Australian Politics Forum - spineless apologetics

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98973

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2115 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:59am

polite_gandalf wrote on 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...

Not only has Alevine learned from the old boy, he's now using the old FD trick.

I wonder when he'll use his countering technique.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2116 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 7:29pm

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.

Simple. When they said they can't prosecute the case.

Anymore?

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 #2117 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 7:32pm

Karnal wrote on 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?

No, the ICJ have been quite clear in alleging illegality. They haven't, and won't, be able to actually prove illegality and prosecute. And please provide actual quotes from everyone. The Iraq report never said it was 'illegal'.

So you are welcome to say 'I believe the Iraq war is illegal' but you shouldn't say 'The iraq war was illegal'. As quite simply, what you believe and what is fact are two veyr different htings, Karnal. The Iraq War was *not* illegal.

And what Saddam has to do with it? I just want to see what you think of the man. It sounds like you really had some admiration for him, what with your constant intent to try and tell us all how bad it is that he was removed.

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 #2118 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 7:43pm

polite_gandalf wrote on 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...

Oh ok then.

The entire reply 1926:
Quote:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2017 at 11:17am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2017 at 12:25am:

Actually extremist catholics, protestants and jews are different to extremist muslims because extremist catholics, protestants and jews don't go around blowing up people

Thats right alevine - they don't need to, as the moderate ones do it for them. How many people do you think are blown up every day by the moderate "non-extremist" American government? Do you reckon the number of innocents killed by extremist muslims pales in comparison to the number of innocents killed by "non-extremist" catholics, protestants and jews?

What were you implying when you said the American government was 'moderate extremist' in response to my discussion about extremist catholics/protestants/jews? Mm?

and

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 9:49am:

Second point, no one is arguing whether or not the American Government itself is driven by religion - the issue here is the fact that the government in effect 'does the dirty work' of the religious nutjobs - ie maintaining white christian hegemony over the tinted heathens, and slaughtering lots and lots of them in the process. And they do this whether this is their actual intention or not (obviously it isn't).

Do you want more colours? I can admit I missed your last bit in brackets, and unlike the most dishonest poster here, Karnal, I don't believe in editing other's posts. But you were indeed suggesting the American government itself is driven by religion, from the previous reply and also in talking about Bush and his discussion about god. Which is all complete loony business, of course. And do you honestly believe no secular government should ever use force, if necessary, because the results may be celebrated by some religious nutjobs who want to see a spread of their religion? That may be *an* outcome, as there are many outcomes, but it's surely irrelevant when it comes to a secular's government's decision making on whether to use force or not. And like it or not, when it comes to religious nutjobs, we can concentrate on christians but the reality is that it is within the muslim world that the numbers are growing, rather than decreasing.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Sep 28^th, 2017 at 7:57pm by sir prince duke alevine »

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 #2119 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 8:43pm

Teeth-and-tits, dear. Much better.

Can you show me where the ICJ and the British report on Iraq said the invasion was not illegal? I can't find this, despite your claims. Strangely enough, I can only find them stating the opposite.

But I'm curious. My Aceh mate says his dope smoking's illegal, but he's never been convicted. Does this mean it's legal?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2120 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:16pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 8:43pm:

Teeth-and-tits, dear. Much better.

Can you show me where the ICJ and the British report on Iraq said the invasion was not illegal? I can't find this, despite your claims. Strangely enough, I can only find them stating the opposite.

But I'm curious. My Aceh mate says his dope smoking's illegal, but he's never been convicted. Does this mean it's legal?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

If your Aceh Mate was asked if he has done anything illegal, and to try and provide his criminal record, what would be his response?

Dope smoking is illegal, but your mate has not been convicted so you can not say he has done anything illegal. No one has proven he smokes dope. Unless he wants to confess to the police and undergo a judgement? But then...that's death, Karnal. Wonderful, Islam, isn't it?

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 #2121 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:36pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 8:43pm:

Teeth-and-tits, dear. Much better.

Can you show me where the ICJ and the British report on Iraq said the invasion was not illegal? I can't find this, despite your claims. Strangely enough, I can only find them stating the opposite.

