Australian Politics Forum - spineless apologetics

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2070 - Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:00pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 10:44pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 10:23pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 10:01pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 9:57pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 9:50pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 7:35pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 7:22pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 6:36pm:

what I always find utterly hilarious is that opponents of the Iraq War, and apologetics for Islam, always ignore the crimes of the genocidal Hussein family because at least the secularists kept stability in the country and stopped insurgencies from crazy religious nutters. Do you realise that you are literally arguing a genocidal maniac who killed 2+ million was a better option than a Islamic cleric/imam leading Iraq? So much for Islam being so wonderful.

Oh, I've always said that Saddam had to go. It just needed the right cassis belli, rather than the lies that Bush and Co. created to justify their silly invasion of Iraq. The best point would have been in 1991 when Bush junior's father had the opportunity but didn't take it. Bit of a cleft stick there, caught between what the supporters of the Coalition wanted and what was best for the Iraqi people.

Not a cleft stick, they had permission from the UN, as if that matters, but more importantly, a coalition of middle eastern partners to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, not permission to engage in regime change and invade Iraq. Bush Senior had a good relationship with Prince Bandar and knew what was what and what the coalition would sustain.

None of this is mysterious but it baffles the crap out of you.

Out of a matter of interest can you quote to me the Security Council resolution that allowed for the toppling of Saddam Hussein from the presidency of Iraq? I'd like to know it. Of course, failure to do so indicates what about your claims?

Out of a matter of interest can you quote to me what I wrote that led you to think I said anything like that.

I reread what I wrote and nothing says anything like that.

Oh, dear, you are rather blind, aren't you? "they had permission from the UN". "Permission" must come from a UN Security Council resolution, that is the only "permission" the UN can provide to armed conflict. So, which resolution was it? Which number? When was it debated and who voted on it? Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

You idiot, read them whole sentence, it is perfectly accurate and not at all difficult to understand,

"they had permission from the UN, as if that matters, but more importantly, a coalition of middle eastern partners to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, not permission to engage in regime change and invade Iraq."

They did have permission from the UN, there was a coalition, that coalition included Middle Eastern Countries which would have collapsed if invasion and regime change was attempted.

The Coalition was an exercise in arse-covering. The invasion of Iraq was completely illegal, as the long-awaited judicial British report into Iraq pointed out.

The US established a dangerous precedence. Putin is now crowing that his entry into the Ukraine - unlike the invasion of Iraq - was legal. Putin was invited by his Ukrainian puppet leader to provide "security" - just as the South Vietnamese government invited the US into Vietnam.

The illegal invasion of Iraq was hardly unprecedented, but it was a very public snub to the rule of law, or treaty law to be exact. Today, all a rogue leader has to do is reference the invasion of Iraq as a justification for whatever invasion they feel like doing.

For the 10000th time, the invasion of Iraq was *not* illegal based on international law. The long-awaited judicial British report pointed out that Blair did not consult and pointed out that he may have misled government, and there was faulty pretense, but it was not ILLEGAL.

Stop using emotive words that you know nothing about. And your next statement is also utterly useless and baseless. Why? Because Iraq War paved the way for the ICJ to get proper statute and jurisdiction to go after unsanctioned aggressive acts. Just not for the Iraq war because the resolutions passed were not retrospective.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 98973	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #2071 - Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:08pm All the arguments presented by the US to the U.N. were rejected, Alevine. There was no declaration of war, no premptive defence, no case at all. The U.N. knocked it back. On what basis was the invasion of Iraq legal? I'm curious.
Back to top	IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2072 - Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:09pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:08pm:

All the arguments presented by the US to the U.N. were rejected, Alevine?

There was no declaration of war, no premptive defence, no case at all. The U.N. knocked it back.

On what basis was the invasion of Iraq legal?

I'm curious.

Please do tell us, which court has ruled the Iraq war was illegal?

On your basis, the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN. That's it. And of course the UN wouldn't sanction, with Russia at the time. But alas, I sleep quite comfortably knowing Saddam is dead. Please provide the alternative to get rid of a genocidal family that raped and tortured, killed millions, and fancied a good game of gasing of innocent people just to kill off some time.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2073 - Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:10pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:08pm:

All the arguments presented by the US to the U.N. were rejected, Alevine?

There was no declaration of war, no premptive defence, no case at all. The U.N. knocked it back.

On what basis was the invasion of Iraq legal?

I'm curious.

Please do tell us, which court has ruled the Iraq war was illegal?

Ah.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2074 - Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:11pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:08pm:

All the arguments presented by the US to the U.N. were rejected, Alevine?

There was no declaration of war, no premptive defence, no case at all. The U.N. knocked it back.

On what basis was the invasion of Iraq legal?

I'm curious.

