Australian Politics Forum - spineless apologetics

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2100 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 1:00am

rhino wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:57am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:54am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:47am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:42am:

rhino wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:38am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:36am:

rhino wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:32am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:14am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:10am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on 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.

This is confusing. How do police arrest people, Alevine? How do courts hear charges?

Police allege a crime has been committed and will arrest to detain.
Courts hear charges that are brought forward by the state against a person.
The person is then found guilty of the allegation if the court finds them guilty. AT THIS point you can say they have committed an illegal act. Otherwise you can allege they have.

.

On what basis are people remanded in custody before trial?

on the basis that there is an allegation against them.

So as long as I allege something you can be put in prison. Is that all it takes?

if it is alleged you have committed a crime, then yes, police can put you in holding up until you are either found guilty or not guilty.

Isn't this grade 3 level stuff?

Rhino's a cop, Alevine.

and he needs explaining why you can get held when it is alleged you've committed a crime? Bad education?

lol. Lots of people get refused bail and are held in prison before trial. Some of them even get found not guilty. Is this a startling revelation to you? Would you like to have a try as to why they are refused bail?

I'd still like to understand what your point is?

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

rhino Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17179 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #2101 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 1:04am alleged.
Back to top	IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 23619 Gender:	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #2102 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 1:10am rhino wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 1:04am: alleged. great stuff Do you disagree that being put in prison whilst awaiting a judgement doesn't mean you have committed a crime?
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 #2103 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 1:47am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:59am:

here Karnal:

Quote:

Could the UK be prosecuted under international law?

In practice, no. The UK has acceded to the compulsory jurisdiction of the international court of justice. Iraq, however, has not. Even if Iraq were to do so now, it would be barred from bringing a case against the UK until six months had elapsed. If conflict does ensue, one might expect a new regime to have been installed in Baghdad before the six months is up.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/13/qanda.politics

And the ICC:

Quote:

the International Criminal Court has a mandate to examine the conduct during the conflict, but not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal. As the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, I do not have the mandate to address the arguments on the legality of the use of force or the crime of aggression.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_and_the_2003_invasion...

So despite all the argument for or against, no case has or will be brought forward. And while there is no case, it cannot be said the invasion was illegal.

Anymore?

Yes please, Alevine. Where did the ICJ rule that the invasion of Iraq can't be said to have been illegal?

Cheers.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2104 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:03am

rhino wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 1:04am:

alleged.

No no, not just alleged. Alevine's argument here isn't about innocent until proven guilty. He's saying that crimes themselves are not illegal until they have been proven so.

The rest of us legal laypeople were under the impression that illegal simply means an action that is subject to the criminal code. Alevine has a completely different take - he's saying crimes themselves aren't illegal until a conviction's been made. He's saying we can't even allege that the invasion of Iraq was illegal - despite the claims of the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and the International Court of Justice - until the Coalition of the Willing has been sent down.

And he's saying this to excuse the biggest botched invasion and occupation in recent history. In the Spineless Apologetics thread.

I think it has something to do with Islam, but that's just me. We haven't got a conviction, so it"s impossible to say.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2105 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:07am

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 1:47am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:59am:

here Karnal:

Quote:

Could the UK be prosecuted under international law?

In practice, no. The UK has acceded to the compulsory jurisdiction of the international court of justice. Iraq, however, has not. Even if Iraq were to do so now, it would be barred from bringing a case against the UK until six months had elapsed. If conflict does ensue, one might expect a new regime to have been installed in Baghdad before the six months is up.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/13/qanda.politics

And the ICC:

Quote:

the International Criminal Court has a mandate to examine the conduct during the conflict, but not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal. As the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, I do not have the mandate to address the arguments on the legality of the use of force or the crime of aggression.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_and_the_2003_invasion...

So despite all the argument for or against, no case has or will be brought forward. And while there is no case, it cannot be said the invasion was illegal.

Anymore?

Yes please, Alevine. Where did the ICJ rule that the invasion of Iraq can't be said to have been illegal?

Cheers.

