So what, it's just like a murderer complaining someone is threatening to kill him. Who cares. Your usual rubbish of demanding documentation when there is just SO MUCH of it on the web. I have posted so many links of Israeli massacres and evidence of Israel targeting civilains. As usual you either offer some BS counterpoint or let don't comment in the hopes they will fade... so many people have seen you do this, it is just a joke. Google the Sabra and Shatila massacres ...funny how you Israeli supporters ignore all the crimes of Israel then scream BLUE MURDER when someone denies the holocaust. When you deny Israels crimes you DO THEY SAME THING. Look in the effin mirror.
Harpo accuses UN of anti-semitism.....
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
Keep digging Phil, you're giving the real lawyer on this BB a good laugh. What are your credential again?That's because he is a fake lawyer. A real lawyer would know that pulling the trigger on a gun is an act in furtherance of an attempt at murder, and that it doesn't much matter that you were pointing it at the wrong person.
Try it sometime. Go shoot at someone, and then tell the judge you should go scott free because you fired at the wrong guy.Keep digging Phil, you're giving the real lawyer on this BB a good laugh.
I see.So no.
Seems to me that you must have run out of credible sources by now, so please, just for me, can you tell me what the very few sources you'll accept criticism on Israel from? Is it down to only the ICRC?
No thanks, I'm smarter than that.Try it sometime. Go shoot at someone, and then tell the judge you should go scott free because you fired at the wrong guy.
Now what were those credentials again? Your credibility on all things legal went down in flames during your diatribe in the Somali Pirate Thread some time back. Your dancing around the facts then and trying to impress us with your interpretations of the Law of the Sea, was absolutely hilarious.
At least you're consistent; a consistent zero.
You are so dishonest it makes me sick.Try it sometime. Go shoot at someone, and then tell the judge you should go scott free because you fired at the wrong guy.
The context was in a war and what is a criminal act during wartime.
Shooting at a judge in a civilian context has nothing to do with the discussion. Nor does the civilian charge of murder.
You were suggesting you could be charged for targeting a class of people, even if those people were not there.
Is it your ego or your fanaticism that blinds you?
The legal principle you invoked is the same. An act (pulling the trigger) in furtherance of a crime (murder).The context was in a war and what is a criminal act during wartime.
You sure can. Try telling a judge you should get off scott free because you thought you were firing at some blacks but it turned out they weren't blacks after all.You were suggesting you could be charged for targeting a class of people
You're going down for first degree murder (or attempted if you failed to kill) because your crime was premeditated even though you had wrong intel on the nature of your target.
I was correct in that thread.your diatribe in the Somali Pirate Thread
You remain dishonest.The legal principle you invoked is the same. An act (pulling the trigger) in furtherance of a crime (murder).
You sure can. Try telling a judge you should get off scott free because you thought you were firing at some blacks but it turned out they weren't blacks after all.
You're going down for first degree murder (or attempted if you failed to kill) because your crime was premeditated even though you had wrong intel on the nature of your target.
In a war, the underlying act, firing your weapons, is not illegal. In civilian life, people who are murdered are not separated into classes, with one exception. It doesn't matter who your murder as long as they are human.
But for sentencing, it can matter, such as killing a police officer or jail guard.
The better analogy is the one I used before but you refuse to deal with.
It is more akin to stat rape. If you think the person you are having sex with is under age and they are not, there is no crime.
But you admit you have no formal legal training right? You're just blowing smoke after watching a few episodes of Law and Order.
How many trials have you conducted again?
It's not illegal for civilians in non-war situations to fire weapons either. In both cases what matters is what you are pointing your weapon at, and why. It's remarkably similar.In a war, the underlying act, firing your weapons, is not illegal.
In war if a soldier intentionally fires their weapon at a civilian, or even a disarmed enemy combatant, they can and should be charged with murder--the exact same charge a civilian would face for doing the same thing. The notion that there is some underlying principle that firing a weapon in war is not illegal is just plain flat out WRONG. The only thing that "war crime" alters here is jurisdiction--war crime tribunals are constituted when a nation refuses to prosecute its own offenders, and an outside court has to be brought in to do it.
What is true is that in war it's not a crime to fire at someone you have reasonable grounds to believe is the enemy.
You sure like to babble aimlessly.It's not illegal for civilians in non-war situations to fire weapons either. In both cases what matters is what you are pointing your weapon at, and why. It's remarkably similar.
In war if a soldier intentionally fires their weapon at a civilian, or even a disarmed enemy combatant, they can and should be charged with murder--the exact same charge a civilian would face for doing the same thing. The notion that there is some underlying principle that firing a weapon in war is not illegal is just plain flat out WRONG. The only thing that "war crime" alters here is jurisdiction--war crime tribunals are constituted when a nation refuses to prosecute its own offenders, and an outside court has to be brought in to do it.
What is true is that in war it's not a crime to fire at someone you have reasonable grounds to believe is the enemy.
I think you should try lecturing at a law school.
His response contained no debate content, he did not dispute a single point I made. That's farting. He has been repeatedly and thoroughly wrong so I sure as hell am not going to take his word on anything.Nyah!
If he thinks he has some point to make, he'd better make it.
Oh if I must...What is true is that in war it's not a crime to fire at someone you have reasonable grounds to believe is the enemy.
would you also then agree that it is not a crime to fire at someone who is the enemy?
By your definition (bizarre as it is) there would be times it would be a war crime to fire for effect against enemy troops.
Talk about absurd!
If you had good reason to believe they were a civilian it would be a crime to fire at them. I doubt anyone would bother to prosecute you for it--too hard to prove, for too little value--but at the moment you pulled the trigger if it was your belief you were intentionally killing civilians then yes it's a crime.would you also then agree that it is not a crime to fire at someone who is the enemy?
To prove something like that you'd likely need the attacker to confess to it, pretty hard to prove, so what we are talking about is largely academic--unless the attackers actually steps up and says, "Gee I really thought they were Palestinian civilians and I was intent on killing a few of those."
Not if you reasonably believed you were firing for effect against enemy troops.By your definition (bizarre as it is) there would be times it would be a war crime to fire for effect against enemy troops.
Well at least you are consistent in your error. Got a international law text or case to back you up?If you had good reason to believe they were a civilian it would be a crime to fire at them. I doubt anyone would bother to prosecute you for it--too hard to prove, for too little value--but at the moment you pulled the trigger if it was your belief you were intentionally killing civilians then yes it's a crime.
To prove something like that you'd likely need the attacker to confess to it, pretty hard to prove, so what we are talking about is largely academic--unless the attackers actually steps up and says, "Gee I really thought they were Palestinian civilians and I was intent on killing a few of those."
Not if you reasonably believed you were firing for effect against enemy troops.
If there are no civilians present the crime of targeting civilians cannot occur.
It's the crime of murder, literally, or attempted murder if you fail to kill anyone. Your notion that you cannot be charged because the person you were shooting at wasn't where you thought they were, or who you thought they were, is just plain wrong.If there are no civilians present the crime of targeting civilians cannot occur.
