foreign journalists began enquiring into the nature of injuries seen on dead enemy soldiers.