Oh you can call if whatever you want. But until a court with jurisdiction actually convicts the war was not illegal. And why the icj can't do anything? See above.

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

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2106 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:10am

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:03am:

rhino wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 1:04am:

alleged.

No no, not just alleged. Alevine's argument here isn't about innocent until proven guilty. He's saying that crimes themselves are not illegal until they have been proven so.

The rest of us legal laypeople were under the impression that illegal simply means an action that is subject to the criminal code. Alevine has a completely different take - he's saying crimes themselves aren't illegal until a conviction's been made. He's saying we can't even allege that the invasion of Iraq was illegal - despite the claims of the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and the International Court of Justice - until the Coalition of the Willing has been sent down.

And he's saying this to excuse the biggest botched invasion and occupation in recent history. In the Spineless Apologetics thread.

I think it has something to do with Islam, but that's just me. We haven't got a conviction, so it"s impossible to say.

Actually no, I'm saying you can't say someone has committed an illegal war until it is proven they have. trust dear Karnal to get it wrong, again. Sad

Too much doping.

You can allege. But you weren't alleging were you. You are quite adamant the war was actually illegal. Which it wasn't. And why can't it? Because there is no plaintiff to start with.

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 #2107 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:13am Sorry, one last thing - the decision about Iraq staying out of the ICJ was made by the US. It was part of a sweep of laws made by Paul Bremer during the occupation, and agreed to by the subsequent Iraqi government in exchange for military support. Cunning, no?
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2108 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:14am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:10am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:03am:

rhino wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 1:04am:

alleged.

No no, not just alleged. Alevine's argument here isn't about innocent until proven guilty. He's saying that crimes themselves are not illegal until they have been proven so.

The rest of us legal laypeople were under the impression that illegal simply means an action that is subject to the criminal code. Alevine has a completely different take - he's saying crimes themselves aren't illegal until a conviction's been made. He's saying we can't even allege that the invasion of Iraq was illegal - despite the claims of the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and the International Court of Justice - until the Coalition of the Willing has been sent down.

And he's saying this to excuse the biggest botched invasion and occupation in recent history. In the Spineless Apologetics thread.

I think it has something to do with Islam, but that's just me. We haven't got a conviction, so it"s impossible to say.

Actually no, I'm saying you can't say someone has committed an illegal war until it is proven they have. trust dear Karnal to get it wrong, again. Sad

Too much doping.

You can allege. But you weren't alleging were you. You are quite adamant the war was actually illegal. Which it wasn't. And why can't it? Because there is no plaintiff to start with.

Ah.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2109 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:14am

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:13am:

Sorry, one last thing - the decision about Iraq staying out of the ICJ was made by the US. It was part of a sweep of laws made by Paul Bremer during the occupation, and agreed to by the subsequent Iraqi government in exchange for military support.

Cunning, no?

Nice.

But tell me, was the war 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

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2110 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:15am

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:14am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:10am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:03am:

rhino wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 1:04am:

alleged.

No no, not just alleged. Alevine's argument here isn't about innocent until proven guilty. He's saying that crimes themselves are not illegal until they have been proven so.

The rest of us legal laypeople were under the impression that illegal simply means an action that is subject to the criminal code. Alevine has a completely different take - he's saying crimes themselves aren't illegal until a conviction's been made. He's saying we can't even allege that the invasion of Iraq was illegal - despite the claims of the U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and the International Court of Justice - until the Coalition of the Willing has been sent down.

And he's saying this to excuse the biggest botched invasion and occupation in recent history. In the Spineless Apologetics thread.

I think it has something to do with Islam, but that's just me. We haven't got a conviction, so it"s impossible to say.

Actually no, I'm saying you can't say someone has committed an illegal war until it is proven they have. trust dear Karnal to get it wrong, again. Sad

Too much doping.

You can allege. But you weren't alleging were you. You are quite adamant the war was actually illegal. Which it wasn't. And why can't it? Because there is no plaintiff to start with.

Ah.

Choo?