Please do tell us, which court has ruled the Iraq war was illegal?

Ah.

Choo?

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2075 - Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:23pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:08pm:

All the arguments presented by the US to the U.N. were rejected, Alevine?

There was no declaration of war, no premptive defence, no case at all. The U.N. knocked it back.

On what basis was the invasion of Iraq legal?

I'm curious.

Please provide the alternative to get rid of a genocidal family that raped and tortured, killed millions, and fancied a good game of gasing of innocent people just to kill off some time.

The first Bush administration used the alternative of leaving Saddam there, Alevine. The Reagan government even used the alternative of vetoing a UN resolution that condemned Saddam for gassing said Kurds.

Countries that violate other countries' borders without U.N. or the other country's approval do so illegally. This is, after all, why the US invaded Iraq the first time - Saddam had invaded Kuwait.

The Hague convicted Slobodan Milosevic for this very crime - invading other countries.

But no, no court has convicted the Coalition of the Willing.

Cunning, no?

Back to top

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 44684

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2076 - Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:28pm

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 10:23pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 10:01pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 9:57pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 9:50pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 7:35pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 7:22pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 6:36pm:

what I always find utterly hilarious is that opponents of the Iraq War, and apologetics for Islam, always ignore the crimes of the genocidal Hussein family because at least the secularists kept stability in the country and stopped insurgencies from crazy religious nutters. Do you realise that you are literally arguing a genocidal maniac who killed 2+ million was a better option than a Islamic cleric/imam leading Iraq? So much for Islam being so wonderful.

Oh, I've always said that Saddam had to go. It just needed the right cassis belli, rather than the lies that Bush and Co. created to justify their silly invasion of Iraq. The best point would have been in 1991 when Bush junior's father had the opportunity but didn't take it. Bit of a cleft stick there, caught between what the supporters of the Coalition wanted and what was best for the Iraqi people.

Not a cleft stick, they had permission from the UN, as if that matters, but more importantly, a coalition of middle eastern partners to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, not permission to engage in regime change and invade Iraq. Bush Senior had a good relationship with Prince Bandar and knew what was what and what the coalition would sustain.

None of this is mysterious but it baffles the crap out of you.

Out of a matter of interest can you quote to me the Security Council resolution that allowed for the toppling of Saddam Hussein from the presidency of Iraq? I'd like to know it. Of course, failure to do so indicates what about your claims?

Out of a matter of interest can you quote to me what I wrote that led you to think I said anything like that.

I reread what I wrote and nothing says anything like that.

Oh, dear, you are rather blind, aren't you? "they had permission from the UN". "Permission" must come from a UN Security Council resolution, that is the only "permission" the UN can provide to armed conflict. So, which resolution was it? Which number? When was it debated and who voted on it? Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

You idiot, read them whole sentence, it is perfectly accurate and not at all difficult to understand,

"they had permission from the UN, as if that matters, but more importantly, a coalition of middle eastern partners to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, not permission to engage in regime change and invade Iraq."

They did have permission from the UN, there was a coalition, that coalition included Middle Eastern Countries which would have collapsed if invasion and regime change was attempted.

The only "permission" grant to them was to eject Saddam from Kuwait, not to engage in Regime Change, SW. If you wish to cover your arse with a convoluted sentence, then do so but please don't claim they had "permission" for anything other than that... Roll Eyes

Back to top

It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2077 - Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:29pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:23pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:08pm:

All the arguments presented by the US to the U.N. were rejected, Alevine?

There was no declaration of war, no premptive defence, no case at all. The U.N. knocked it back.

On what basis was the invasion of Iraq legal?

I'm curious.

Please provide the alternative to get rid of a genocidal family that raped and tortured, killed millions, and fancied a good game of gasing of innocent people just to kill off some time.

The first Bush administration used the alternative of leaving Saddam there, Alevine. The Reagan government even used the alternative of vetoing a UN resolution that condemned Saddam for gassing said Kurds.

Countries that violate other countries' borders without U.N. or the other country's approval do so illegally. This is, after all, why the US invaded Iraq the first time - Saddam had invaded Kuwait.

The Hague convicted Slobodan Milosevic for this very crime - invading other countries.

But no, no court has convicted the Coalition of the Willing.

Cunning, no?

Oh, and how did the first bush's administration pan out for the Iraqi people? Or the Kurds? You seem to think that one administration's decision nullifies a new administrations decision? How so? this is illogical (typical from you, Karnal).

Once again, Karnal, illegality must be proven. Which court has ruled illegality of the Iraq War? This is the same argument as that used by opponents of refugees and their legality to seek asylum. On one hand you would agree with me, on the other you don't? This makes very little sense (as usual, coming from Karnal). the UN didn't sanction the invasion. But the invasion wasn't illegal.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2078 - Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:44pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:29pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:23pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:08pm:

All the arguments presented by the US to the U.N. were rejected, Alevine?

