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.