Australian Politics Forum - spineless apologetics

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 94545
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2085 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:10am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:07am:

Mattyfisk 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?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2086 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:14am

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

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:07am:

Mattyfisk 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.

So continue alleging that the Iraq War was illegal. Only it wasn't, and the only court that can pass the ruling on an international stage has said it doesn't have jurisdiction to do so. Hence the Iraq War can never be proven to be illegal. Hence it wasn't illegal.

Anything else, dear? I think you need to smoke less pot. It explains everything. All your constant sneezing, your forgetfulness, your dishonesty. It's just not healthy for you, karnal.

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

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 94545
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2087 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:26am

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

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

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:07am:

Mattyfisk 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.

So continue alleging that the Iraq War was illegal. Only it wasn't, and the only court that can pass the ruling on an international stage has said it doesn't have jurisdiction to do so. Hence the Iraq War can never be proven to be illegal. Hence it wasn't illegal.

Anything else, dear?

Yes, Alevine, I'm wondering how the ICJ declared the invasion of Iraq legal when they put this on their website:

Quote:

ICJ deplores moves toward a war of aggression on Iraq

The ICJ today expressed its deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression.

The United States, the United Kingdom and Spain have signaled their intent to use force in Iraq in spite of the absence of a Security Council Resolution. There is no other plausible legal basis for this attack. In the absence of such Security Council authorisation, no country may use force against another country, except in self-defence against an armed attack.

https://www.icj.org/icj-deplores-moves-toward-a-war-of-aggression-on-iraq/

Back to top

IP Logged

rhino

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17179
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2088 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:32am

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

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

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:07am:

Mattyfisk 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?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2089 - 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:

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

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:07am:

Mattyfisk 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.

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 #2090 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:36am

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:26am:

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

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

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:07am:

Mattyfisk 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.

So continue alleging that the Iraq War was illegal. Only it wasn't, and the only court that can pass the ruling on an international stage has said it doesn't have jurisdiction to do so. Hence the Iraq War can never be proven to be illegal. Hence it wasn't illegal.

Anything else, dear?

Yes, Alevine, I'm wondering how the ICJ declared the invasion of Iraq legal when they put this on their website:

Quote:

ICJ deplores moves toward a war of aggression on Iraq

The ICJ today expressed its deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression.

The United States, the United Kingdom and Spain have signaled their intent to use force in Iraq in spite of the absence of a Security Council Resolution. There is no other plausible legal basis for this attack. In the absence of such Security Council authorisation, no country may use force against another country, except in self-defence against an armed attack.

https://www.icj.org/icj-deplores-moves-toward-a-war-of-aggression-on-iraq/

Nice - why didn't they pursue 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

rhino

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17179
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2091 - 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:

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

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:07am:

Mattyfisk 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?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2092 - 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:

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

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:07am:

Mattyfisk 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?

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

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 94545
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2093 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:45am

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

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:26am:

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

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

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:07am:

Mattyfisk 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.

So continue alleging that the Iraq War was illegal. Only it wasn't, and the only court that can pass the ruling on an international stage has said it doesn't have jurisdiction to do so. Hence the Iraq War can never be proven to be illegal. Hence it wasn't illegal.

Anything else, dear?

Yes, Alevine, I'm wondering how the ICJ declared the invasion of Iraq legal when they put this on their website:

Quote:

ICJ deplores moves toward a war of aggression on Iraq

The ICJ today expressed its deep dismay that a small number of states are poised to launch an outright illegal invasion of Iraq, which amounts to a war of aggression.

The United States, the United Kingdom and Spain have signaled their intent to use force in Iraq in spite of the absence of a Security Council Resolution. There is no other plausible legal basis for this attack. In the absence of such Security Council authorisation, no country may use force against another country, except in self-defence against an armed attack.

https://www.icj.org/icj-deplores-moves-toward-a-war-of-aggression-on-iraq/

Nice - why didn't they pursue it?

Perhaps you could explain this with a source, Alevine. We'll see how the ICJ changed their mind about there being no legal basis for the invasion of Iraq.

Good countering.

Back to top

IP Logged

Mattyfisk

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 94545
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2094 - 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:

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

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:07am:

Mattyfisk 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

rhino

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17179
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2095 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:49am

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:

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

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:07am:

Mattyfisk 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?

No, you dont get put in "holding", you get placed in remand in a maximum security prison. Even though the crime you are charged for is alleged. Isnt this grade 3 stuff?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2096 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:54am

Mattyfisk 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:

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

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:07am:

Mattyfisk 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?

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 #2097 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:54am

rhino wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:49am:

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:

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

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:07am:

Mattyfisk 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?

No, you dont get put in "holding", you get placed in remand in a maximum security prison. Even though the crime you are charged for is alleged. Isnt this grade 3 stuff?

Your point, cop?

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: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2098 - Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:57am

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

Mattyfisk 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:

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

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 12:07am:

Mattyfisk 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?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2099 - 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?

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