But I'm curious. My Aceh mate says his dope smoking's illegal, but he's never been convicted. Does this mean it's legal?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

If your Aceh Mate was asked if he has done anything illegal, and to try and provide his criminal record, what would be his response?

Dope smoking is illegal, but your mate has not been convicted so you can not say he has done anything illegal.

Thanks for that. Something tells me you're happy to leave it there.

Right?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2122 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 10:27pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:36pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 8:43pm:

Teeth-and-tits, dear. Much better.

Can you show me where the ICJ and the British report on Iraq said the invasion was not illegal? I can't find this, despite your claims. Strangely enough, I can only find them stating the opposite.

But I'm curious. My Aceh mate says his dope smoking's illegal, but he's never been convicted. Does this mean it's legal?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

If your Aceh Mate was asked if he has done anything illegal, and to try and provide his criminal record, what would be his response?

Dope smoking is illegal, but your mate has not been convicted so you can not say he has done anything illegal.

Thanks for that. Something tells me you're happy to leave it there.

Right?

Well I'm still waiting on you to provide the quotes from Brown and Obama relating to them saying the war was illegal. be honest now, Karnal. I know it's not your strong suite, but please try.

I'd like to know if you'd shake Saddam's rapey genocidal hand if you met him today?

I'd also like to know why you are so intent on putting your Aceh mate into trouble for his dope smoking? You want your mate killed by the wonderful Islam?

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 #2123 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 10:54pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 10:27pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:36pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 8:43pm:

Teeth-and-tits, dear. Much better.

Can you show me where the ICJ and the British report on Iraq said the invasion was not illegal? I can't find this, despite your claims. Strangely enough, I can only find them stating the opposite.

But I'm curious. My Aceh mate says his dope smoking's illegal, but he's never been convicted. Does this mean it's legal?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

If your Aceh Mate was asked if he has done anything illegal, and to try and provide his criminal record, what would be his response?

Dope smoking is illegal, but your mate has not been convicted so you can not say he has done anything illegal.

Thanks for that. Something tells me you're happy to leave it there.

Right?

Well I'm still waiting on you to provide the quotes from Brown and Obama relating to them saying the war was illegal. be honest now, Karnal. I know it's not your strong suite, but please try.

I'd like to know if you'd shake Saddam's rapey genocidal hand if you met him today?

I'd also like to know why you are so intent on putting your Aceh mate into trouble for his dope smoking? You want your mate killed by the wonderful Islam?

Strange. I was wondering when you'd quote the ICJ and the Iraq report a few pages back. You must have forgotten.

Too busy discussing international jurisprudence, weren't you?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2124 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:02pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 10:54pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 10:27pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:36pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 8:43pm:

Teeth-and-tits, dear. Much better.

Can you show me where the ICJ and the British report on Iraq said the invasion was not illegal? I can't find this, despite your claims. Strangely enough, I can only find them stating the opposite.

But I'm curious. My Aceh mate says his dope smoking's illegal, but he's never been convicted. Does this mean it's legal?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

If your Aceh Mate was asked if he has done anything illegal, and to try and provide his criminal record, what would be his response?

Dope smoking is illegal, but your mate has not been convicted so you can not say he has done anything illegal.

Thanks for that. Something tells me you're happy to leave it there.

Right?

Well I'm still waiting on you to provide the quotes from Brown and Obama relating to them saying the war was illegal. be honest now, Karnal. I know it's not your strong suite, but please try.

I'd like to know if you'd shake Saddam's rapey genocidal hand if you met him today?

I'd also like to know why you are so intent on putting your Aceh mate into trouble for his dope smoking? You want your mate killed by the wonderful Islam?

Strange. I was wondering when you'd quote the ICJ and the Iraq report a few pages back. You must have forgotten.

Too busy discussing international jurisprudence, weren't you?

I'll happily provide, but Karnal, I'm waiting on you. Don't get all upset when I asked you first, and you have failed to provide.

And Karnal - the rapey genocidal hand, shake, no shake?

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 #2125 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:06pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:02pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 10:54pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 10:27pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:36pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 8:43pm:

Teeth-and-tits, dear. Much better.

