High Court Rules...

[motorbiking]

As I said, "nothing" is an absolute. Used with no qualifications it permits not one exception. So your statement meant that at no time whatsoever, anywhere whatsoever, in any circumstances whatsoever, in the whole of human history, has it ever been justified for people to attack military assets or people and businesses operating lawfully.

Which is incorrect. Some examples:

I looked in my diary and there were no meetings on Tuesday, I confirmed there was Nothing in my diary.
I emptied the boot of my car, so there was nothing in it,
Have you got any sharp objects in your pocket? no nothing.
Since the UK is not at war, nothing could justify attacking military assets

etc.

 

[morqthana]

I looked in my diary and there were no meetings on Tuesday, I confirmed there was Nothing in my diary.

Your statement was the equivalent of "diaries contain nothing".

I emptied the boot of my car, so there was nothing in it,

Your statement was the equivalent of "car boots contain nothing".

Have you got any sharp objects in your pocket? no nothing.

Your statement was the equivalent of "pockets contain nothing".

Since the UK is not at war, nothing could justify attacking military assets

You did not qualify your statement.

But if you think it's only being at war that provides justification, does that mean that you don't think East Berliners were justified in damaging the Wall?

Were the ANC justified in bombing unoccupied government buildings?

 

[motorbiking]

You did not qualify your statement.

It is implicit that the statement refers to the facts as they existed at the time of the attack or the facts as they were when the statement was posted.

 

[morqthana]

It is implicit that the statement refers to the facts as they existed at the time of the attack of the facts as they were when the statement was posted.

It was in reply to this:

Post in thread 'High Court Rules...'

Saturday at 8:44 AM

Unil it is decided that Israel was committing genocide.

Supporters of Israeli policy argue it isn't but find themselves on thin ice defending allegations of ethnic cleansing and war crimes, which have been documented and filmed on countless occasions over the past couple of years.

Did you know there are currently about 100 Israeli laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens in Israel and Palestinian residents of the occupied Palestinian territory? In 2018, Israel’s parliament adopted a controversial “Jewish nation-state” law defining the country as a Jewish homeland...

• Odds

that you wrote this:

Nothing can justify attacking military assets or people and businesses operating lawfully.

There wasn't anything which implied the presence of "Outside of war" before "Nothing".

Do you think it isn't blindingly obvious why you have refused, over and over again, to answer these?

Were East Berliners were justified in damaging the Wall?

Were the ANC justified in bombing unoccupied government buildings?

 

[motorbiking]

see above

Do you think it would be lawful to supply weapons to a country we are at war with?

 

[morqthana]

see above

Repeating falsehoods, emptiness, and evasions does not change them.

 

[motorbiking]

Nothing can justify attacking military assets or people and businesses operating lawfully.

Do you think it would be lawful to supply weapons to a country we are at war with?

 

[morqthana]

Do you think it would be lawful to supply weapons to a country we are at war with?

Do you think that answering the question I've asked you at least 3 times before asking me more would be the right thing to do?

 

[motorbiking]

It can never be justified to attack people going about their lawful business.

 

[morqthana]

1) that did not answer either of my questions

2) whose law?

 

[motorbiking]

The law that applies to this thread - obviously.

 

[morqthana]

Why "obviously"? I'm surprised that as a lawyer you're not more precise with your words, and that you rely so much on assumptions.

So are you only talking about the here and now? What the law is in this country today, not what it might be tomorrow, or was in the past, or is in other jurisdictions? Your "nothing" is shrinking in scope quite rapidly if you are.

It was irrelevant, we aren't at War, we aren't occupied by a foreign rogue state and need to mount a resistance and those committing the crimes could not be described as combatants.

What if we had been at war, but had been conquered and occupied? You seem there to indicate that resistance would be OK, but would that be time limited? If we were still occupied 5 years on, would resistance still be OK? 10 years? 50?

Do you start to see the problem with "nothing"?

Are laws passed under duress valid? Were the laws passed by the Pétainist regime in Vichy France to appease the Germans after the armistice France and Germany signed which created the so called "independent" country valid? Were the French Resistance justified in attacking military assets, or collaborating businesses? When the regime started rounding up Jews to be shipped to the camps, was nobody justified in sabotaging the railways?

Do you start to see the problem with "nothing"?

Please don't say 'oh that's very different', of course it is, but the problem with 'nothing' is that it has to apply no matter how different the circumstances. It would have to apply if we got an extreme right-wing government which enacted draconian anti-immigrant laws, and introduced an ICE-style organisation which went round forcibly rounding up non-whites and deporting them.

"Obviously" the law then would apply, but do you think that, no matter what, people are never justified in fighting back against tyrrany if no other options are available?

 

[motorbiking]

There is no problem other than the one in your head.

A poster starts a thread, that is the topic. Replies broadly relate to the thread. The discussion was on topic and my reply aligned.

The criminals who attacked military assets, people and businesses, going about their lawful business, had no lawful justification. Nothing could justify their actions. It’s that simple.

 

[King Billy]

There is no problem other than the one in your head.

A poster starts a thread, that is the topic. Replies broadly relate to the thread. The discussion was on topic and my reply aligned.

The criminals who attacked military assets, people and businesses, going about their lawful business, had no lawful justification. Nothing could justify their actions. It’s that simple.

Unless their business was considered unlawful with government complicity. Then the attack on their assets could be justified under moral and ethical perspectives more than mere legal ones.
If a commercial organisation is considered to be acting unlawfully, (e.g. complicit in ethnic cleansing or genocide) and there is an apparent accountability vacuum (from the legal process), then a form of social activism in the form of vandalism may be considered as morally and ethically justified.

 

[motorbiking]

Anarchy rules. I don’t agree with the law, so I am justified to do what I like.