Israel / Palestine
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
legaleagle  05 Sep 14 9.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 05 Sep 2014 8.17pm
In other threads, some have said those leaving our shores to fight for IS shouldn't be allowed back. Do the same people feel the same applies in this case?
Historically, we had Brits fighting on both sides in the Spanish Civil War. One person's freedom fighter can be another's aider of the oppressor or helper of the equally bad.. Do we all basically only raise points when it suits our own beliefs and agenda ...rather than hold indivisible moral views regardless... 30,000 demonstrating every week recently re Gaza...a radically lesser figure re Iraq/Syria more recently where far more brutality and deaths have occurred this year... Your question is reasonable to raise but the more I think about it (and I do not advocate stopping people returning since it would breach international law))the harder it is to find an answer that is one size fits all globally...
Edited by legaleagle (05 Sep 2014 10.00pm)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Stirlingsays 13 Sep 14 6.10pm |
   |
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 05 Sep 2014 9.38pm
Quote nickgusset at 05 Sep 2014 8.17pm
In other threads, some have said those leaving our shores to fight for IS shouldn't be allowed back. Do the same people feel the same applies in this case?
Historically, we had Brits fighting on both sides in the Spanish Civil War. One person's freedom fighter can be another's aider of the oppressor or helper of the equally bad.. Do we all basically only raise points when it suits our own beliefs and agenda ...rather than hold indivisible moral views regardless... 30,000 demonstrating every week recently re Gaza...a radically lesser figure re Iraq/Syria more recently where far more brutality and deaths have occurred this year... Your question is reasonable to raise but the more I think about it (and I do not advocate stopping people returning since it would breach international law))the harder it is to find an answer that is one size fits all globally... Edited by legaleagle (05 Sep 2014 10.00pm) It would breach international law? Quick hide under your beds....We have to spend loads of money watching even more nutcases and have a higher risk of being blown up because......We can't breach international law? International law can do one.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| legaleagle 13 Sep 14 6.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Think about that Stirling and the implications if all countries everywhere feel at ease completely ignoring it whenever they like.Forget having any credibility when criticising others for breaking it.You can't just pick and choose the bits you like and don't particularly when you chop and change depending on the circumstances. Chuck it out the window when anyway you have all the powers you need to arrest and charge any "terrorists" upon re-entry.Think it through in a context of general principles,not ISIS or Israel/Palestine.
Forger the Nuremberg trials Forget international conventions on treatment of PoW's Forget diplomatic immunity and sanctity of embassy premises forget unified laws re rights concerning continental shelfs forget international conventions re the environment. forget unified laws re territorial integrity. forget the law of the sea. Yup,lets just chuck the whole lot out,Stirling.Fab idea. Edited by legaleagle (13 Sep 2014 6.45pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 13 Sep 14 7.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 13 Sep 2014 6.30pm
Think about that Stirling and the implications if all countries everywhere feel at ease completely ignoring it whenever they like.Forget having any credibility when criticising others for breaking it. Credibility?......Are you serious? Protecting your own citizens against stupidly framed catch all laws isn't going to damage credibility at all. Other countries break international laws all the time and it makes no difference.....Not forgetting that 'international law' isn't set in stone or all important. The US have broken it.....Israel breaks it....China breaks it....pakistan and India break it....I could go on and on. What does following international law over and above your own national interest get you: Nothing. Quote legaleagle at 13 Sep 2014 6.30pm
Yes you can.....and you should. I don't believe in world government....The centralization and policing of law. Countries that believe in set principles should join together and enact those principles......Hell....That's what actually happens in all the important events in the world anyway..... 'International law' is a joke and always has been since the league of nations. Quote legaleagle at 13 Sep 2014 6.30pm
Chuck it out the window when anyway you have all the powers you need to arrest and charge any "terrorists" upon re-entry.Think it through in a context of general principles,not ISIS or Israel/Palestine. You don't need 'international law to arrest 'terrorists'....Extradition treaties have been doing that for centuries......Hell in effect that's the process under which most are arrested even now. Quote legaleagle at 13 Sep 2014 6.30pm
Forget any war crimes tribunals for a future ex Yugoslavia Why? The States and the EU basically settled that war anyway.....Why can't they try who they want how they want? Quote legaleagle at 13 Sep 2014 6.30pm
Forger the Nuremberg trials Lets forget that the Nuremberg trials were hardly a great statement for 'international law' in the first place.....It simply wasn't needed. Quote legaleagle at 13 Sep 2014 6.30pm
Forget international conventions on treatment of PoW's Forget diplomatic immunity and sanctity of embassy premises You're kidding right? No unethical country follows those laws anyway and civilised countries were following them way way before they were called 'international'. They mean little.....Germany had signed up before WW2 but just ignored them.....We probably did as well when it suited. Quote legaleagle at 13 Sep 2014 6.30pm
forget unified laws re rights concerning continental shelfs Ok.....I'll forget about that. Quote legaleagle at 13 Sep 2014 6.30pm