Can you show me where the ICJ and the British report on Iraq said the invasion was not illegal? I can't find this, despite your claims. Strangely enough, I can only find them stating the opposite.

But I'm curious. My Aceh mate says his dope smoking's illegal, but he's never been convicted. Does this mean it's legal?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

If your Aceh Mate was asked if he has done anything illegal, and to try and provide his criminal record, what would be his response?

Dope smoking is illegal, but your mate has not been convicted so you can not say he has done anything illegal.

Thanks for that. Something tells me you're happy to leave it there.

Right?

Well I'm still waiting on you to provide the quotes from Brown and Obama relating to them saying the war was illegal. be honest now, Karnal. I know it's not your strong suite, but please try.

I'd like to know if you'd shake Saddam's rapey genocidal hand if you met him today?

I'd also like to know why you are so intent on putting your Aceh mate into trouble for his dope smoking? You want your mate killed by the wonderful Islam?

Strange. I was wondering when you'd quote the ICJ and the Iraq report a few pages back. You must have forgotten.

Too busy discussing international jurisprudence, weren't you?

I'll happily provide, but Karnal, I'm waiting on you. Don't get all upset when I asked you first, and you have failed to provide.

And Karnal - the rapey genocidal hand, shake, no shake?

Don't want to say, eh?

We understand.

Don't forget FD's next trick, Alevine.

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2126 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:08pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:06pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:02pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 10:54pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 10:27pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:36pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 8:43pm:

Teeth-and-tits, dear. Much better.

Can you show me where the ICJ and the British report on Iraq said the invasion was not illegal? I can't find this, despite your claims. Strangely enough, I can only find them stating the opposite.

But I'm curious. My Aceh mate says his dope smoking's illegal, but he's never been convicted. Does this mean it's legal?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

If your Aceh Mate was asked if he has done anything illegal, and to try and provide his criminal record, what would be his response?

Dope smoking is illegal, but your mate has not been convicted so you can not say he has done anything illegal.

Thanks for that. Something tells me you're happy to leave it there.

Right?

Well I'm still waiting on you to provide the quotes from Brown and Obama relating to them saying the war was illegal. be honest now, Karnal. I know it's not your strong suite, but please try.

I'd like to know if you'd shake Saddam's rapey genocidal hand if you met him today?

I'd also like to know why you are so intent on putting your Aceh mate into trouble for his dope smoking? You want your mate killed by the wonderful Islam?

Strange. I was wondering when you'd quote the ICJ and the Iraq report a few pages back. You must have forgotten.

Too busy discussing international jurisprudence, weren't you?

I'll happily provide, but Karnal, I'm waiting on you. Don't get all upset when I asked you first, and you have failed to provide.

And Karnal - the rapey genocidal hand, shake, no shake?

Don't want to say, eh?

We understand.

Karnal, if you look carefully you will notice I asked you first.

Reply #2117

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 7:32pm:

No, the ICJ have been quite clear in alleging illegality. They haven't, and won't, be able to actually prove illegality and prosecute. And please provide actual quotes from everyone. The Iraq report never said it was 'illegal'.

So you are welcome to say 'I believe the Iraq war is illegal' but you shouldn't say 'The iraq war was illegal'. As quite simply, what you believe and what is fact are two veyr different htings, Karnal. The Iraq War was *not* illegal.

And what Saddam has to do with it? I just want to see what you think of the man. It sounds like you really had some admiration for him, what with your constant intent to try and tell us all how bad it is that he was removed.

Reply #2119

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 8:43pm:

Teeth-and-tits, dear. Much better.

Can you show me where the ICJ and the British report on Iraq said the invasion was not illegal? I can't find this, despite your claims. Strangely enough, I can only find them stating the opposite.

But I'm curious. My Aceh mate says his dope smoking's illegal, but he's never been convicted. Does this mean it's legal?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Don't want to say?

We understand. So dishonest.

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 #2127 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:09pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:06pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:02pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 10:54pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 10:27pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:36pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 8:43pm:

Teeth-and-tits, dear. Much better.

Can you show me where the ICJ and the British report on Iraq said the invasion was not illegal? I can't find this, despite your claims. Strangely enough, I can only find them stating the opposite.

But I'm curious. My Aceh mate says his dope smoking's illegal, but he's never been convicted. Does this mean it's legal?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

If your Aceh Mate was asked if he has done anything illegal, and to try and provide his criminal record, what would be his response?

Dope smoking is illegal, but your mate has not been convicted so you can not say he has done anything illegal.

Thanks for that. Something tells me you're happy to leave it there.

Right?

Well I'm still waiting on you to provide the quotes from Brown and Obama relating to them saying the war was illegal. be honest now, Karnal. I know it's not your strong suite, but please try.

I'd like to know if you'd shake Saddam's rapey genocidal hand if you met him today?

I'd also like to know why you are so intent on putting your Aceh mate into trouble for his dope smoking? You want your mate killed by the wonderful Islam?

Strange. I was wondering when you'd quote the ICJ and the Iraq report a few pages back. You must have forgotten.

Too busy discussing international jurisprudence, weren't you?

I'll happily provide, but Karnal, I'm waiting on you. Don't get all upset when I asked you first, and you have failed to provide.

And Karnal - the rapey genocidal hand, shake, no shake?

Don't want to say, eh?

We understand.

Karnal, if you look carefully you will notice I asked you first.

Don't want to say?

We understand. So dishonest.

Are we countering yet?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2128 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:10pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:09pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:06pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:02pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 10:54pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 10:27pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:36pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 9:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 8:43pm:

Teeth-and-tits, dear. Much better.

Can you show me where the ICJ and the British report on Iraq said the invasion was not illegal? I can't find this, despite your claims. Strangely enough, I can only find them stating the opposite.

But I'm curious. My Aceh mate says his dope smoking's illegal, but he's never been convicted. Does this mean it's legal?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

If your Aceh Mate was asked if he has done anything illegal, and to try and provide his criminal record, what would be his response?

Dope smoking is illegal, but your mate has not been convicted so you can not say he has done anything illegal.

Thanks for that. Something tells me you're happy to leave it there.

Right?

Well I'm still waiting on you to provide the quotes from Brown and Obama relating to them saying the war was illegal. be honest now, Karnal. I know it's not your strong suite, but please try.

I'd like to know if you'd shake Saddam's rapey genocidal hand if you met him today?

I'd also like to know why you are so intent on putting your Aceh mate into trouble for his dope smoking? You want your mate killed by the wonderful Islam?

Strange. I was wondering when you'd quote the ICJ and the Iraq report a few pages back. You must have forgotten.

Too busy discussing international jurisprudence, weren't you?

I'll happily provide, but Karnal, I'm waiting on you. Don't get all upset when I asked you first, and you have failed to provide.

And Karnal - the rapey genocidal hand, shake, no shake?

Don't want to say, eh?

We understand.

Karnal, if you look carefully you will notice I asked you first.

Don't want to say?

We understand. So dishonest.

Are we countering yet?

Why so dishonest, Karnal?

Reply #2117

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 7:32pm:

No, the ICJ have been quite clear in alleging illegality. They haven't, and won't, be able to actually prove illegality and prosecute. And please provide actual quotes from everyone. The Iraq report never said it was 'illegal'.

So you are welcome to say 'I believe the Iraq war is illegal' but you shouldn't say 'The iraq war was illegal'. As quite simply, what you believe and what is fact are two veyr different htings, Karnal. The Iraq War was *not* illegal.

And what Saddam has to do with it? I just want to see what you think of the man. It sounds like you really had some admiration for him, what with your constant intent to try and tell us all how bad it is that he was removed.

Reply #2119

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 8:43pm:

Teeth-and-tits, dear. Much better.

Can you show me where the ICJ and the British report on Iraq said the invasion was not illegal? I can't find this, despite your claims. Strangely enough, I can only find them stating the opposite.

But I'm curious. My Aceh mate says his dope smoking's illegal, but he's never been convicted. Does this mean it's legal?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

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 #2129 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:12pm He's learning, FD.
Back to top	IP Logged