Karnal, those drugs are really bad for you 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

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2111 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:21am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:14am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:13am:

Sorry, one last thing - the decision about Iraq staying out of the ICJ was made by the US. It was part of a sweep of laws made by Paul Bremer during the occupation, and agreed to by the subsequent Iraqi government in exchange for military support.

Cunning, no?

Nice.

But tell me, was the war illegal?

Of course. The ICJ have been pretty clear about that.

They're saying it can't be prosecuted.

But I'm curious. Why are you working so hard to apologise for this?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2112 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 5:12am

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:21am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:14am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:13am:

Sorry, one last thing - the decision about Iraq staying out of the ICJ was made by the US. It was part of a sweep of laws made by Paul Bremer during the occupation, and agreed to by the subsequent Iraqi government in exchange for military support.

Cunning, no?

Nice.

But tell me, was the war illegal?

Of course. The ICJ have been pretty clear about that.

They're saying it can't be prosecuted.

But I'm curious. Why are you working so hard to apologise for this?

So then it wasnt illegal?

I'm not working hard at all. I just find you amusing.

Tell me, do you still wish Saddam was tying up girls in his rape chamber?

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

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2113 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 8:02am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 9:44pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 7:41pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 7:24pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 7:23pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 5:39pm:

I'm sorry but you were exactly arguing that the government is driven by religion when you decided to make the stupid argument that moderate Christians are killing in the Middle East. And no, arguing that the aim of fighting in the Middle East is to maintain a white Christian hegemony is also wrong, but definitely shows your outmost delusion. No western government is religious. All western governments and societies are secular. The only reason there is any fighting against the "tinted heathens" is simply because unfortunately the "tinted heathens" have decided to embrace a screwed up religion that 1) tells them to kill those who don't follow their screwed up religion and 2) tells them they can't even live amongst each other. The problem isn't a desire to keep a "Christian hegemony". The problem is Islam. When will you end this spineless apologising for Islam?

100% misinterpretation of what I said. I was going to dissect it and explain it, but since all your claims about what I said here are completely wrong, its just easier to tell you to go back and reread what I said and try and understand it better.

Do you need me to highlight all the parts that you said which EXACTLY correlate to this point of view? Happy to

Please do.

Reply 1926
Reply 2043

The fact you think that it's the "Christian hegemony" that Keeps the "tinted races" in their current state is hilarious.

The fact that you think thats what I said is hilarious. No go back and highlight the actual parts you said you were going to - instead of lamely giving reference numbers. I'll help you out: please "highlight" where any of what I said "EXACTLY correlates with:

1. saying that the US government is driven by religion
2. saying the aim of western governments fighting in the Middle East is to maintain a white Christian hegemony
3. saying any western government is religious

Off you go...

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2114 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:55am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 5:12am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:21am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:14am:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 2:13am:

Sorry, one last thing - the decision about Iraq staying out of the ICJ was made by the US. It was part of a sweep of laws made by Paul Bremer during the occupation, and agreed to by the subsequent Iraqi government in exchange for military support.

Cunning, no?

Nice.

But tell me, was the war illegal?

Of course. The ICJ have been pretty clear about that.

They're saying it can't be prosecuted.

But I'm curious. Why are you working so hard to apologise for this?

So then it wasnt illegal?

I'm not working hard at all. I just find you amusing.

Tell me, do you still wish Saddam was tying up girls in his rape chamber?

What does Saddam have to do with this? We're discussing the legality of the Iraq invasion.

The ICJ have been quite clear that the invasion was illegal. As have subsequent Coalition leaders Barrack Obama and Gordon Brown. As did the Iraq report we've discussed. The ICJ merely state that there are legal technicalities around why they won't (or can't) prosecute, but there is, of course, one more.

Apparently the Security Council can veto ICJ rulings. Sitting there as permanent members are the US and UK. Hence, a conviction is not possible unless Uncle and Mother want one.

I'm glad you can have a chuckle over your legal analysis, but I must say, it does look like hard work. Tapdancers usually get around this by keeping a big smile on their faces. Teeth-and-tits as they say in the business.

It is a jolly world, no?

Back to top

IP Logged