There was no declaration of war, no premptive defence, no case at all. The U.N. knocked it back.

On what basis was the invasion of Iraq legal?

I'm curious.

Please provide the alternative to get rid of a genocidal family that raped and tortured, killed millions, and fancied a good game of gasing of innocent people just to kill off some time.

The first Bush administration used the alternative of leaving Saddam there, Alevine. The Reagan government even used the alternative of vetoing a UN resolution that condemned Saddam for gassing said Kurds.

Countries that violate other countries' borders without U.N. or the other country's approval do so illegally. This is, after all, why the US invaded Iraq the first time - Saddam had invaded Kuwait.

The Hague convicted Slobodan Milosevic for this very crime - invading other countries.

But no, no court has convicted the Coalition of the Willing.

Cunning, no?

Oh, and how did the first bush's administration pan out for the Iraqi people? Or the Kurds? You seem to think that one administration's decision nullifies a new administrations decision? How so? this is illogical (typical from you, Karnal).

Once again, Karnal, illegality must be proven. Which court has ruled illegality of the Iraq War? This is the same argument as that used by opponents of refugees and their legality to seek asylum. On one hand you would agree with me, on the other you don't? This makes very little sense (as usual, coming from Karnal). the UN didn't sanction the invasion. But the invasion wasn't illegal.

Strange. My Javan stoner mate smokes dope all the time. He hasn't been busted yet.

Are you saying dope smoking in Java is legal? I'm curious.

Typical.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2079 - Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:47pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:44pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:29pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:23pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:08pm:

All the arguments presented by the US to the U.N. were rejected, Alevine?

There was no declaration of war, no premptive defence, no case at all. The U.N. knocked it back.

On what basis was the invasion of Iraq legal?

I'm curious.

Please provide the alternative to get rid of a genocidal family that raped and tortured, killed millions, and fancied a good game of gasing of innocent people just to kill off some time.

The first Bush administration used the alternative of leaving Saddam there, Alevine. The Reagan government even used the alternative of vetoing a UN resolution that condemned Saddam for gassing said Kurds.

Countries that violate other countries' borders without U.N. or the other country's approval do so illegally. This is, after all, why the US invaded Iraq the first time - Saddam had invaded Kuwait.

The Hague convicted Slobodan Milosevic for this very crime - invading other countries.

But no, no court has convicted the Coalition of the Willing.

Cunning, no?

Oh, and how did the first bush's administration pan out for the Iraqi people? Or the Kurds? You seem to think that one administration's decision nullifies a new administrations decision? How so? this is illogical (typical from you, Karnal).

Once again, Karnal, illegality must be proven. Which court has ruled illegality of the Iraq War? This is the same argument as that used by opponents of refugees and their legality to seek asylum. On one hand you would agree with me, on the other you don't? This makes very little sense (as usual, coming from Karnal). the UN didn't sanction the invasion. But the invasion wasn't illegal.

Strange. My Javan stoner mate smokes dope all the time. He hasn't been busted yet.

Are you saying his dope smoking's legal? I'm curious.

Typical.

No one has proven he has done anything illegal. How can anyone say your Javan stoner mate has done anything illegal if they haven't proven he has? Not to mention that in the case of the Iraq War, no one has jurisdiction to prove it.

Thank goodness he hasn't been busted though! that's death. Ah, Islam. How progressive.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Secret Wars

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3928
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2080 - Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:48pm

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:28pm:

The only "permission" grant to them was to eject Saddam from Kuwait, not to engage in Regime Change, SW. If you wish to cover your arse with a convoluted sentence, then do so but please don't claim they had "permission" for anything other than that... Roll Eyes

What bit of "not permission to engage in regime change and invade Iraq" baffles you ya daft stupid cretin? Which bit?

My statement was simple, here it is again you simpleton.

Quote:

Not a cleft stick, they had permission from the UN, as if that matters, but more importantly, a coalition of middle eastern partners to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, not permission to engage in regime change and invade Iraq. Bush Senior had a good relationship with Prince Bandar and knew what was what and what the coalition would sustain.

That you describe that as convulated speaks more to your stupidity, not to anything complicated in that paragraph. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2081 - Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:53pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:47pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:44pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:29pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:23pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:08pm:

All the arguments presented by the US to the U.N. were rejected, Alevine?

There was no declaration of war, no premptive defence, no case at all. The U.N. knocked it back.

On what basis was the invasion of Iraq legal?

I'm curious.

Please provide the alternative to get rid of a genocidal family that raped and tortured, killed millions, and fancied a good game of gasing of innocent people just to kill off some time.