forget international conventions re the environment. China opened up four coal plants a month in 2012.....I think I'll be ok not worrying about the effectiveness of International law on the environment. The only chance for the environment is future technology. Quote legaleagle at 13 Sep 2014 6.30pm
forget unified laws re territorial integrity. Seriously legal....Is that a one liner? Quote legaleagle at 13 Sep 2014 6.30pm
forget the law of the sea. You mean how countries do all around the world all the time....Right is might. Quote legaleagle at 13 Sep 2014 6.30pm
Yup,lets just chuck the whole lot out,Stirling.Fab idea. Most of what you have stated doesn't need 'international law'. It can all be achieved regionally.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 13 Sep 14 7.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Sorry,but completely disagree with you and not convinced in any way by your responses,and yes I am indeed serious. Defects in aspects of adherence by some to international law including the UK (what is even remotely perfect in this world?) do not justify jettisoning it or the desirability of adhering to it.We'd all be a hell of a lot worse off without it IMO.Plus its in our national interests to promote adherence to it.We were a major player in developing it and those aspects of a liberal democratic system approach underpinning it. Forgive me not having the energy tonight to debate the ins and outs.If you disagree? Fine,lets just chuck the whole lot out then Stirling.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 13 Sep 14 9.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 13 Sep 2014 7.40pm
Sorry,but completely disagree with you and not convinced in any way by your responses,and yes I am indeed serious. Defects in aspects of adherence by some to international law including the UK (what is even remotely perfect in this world?) do not justify jettisoning it or the desirability of adhering to it.We'd all be a hell of a lot worse off without it IMO.Plus its in our national interests to promote adherence to it.We were a major player in developing it and those aspects of a liberal democratic system approach underpinning it. Forgive me not having the energy tonight to debate the ins and outs.If you disagree? Fine,lets just chuck the whole lot out then Stirling. It's fine for you to disagree. While I could pick holes in international law all night long and probably be the least distinguished person in a long line of people who could do it I'm not particularly bothered with jettisoning it. Many egalitarians refer to it like it's some kind of world wide panacea when the reality is that it rarely if ever has been. What I'd do is simply what all countries do that feel strongly about an issue....do what is in your best self interest.....The credibility argument just doesn't hold water......If what you are doing causes a problem with allied countries....Talk to them, if the issue has any reasonableness behind it a solution will be found. In terms of not allowing 'British' fighters to come back from Syria.....Well, I'd do that......If I could come up with some bulls*** cover of words that resulted in the same thing, fine.....But the fact is I wouldn't allow for international law to decrease the safety and increase the costs for our citizens. Real action in this world has always come from alliances of the willing and nods to 'international law' exist only to put a shiny veneer to the often bloody proceedings....Oh and to pay the lawyers.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 14 Sep 14 9.15am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 13 Sep 2014 9.24pm
Quote legaleagle at 13 Sep 2014 7.40pm
Sorry,but completely disagree with you and not convinced in any way by your responses,and yes I am indeed serious. Defects in aspects of adherence by some to international law including the UK (what is even remotely perfect in this world?) do not justify jettisoning it or the desirability of adhering to it.We'd all be a hell of a lot worse off without it IMO.Plus its in our national interests to promote adherence to it.We were a major player in developing it and those aspects of a liberal democratic system approach underpinning it. Forgive me not having the energy tonight to debate the ins and outs.If you disagree? Fine,lets just chuck the whole lot out then Stirling. It's fine for you to disagree. While I could pick holes in international law all night long and probably be the least distinguished person in a long line of people who could do it I'm not particularly bothered with jettisoning it. Many egalitarians refer to it like it's some kind of world wide panacea when the reality is that it rarely if ever has been. What I'd do is simply what all countries do that feel strongly about an issue....do what is in your best self interest.....The credibility argument just doesn't hold water......If what you are doing causes a problem with allied countries....Talk to them, if the issue has any reasonableness behind it a solution will be found. In terms of not allowing 'British' fighters to come back from Syria.....Well, I'd do that......If I could come up with some bulls*** cover of words that resulted in the same thing, fine.....But the fact is I wouldn't allow for international law to decrease the safety and increase the costs for our citizens. Real action in this world has always come from alliances of the willing and nods to 'international law' exist only to put a shiny veneer to the often bloody proceedings....Oh and to pay the lawyers.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 14 Sep 14 9.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
I'll miss Stirling. A fantastic poster.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 14 Sep 14 9.40am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Kermit8 at 14 Sep 2014 9.18am
I'll miss Stirling. A fantastic poster.
RIP Stirlingsays
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| serial thriller The Promised Land 14 Sep 14 9.57am |
|
|---|---|
|
RIP Stirling, actually seemed like a nice bloke I thought.
If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 14 Sep 14 10.48am |
|
|---|---|
|
RIP Stirling. I thought he added to things rather than detracted.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 14 Sep 14 10.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
What the f*ckety f*ck was all that about???
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.