Whoa... this guy is pretty hardcore

[Tequila Zaire]

Simply said...you want someone in power...you don't vote em in...you take out their opposition by any means necessary...leagal or not. That is true for ANY power struggle.

Someone has to get their hands bloody and dirty...you may not have the stomach for it but some do and those people are very much needed...even if you want to put a saint in office.

[23*]

happy christmas dude.

[One Eyed Cat]

i wouldn't know. i would probably experience it exactly the same as if it were someone who would be defined as a criminal. crime is named in law generalities beforehand and in personal specifics after the fact, always by those who have rule of law and not by victims. is it possible to change the definition of crime? sure. if the scum who gave dioxin to that poor man in the ukraine get ousted and other people are in power, then those horrible people will become criminals, but so long as they win and maintain rule they are horrible but they are not criminals.

True. In terms of the scenario you mention, I think we have a break down of the 4th Amendment in which your right to self-defense has been superceded. In Ukraine, it is simply the lack of rule of law. I have no doubt they will get theirs. The question is whether it will be done via the rule of law or the shitty cycle will continue as power shifts.

OEC

[Nightingale]

look, my point is that when you see a group of people breaking into your home and stealing your possessions, you KNOW that they are criminals.....if you have to wait until the police inform you of this and make it offical then you are retarded....plain and simple.

No, it could be a repossession company claiming stuff you haven't paid for, or the FBI removing incriminating evidence with a search warrant.

The same applies to GWB., we know that his boys are in Iraq murdering people, we also know that his reason for being there (WMD) is a blatant lie. This makes the war illegal.

Now this all began when I called GWB a war criminal, now try putting 1 and 1 together.....

The war may well be illegal, but those are not *his* boys, he is merely the commander in chief, and no one is guilty until convicted.

Now, does that make sense to you?

[23*]

No, it could be a repossession company claiming stuff you haven't paid for, or the FBI removing incriminating evidence with a search warrant.

What is this shit? Do I need to spell it out?

New scenario: Five skinhead nazi punks break into your home and gang r*pe your mother. While this is happening you are beaten and tied up. You watch helplessly.

Obviously these are not FBI agents, Repossession people, or fucking party representatives from the local constituency. THESE ARE CRIMINALS AND RAPISTS.

If, after being caught, for some perfectly plausible reason these men are acquitted, by your standards they are still not guilty.

and don't try to tell me that this is a completely different situation...

[23*]

I apologise if this imagery is offensive to anyone. I just needed an example of a particularly heinous crime.

[karyn]

What is this shit? Do I need to spell it out?

New scenario: Five skinhead nazi punks break into your home and gang r*pe your mother. While this is happening you are beaten and tied up. You watch helplessly.

Obviously these are not FBI agents, Repossession people, or fucking party representatives from the local constituency. THESE ARE CRIMINALS AND RAPISTS.

If, after being caught, for some perfectly plausible reason these men are acquitted, by your standards they are still not guilty.

and don't try to tell me that this is a completely different situation...

your point is that if they were obviously skinhead nazi punks and last time i checked skinhead nazi punks do not run any sovereign nation i am aware of. skinhead nazi punks have already lost and are subject to other people's laws. but, if you lived in a third world country, you might very well have a death squad come to your home and do exactly what you described in service of the perfectly legal government. so long as that government stays in power, the members of that death squad are not criminals. if more decent people stage a coup and take over, then they can define the death squads actions as criminal, but so long as the sitting government stand there, then those people are not criminals.

[karyn]

It is difficult My whole point is that we as individuals can make judgements which are as equally valid as any leaders.

it is not that people do not understand what you are saying. your whole point is wrong.

there may be some spiritual level on which an individual's judgements are as valid as a world leader's, but an individual cannot make law. an individual does not define what is and is not crime. leaders do that. i hate tv, but i cannot make it illegal to own one. i hate loud children, but i can't make it illegal to have them. i hate certain foods, but i can't make it illegal to serve them. i think coffee is addictive, but i can't throw the dealers in jail.

[23*]

last time i checked skinhead nazi punks do not run any sovereign nation i am aware of.

This is of no consequence.

no one is guilty until convicted.

Are they guilty or aren't they?

[Cerberus]

Wow, a 61-year old man won a struggle with an attacking cougar! That is awesome!

[karyn]

This is of no consequence.







Are they guilty or aren't they?

the debate if you have forgotten your point is that you called george bush a war criminal and people disagreed with you. the president of the united states is not a skinhead nazi punk or a war criminal. you might not like him, but an individual can't decide that everyone they dislike is a criminal. i can't have you jailed for disagreeing with me because i am an individual and not a lawmaker in a nation you are subject to the laws of. get it?

[One Eyed Cat]

[QUOTE=23*]This is of no consequence.

In the context of what she was describing, it is relevant. She was making a distinction between law enforcement breaking in as opposed to civilians. One is legal, one is not.


OEC

[23*]

I am saying that it is correct to call GWB a war criminal.

I am arguing the validity of making and stating this inference.

I am not limiting this view in any way.

This is all I am trying to communicate.

I don't see how the law can relegate my statement....I don't even really understand why that is an issue. The situation with the rapist was comparable to GWB's foreign policy because we see the result of his actions.....if the rapist is guilty, then so is GWB.

[23*]

I keep getting sucked back onto this fucking thread!!!

[One Eyed Cat]

I am saying that it is correct to call GWB a war criminal.

I am arguing the validity of making and stating this inference.

I am not limiting this view in any way.

This is all I am trying to communicate.

I don't have problem with you making this inference. The point being made is that there has been no legal body that declared him so, there most likely never will be. In a strictly legal sense, he is not a war criminal.

OEC

[23*]

but an individual can't decide that everyone they dislike is a criminal.

There are reasonably obvious parameters for distinguishing crimes.

Your distain for my argument is hardly comparable to the slaughter of innocent civilians.

[karyn]

There are reasonably obvious parameters for distinguishing crimes.

Your distain for my argument is hardly comparable to the slaughter of innocent civilians.

and that is exactly why an individual can't make a law. what is obvious and reasonable to one person is not obvious and reasonable or even correct to another. so we have bodies of law to decide what rules people are supposed to live by. we do not have every individual trying to enforce his view of what should be law on everyone else.

[karyn]

I don't have problem with you making this inference. The point being made is that there has been no legal body that declared him so, there most likely never will be. In a strictly legal sense, he is not a war criminal.

OEC

what he said.

[karyn]

There are reasonably obvious parameters for distinguishing crimes.

Your distain for my argument is hardly comparable to the slaughter of innocent civilians.

and how are you deciding what makes a person you don't know an innocent civilian anyway?

[23*]

look guys. We're obviously on different wavelengths here.

I just want to wish you a happy christmas,

I'm going to go have a guinness,

Cheers!

[23*]

and how are you deciding what makes a person you don't know an innocent civilian anyway?

I get a little feeling when I see children that are missing their arms and/or legs......just a feeling... and you can bet your ass its not just me.

[karyn]

I get a little feeling when I see children that are missing their arms and/or legs......just a feeling... and you can bet your ass its not just me.

i hope the feeling is what an awful thing to happen to a child.

[23*]

i hope the feeling is what an awful thing to happen to a child.

I'm not sure what that's suppose to mean. It's not very funny if it was supposed to be.

[karyn]

I'm not sure what that's suppose to mean. It's not very funny if it was supposed to be.

funny? what the hell is funny about mutilated children? what is wrong with you? why would you even bring up such a thing in the first place?

[23*]

I know that you are a little dim, but try & think back to when you wrote this....it was only about 10 minutes ago.

and how are you deciding what makes a person you don't know an innocent civilian anyway?

My answer, seeing as you really are t00 dull witted to figure out for yourself, is that when I see mutilated Iraqi children on TV. I have a feeling of empathy with them. They are obviously innocent.


Now seeing as you seem unable to follow even your own line of questioning and are starting to become illogical and even perverse, I'm going to go and enjoy christmas.

[karyn]

I know that you are a little dim, but try & think back to when you wrote this....it was only about 10 minutes ago.



My answer, seeing as you really are to dull witted to figure out for yourself, is that when I see mutilated Iraqi children on TV. I have a feeling of empathy with them. They are obviously innocent.


Now seeing as you seem unable to follow even your own line of questioning and are starting to become illogical, I'm going to go and enjoy christmas.

there are children who have committed murder and brutal battery and theft. how are you defining innocent?

you have to call everyone who disagrees with you stupid or on drugs. you need to learn when to admit you are wrong.

war involves large scale killing and maiming. it is horrible, but nations have engaged in it for all of time. are you saying that every leader who has lead his people into war is a criminal?

[23*]

you have to call everyone who disagrees with you stupid or on drugs. you need to learn when to admit you are wrong.

AM I WRONG WHEN I SAY THAT IRAQI CHILDREN ARE INNOCENT AND UNDESERVING OF BEING MAIMED?

I freely admit when I am wrong...please don't be so lame as to bring up the drugs thing....anyone with even half a brain could tell that it was a phrase meant in Jest. Get a life.

[karyn]

[QUOTE=23*]

you have to call everyone who disagrees with you stupid or on drugs. you need to learn when to admit you are wrong.[\QUOTE]

AM I WRONG WHEN I SAY THAT IRAQI CHILDREN ARE INNOCENT AND UNDESERVING OF BEING MAIMED?

I freely admit when I am wrong...please don't be so lame as to bring up the drugs thing....anyone with even half a brain could tell that it was a phrase meant in Jest. Get a life.

are you joking when you bring up maimed children? are you joking when you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being stupid or on drugs? you just called me stupid again in this very post.

are you actually incapable of comprehending that war involves maiming and killing on a large scale? are you saying that every leader who has lead his people into war is a criminal?

[Jax]

Really. Hey, welcome to the real world out here, where people disagree with you without the need to be on drugs (even ones highlighted in red).

There was nothing to misunderstand.

Lol, you disagree with *23* and youre on drugs. I disagree with *23* and Im insecure. We can all see that debate isnt a strong point with *23*. Lol.

[23*]

I don't see the word stupid. Maybe you need to learn how to read.

[23*]

Lol, you disagree with *23* and youre on drugs. I disagree with *23* and Im insecure. We can all see that debate isnt a strong point with *23*. Lol.

yeah...I'm laughing too.....some people are just too petty!

peace.

[karyn]

I don't see the word stupid. Maybe you need to learn how to read.

i'm sorry. is there a definition for the expressions dull witted or dim that doesn't mean stupid and you meant that definition?

[23*]

I'm not really sure what happened here but I guess that I'm partially to blame. The truth is I really don't care and I'm not going to apologise. I guess maybe I take things a little less seriously than the average person and I guess that there are people here who take things a little more seriously than the average person. The truth is that I don't really care because one way or another it creates a bad atmosphere and I don't want to be affiliated with that. I'm finished with this thread.

Peace

[Mr Karl]

OK so anyway a guy gets attacked by a cougar, thats like a big cat , oh well I lived out in the bush in BC for a stretch and you hear lots of storys like that , of course the cops probably had a problem with the fact that the hide is now a jacket that he's wearing oh well I've got bug stitches from big fish too

[Jax]

yeah...I'm laughing too.....some people are just too petty!

peace.

Hope you include yourself in the 'petty' category;]

[Nightingale]

What is this shit? Do I need to spell it out?

New scenario: Five skinhead nazi punks break into your home and gang r*pe your mother. While this is happening you are beaten and tied up. You watch helplessly.

Obviously these are not FBI agents, Repossession people, or fucking party representatives from the local constituency. THESE ARE CRIMINALS AND RAPISTS.

If, after being caught, for some perfectly plausible reason these men are acquitted, by your standards they are still not guilty.

and don't try to tell me that this is a completely different situation...

You're getting desperate, I can tell.

The fact remains: you cannot say that someone isa definately a war criminal until they have been convicted. Even in the grand old republic of Ireland that is the law.

Live with it.

Or do you want the Northern Irish, one judge and no jury, convicted before you enter the room style of justice?

[Nightingale]

your point is that if they were obviously skinhead nazi punks and last time i checked skinhead nazi punks do not run any sovereign nation i am aware of. skinhead nazi punks have already lost and are subject to other people's laws. but, if you lived in a third world country, you might very well have a death squad come to your home and do exactly what you described in service of the perfectly legal government. so long as that government stays in power, the members of that death squad are not criminals. if more decent people stage a coup and take over, then they can define the death squads actions as criminal, but so long as the sitting government stand there, then those people are not criminals.

Yes, but 23* isn't going to understand the difference.

[Nightingale]

Are they guilty or aren't they?

I wrote no one is guilty until convicted, now, which bit of that incredibly simple sentence was beyond your powers of comprehension?

[Nightingale]

I am saying that it is correct to call GWB a war criminal.

I am arguing the validity of making and stating this inference.

I am not limiting this view in any way.

This is all I am trying to communicate.

I don't see how the law can relegate my statement....I don't even really understand why that is an issue. The situation with the rapist was comparable to GWB's foreign policy because we see the result of his actions.....if the rapist is guilty, then so is GWB.

What you are saying is understood by everyone.

What you cannot seem to understand is that other people disagree with you.

This is a fact of life; there are different opinions amongst different people.

You have to learn to accept that other people have different opinions; it's part of growing up in society.

[Nightingale]

There are reasonably obvious parameters for distinguishing crimes.

Your distain for my argument is hardly comparable to the slaughter of innocent civilians.

Of course there are parameters for distinguishing between different crimes; but you are still not in a position to declare that Bush is a war criminal.

Now, you could say *In my opinion, Bush is a war criminal* and that would be accepted straight away, but you haven't said that and you refuse to accept that anyone else may have an opposing opinion or may wish to base their judgement on the law.

Your argument and those of others has nothing to do with the slaughter of anyone whatsoever, it has to do, purely and simply, with your opinion in opposition to practically everyone else's opinion.