The first Bush administration used the alternative of leaving Saddam there, Alevine. The Reagan government even used the alternative of vetoing a UN resolution that condemned Saddam for gassing said Kurds.

Countries that violate other countries' borders without U.N. or the other country's approval do so illegally. This is, after all, why the US invaded Iraq the first time - Saddam had invaded Kuwait.

The Hague convicted Slobodan Milosevic for this very crime - invading other countries.

But no, no court has convicted the Coalition of the Willing.

Cunning, no?

Oh, and how did the first bush's administration pan out for the Iraqi people? Or the Kurds? You seem to think that one administration's decision nullifies a new administrations decision? How so? this is illogical (typical from you, Karnal).

Once again, Karnal, illegality must be proven. Which court has ruled illegality of the Iraq War? This is the same argument as that used by opponents of refugees and their legality to seek asylum. On one hand you would agree with me, on the other you don't? This makes very little sense (as usual, coming from Karnal). the UN didn't sanction the invasion. But the invasion wasn't illegal.

Strange. My Javan stoner mate smokes dope all the time. He hasn't been busted yet.

Are you saying his dope smoking's legal? I'm curious.

Typical.

No one has proven he has done anything illegal. How can anyone say your Javan stoner mate has done anything illegal if they haven't proven he has? Not to mention that in the case of the Iraq War, no one has jurisdiction to prove it.

Thank goodness he hasn't been busted though! that's death. Ah, Islam. How progressive.

But I saw him do something illegal, Alevine. He even offered me a puff.

I also saw the Coalition invade Iraq. It was on the tele.

Are you saying these things aren't illegal, or that these alleged crimes haven't been convicted?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2082 - Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:55pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:53pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:47pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:44pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:29pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:23pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 11:08pm:

All the arguments presented by the US to the U.N. were rejected, Alevine?

There was no declaration of war, no premptive defence, no case at all. The U.N. knocked it back.

On what basis was the invasion of Iraq legal?

I'm curious.

Please provide the alternative to get rid of a genocidal family that raped and tortured, killed millions, and fancied a good game of gasing of innocent people just to kill off some time.

The first Bush administration used the alternative of leaving Saddam there, Alevine. The Reagan government even used the alternative of vetoing a UN resolution that condemned Saddam for gassing said Kurds.

Countries that violate other countries' borders without U.N. or the other country's approval do so illegally. This is, after all, why the US invaded Iraq the first time - Saddam had invaded Kuwait.

The Hague convicted Slobodan Milosevic for this very crime - invading other countries.

But no, no court has convicted the Coalition of the Willing.

Cunning, no?

Oh, and how did the first bush's administration pan out for the Iraqi people? Or the Kurds? You seem to think that one administration's decision nullifies a new administrations decision? How so? this is illogical (typical from you, Karnal).

Once again, Karnal, illegality must be proven. Which court has ruled illegality of the Iraq War? This is the same argument as that used by opponents of refugees and their legality to seek asylum. On one hand you would agree with me, on the other you don't? This makes very little sense (as usual, coming from Karnal). the UN didn't sanction the invasion. But the invasion wasn't illegal.

Strange. My Javan stoner mate smokes dope all the time. He hasn't been busted yet.

Are you saying his dope smoking's legal? I'm curious.

Typical.

No one has proven he has done anything illegal. How can anyone say your Javan stoner mate has done anything illegal if they haven't proven he has? Not to mention that in the case of the Iraq War, no one has jurisdiction to prove it.

Thank goodness he hasn't been busted though! that's death. Ah, Islam. How progressive.

But I saw him do something illegal, Alevine. He even offered me a puff.

I also saw the Coalition invade Iraq. It was on the tele.

Are you saying these things aren't illegal, or that these alleged crimes haven't been convicted?

you can allege illegality. But it isn't illegal until something is proven to be. And in the case of the Iraq War, the ICJ itself has already said it wasn't illegal, and they can't rule ever on it.

You should tell the Indonesian authorities, Karnal. Once they prove your mate smokes dope, and execute him, you can tell everyone that he was executed for doing something which is illegal. Ah Islam, bliss.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 98973	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #2083 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:05am So you're saying that the entire criminal code is actually legal until someone is convicted? Why then would the ICJ rule on something that's legal? Of course the invasion of Iraq was legal - no one was convicted. "Regressives".
Back to top	IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2084 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:07am

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:05am:

So you're saying that the entire criminal code is actually legal until someone is convicted?

Why then would the IJC rule on something that's legal? Of course the invasion of Iraq was legal - no one was convicted.

I'm saying you haven't broken the criminal code until you are proven to have broken it.

But good on you for once again getting all confused

Perhaps it's that pot you got from your Indonesian mate? Doubt it's very good Sad

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged