Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7

 

2010-02-23 07:28:47
mikkel
Member
+383|6887

FEOS wrote:

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Trials in absentia are a travesty of justice in and of themselves. To hold a trial in absentia and claim "justice was served" is a conflict of terms.

Charge someone, then attempt to bring them to trial in person. Most crimes that you would put out that much effort for don't have statutes of limitation, anyway.
Justice is served to the best of the court's ability in absentia. To sabotage one's own trial by removing oneself from the jurisdiction of the court in which one is tried cannot, and should not stand in the way of the right of the prosecution, and of the people, to settle the case. Justice is far from ideally served in the absence of the defendant, but justice will never be served if the defendants are allowed to dictate whether or not justice in any form and to any degree will ever happen.
Again, if one leaves in the middle of a trial, that is a different kettle of beans. That is the singular case where in absentia trials are permissible.
I'm not talking about leaving in the middle of a trial. I'm talking about any case of escaping the jurisdiction of a court in which one has allegedly committed a crime.

FEOS wrote:

mikkel wrote:

You address the issue of statute of limitation, but there are many other issues to consider, one of which being the complete absence of justice of any kind, should the accused choose to never return. Defendants are guaranteed by the sixth amendment. Why should similar guarantees not extend to the people, if it can be reasonably established that the accused has deliberately fled the court's jurisdiction?
That is where statute of limitations and severity of crimes come into play. If it is a fairly petty crime, then it's really not that big an issue, is it? If it is severe enough crime that the people's conscience is sufficiently marked, there will be no statute of limitations and thus no concern over the criminal having fled jurisdiction. Charge them, pursue them, and bring them to trial when they are captured (a la Polanski).
Two posts ago I highlighted the issue of the general deterioration of most forms of evidence over time, as well as changes in the legal climate (precedent, changing government policies, all manner of legal complexity). We did cover your opinion on statute of limitation back then.

The sixth amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial. I asked why the people, as represented by the prosecution, shouldn't enjoy similar rights.
2010-02-24 04:14:42
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Again, we don't know if there was a trial nor not.
Exactly, but according to you even if there had been a trial it would have been a travesty so I'm not sure what point you're making.

FEOS wrote:

Trials in absentia are a travesty of justice in and of themselves. To hold a trial in absentia and claim "justice was served" is a conflict of terms.
To sentence someone to death on that basis couldn't be a bigger travesty could it?

Trials in absentia are very rare and only happen when all efforts to get the accused to court have failed and the accused has been fair warning.
Apart from those CIA agents I can't remember another example.
But you Euros didn't have a problem with it then, so it must be OK under certain circumstances. Maybe those circumstances were met here.

Except it was Israel. Nvm.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The Stratfor article doesn't give any grounds for assassinating people at all.
Didn't say it did. Just thought it was a good, objective article on the topic of assassination.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-02-24 05:44:35
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

But you Euros didn't have a problem with it then, so it must be OK under certain circumstances.
If the perps have fled the jurisdiction, refused to return, its held in open court, their representative can attend and the sentence is appealable then its OK.
Maybe those circumstances were met here.
Pretty sure they weren't, pretty hard to appeal summary execution to start with.
Just thought it was a good, objective article on the topic of assassination.
Not really, the ranting about Castro gave it away TBH.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-02-24 05:47:13)

Fuck Israel
2010-02-24 08:41:21
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land

FEOS wrote:

But you Euros didn't have a problem with it then, so it must be OK under certain circumstances. Maybe those circumstances were met here.

Except it was Israel. Nvm.
'you euros'. you are aware that the EU or even Europe is a collection of different countries with wildly different views on many subjects aren't you? Or maybe not.

And why do you keep acting like an apologist for Israel? Half the time you spend on this thread arguing against trials in abseentia while completely ignoring the original topic of assassination (or you might have given your opinion on that but got lost amongst all the other nonsense), and yet whenever anyone criticises Israel for potentially holding trials in absentia - which, if I remember correctly, you were the one that brought up that particular topic despite the issue not being mentioned in any reports on the OP - you accuse them of being anti-Israel or say some flippant comment like you did in the quote above.

Your point?
2010-02-25 04:04:09
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But you Euros didn't have a problem with it then, so it must be OK under certain circumstances.
If the perps have fled the jurisdiction, refused to return, its held in open court, their representative can attend and the sentence is appealable then its OK.
If the defendant isn't there to appear answer their charges in court, it's not OK. Even the ICC agrees with that basic concept.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Maybe those circumstances were met here.
Pretty sure they weren't, pretty hard to appeal summary execution to start with.
Appeals law is different in different countries. And if there was a trial, it wasn't a summary execution. What's so hard to understand about that concept? Your sentence is a contradiction in terms.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Just thought it was a good, objective article on the topic of assassination.
Not really, the ranting about Castro gave it away TBH.
There was no "ranting" about Castro. Go back and read it again.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But you Euros didn't have a problem with it then, so it must be OK under certain circumstances. Maybe those circumstances were met here.

    Except it was Israel. Nvm.
'you euros'. you are aware that the EU or even Europe is a collection of different countries with wildly different views on many subjects aren't you? Or maybe not.
Of course I realize that. "you euros" was referring to the euros who post on these forums...in general terms. And it was intentionally broadbrush generalizing, as the same exact thing is done with "you 'murkins" and the same argument could be used against it.

ruisleipa wrote:

And why do you keep acting like an apologist for Israel? Half the time you spend on this thread arguing against trials in abseentia while completely ignoring the original topic of assassination (or you might have given your opinion on that but got lost amongst all the other nonsense), and yet whenever anyone criticises Israel for potentially holding trials in absentia - which, if I remember correctly, you were the one that brought up that particular topic despite the issue not being mentioned in any reports on the OP - you accuse them of being anti-Israel or say some flippant comment like you did in the quote above.

Your point?
Who says I'm being an Israeli apologist? I'm not.

If someone has jumped to the conclusion of this being an Israeli job simply because the guy that was killed was Hamas, then ranted about the evils of the Israelis absent any proof that it was the Israelis...all I did was ask for proof that it was the Israelis. Is that being an Israeli apologist?

People call it a "summary execution" which means an execution without a trial. They don't know whether there has been a trial or not. There may very well have been a trial in absentia (which I pointed out is a concept I abhor). If there were (we don't know), those sorts of trials seem to be OK to many European countries, so those screaming about "summary executions" here (Euros, btw) wouldn't have a leg to stand on. It's not judging the good/bad of the concept of in absentia trials. It is pointing out the hypocrisy of the positions being taken by those simply because they think it's Israel who is responsible. It's like when Israel is involved, it's a completely different rule book--just like they accuse (rightly so, I might add) the US of, only the other way around. There's zero objectivity, only it's pointed the opposite direction.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-02-25 04:23:12
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But you Euros didn't have a problem with it then, so it must be OK under certain circumstances. Maybe those circumstances were met here.

    Except it was Israel. Nvm.
'you euros'. you are aware that the EU or even Europe is a collection of different countries with wildly different views on many subjects aren't you? Or maybe not.
Of course I realize that. "you euros" was referring to the euros who post on these forums...in general terms. And it was intentionally broadbrush generalizing, as the same exact thing is done with "you 'murkins" and the same argument could be used against it.
OK so what makes you think that anyone on these forums from Europe 'didn't have a problem with it' and therefore 'it must be OK under certain circumstances'? Nice of you to think that 'us Euros' have the power to say when something is right or wrong under any circumstances but I rather think you're mistaken. btw what's a murkin?

Who says I'm being an Israeli apologist? I'm not.

If someone has jumped to the conclusion of this being an Israeli job simply because the guy that was killed was Hamas, then ranted about the evils of the Israelis absent any proof that it was the Israelis...all I did was ask for proof that it was the Israelis. Is that being an Israeli apologist?

People call it a "summary execution" which means an execution without a trial. They don't know whether there has been a trial or not. There may very well have been a trial in absentia (which I pointed out is a concept I abhor). If there were (we don't know), those sorts of trials seem to be OK to many European countries, so those screaming about "summary executions" here (Euros, btw) wouldn't have a leg to stand on. It's not judging the good/bad of the concept of in absentia trials. It is pointing out the hypocrisy of the positions being taken by those simply because they think it's Israel who is responsible. It's like when Israel is involved, it's a completely different rule book--just like they accuse (rightly so, I might add) the US of, only the other way around. There's zero objectivity, only it's pointed the opposite direction.
The reason I refer to you as an Israel apologist is because you keep insinuating that whenever anyone (of 'us Euros') criticisies Israel your knee-jerk reaction is to accuse us of being totally unobjective and hypocritical, which is bollocks. You have spent lots of time pointlessly saying that trials in absentia are bad but then making out like when Israel assassinates someone in another country and uses false passports to do so somehow we're being really naughty by saying that they performed a morally wrong action. You say 'those sorts of trials seem to be OK to many European countries' but you haven't provided any evidence for that either except some Italian court judgement to do with the CIA - one example which I happily admit I don't know about so can't comment on it's relationship with the thread, but if Italy held a trial in absentia of someone which led to them being assassinated by Italian secret servcies, show me and I'll also say that they were wrong to do it, too.

Instead of going on and on about someone saying 'summary execution' which you consider to be a semantic mistake just ignore it and replace those words with 'assassination', then concentrate on their argument on the rightness or wrongness of the act. Plus, I might point out again, you're the one (I think) who brought up the whole trial in absentia thing which is irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of the assassination in question.

Personally I think it was Israel a) cos the guy was wanted by Israel, b) countries including Britain whose passport information was illegally used also think it was Israel c) israel has lots of form in this area previously d) there is NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE to suggest it was anyone else. So yeah, I'd bet my bottom dollar it was israel based on the scant evidence we have from internet sources and newspapers. So how is it hypocritical to say that Israel shouldn't have done it? It's not at all. Next time someone assassinates an Israeli politician anywhere I'd be happy to say they were wrong too, but that's beside the point, cos Israel murdered someone and they shouldn't bloody well have done it if they want to maintain the sliver of moral high ground they have left...which has all but disappeared anyway.
2010-02-25 04:25:13
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6509|Escea

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:


'you euros'. you are aware that the EU or even Europe is a collection of different countries with wildly different views on many subjects aren't you? Or maybe not.
Of course I realize that. "you euros" was referring to the euros who post on these forums...in general terms. And it was intentionally broadbrush generalizing, as the same exact thing is done with "you 'murkins" and the same argument could be used against it.
OK so what makes you think that anyone on these forums from Europe 'didn't have a problem with it' and therefore 'it must be OK under certain circumstances'? Nice of you to think that 'us Euros' have the power to say when something is right or wrong under any circumstances but I rather think you're mistaken. btw what's a murkin?

Who says I'm being an Israeli apologist? I'm not.

If someone has jumped to the conclusion of this being an Israeli job simply because the guy that was killed was Hamas, then ranted about the evils of the Israelis absent any proof that it was the Israelis...all I did was ask for proof that it was the Israelis. Is that being an Israeli apologist?

People call it a "summary execution" which means an execution without a trial. They don't know whether there has been a trial or not. There may very well have been a trial in absentia (which I pointed out is a concept I abhor). If there were (we don't know), those sorts of trials seem to be OK to many European countries, so those screaming about "summary executions" here (Euros, btw) wouldn't have a leg to stand on. It's not judging the good/bad of the concept of in absentia trials. It is pointing out the hypocrisy of the positions being taken by those simply because they think it's Israel who is responsible. It's like when Israel is involved, it's a completely different rule book--just like they accuse (rightly so, I might add) the US of, only the other way around. There's zero objectivity, only it's pointed the opposite direction.
The reason I refer to you as an Israel apologist is because you keep insinuating that whenever anyone (of 'us Euros') criticisies Israel your knee-jerk reaction is to accuse us of being totally unobjective and hypocritical, which is bollocks. You have spent lots of time pointlessly saying that trials in absentia are bad but then making out like when Israel assassinates someone in another country and uses false passports to do so somehow we're being really naughty by saying that they performed a morally wrong action. You say 'those sorts of trials seem to be OK to many European countries' but you haven't provided any evidence for that either except some Italian court judgement to do with the CIA - one example which I happily admit I don't know about so can't comment on it's relationship with the thread, but if Italy held a trial in absentia of someone which led to them being assassinated by Italian secret servcies, show me and I'll also say that they were wrong to do it, too.

Instead of going on and on about someone saying 'summary execution' which you consider to be a semantic mistake just ignore it and replace those words with 'assassination', then concentrate on their argument on the rightness or wrongness of the act. Plus, I might point out again, you're the one (I think) who brought up the whole trial in absentia thing which is irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of the assassination in question.

Personally I think it was Israel a) cos the guy was wanted by Israel, b) countries including Britain whose passport information was illegally used also think it was Israel c) israel has lots of form in this area previously d) there is NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE to suggest it was anyone else. So yeah, I'd bet my bottom dollar it was israel based on the scant evidence we have from internet sources and newspapers. So how is it hypocritical to say that Israel shouldn't have done it? It's not at all. Next time someone assassinates an Israeli politician anywhere I'd be happy to say they were wrong too, but that's beside the point, cos Israel murdered someone and they shouldn't bloody well have done it if they want to maintain the sliver of moral high ground they have left...which has all but disappeared anyway.
Ever think of the possibility someone masqueraded as Israeli Mossad because they knew what the reaction would be?
2010-02-25 04:29:05
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land

M.O.A.B wrote:

Ever think of the possibility someone masqueraded as Israeli Mossad because they knew what the reaction would be?
ever consider the possibility it was...I dunno...aliens from the planet mork coming to send a message to the people of earth that they can steal any fuckin passports they like and zap us with their rayguns...or something? yeah?
2010-02-25 04:42:04
mafia996630
© 2009 Jeff Minard
+319|7049|d

ruisleipa wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Ever think of the possibility someone masqueraded as Israeli Mossad because they knew what the reaction would be?
ever consider the possibility it was...I dunno...aliens from the planet mork coming to send a message to the people of earth that they can steal any fuckin passports they like and zap us with their rayguns...or something? yeah?
ZOMG!
2010-02-25 05:17:35
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

If the defendant isn't there to appear answer their charges in court, it's not OK. Even the ICC agrees with that basic concept.
So why aren't you condemning the Israelis then? Oh right, you're fine with whatever they do however immoral.
And if there was a trial, it wasn't a summary execution.
If it was a secret trial with no option of appeal then its as good as a summary execution.
There was no "ranting" about Castro. Go back and read it again.

Stratfor wrote:

But think of Fidel Castro, whose central role in the Cuban government was undeniable. Assume that he is the enemy of another country like the United States. It is an unofficial hostility — no war has been declared — but a very real one nonetheless. Is it illegitimate to try to kill such a leader in a bid to destroy his regime? Let’s move that question to Adolph Hitler, the gold standard of evil. Would it be inappropriate to have sought to kill him in 1938 based on the type of regime he had created and what he said that he would do with it?

If the position is that killing Hitler would have been immoral, then we have a serious question about the moral standards being used. The more complex case is Castro. He is certainly no Hitler, but neither is he the romantic democratic revolutionary some have painted him as being. But if it is legitimate to kill Castro, then where is the line drawn? Who is it not legitimate to kill?
I have no idea how they get from Castro being in the Cuban govt to being a legitimate target for assassination.
Fuck Israel
2010-02-25 08:57:47
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6509|Escea

ruisleipa wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Ever think of the possibility someone masqueraded as Israeli Mossad because they knew what the reaction would be?
ever consider the possibility it was...I dunno...aliens from the planet mork coming to send a message to the people of earth that they can steal any fuckin passports they like and zap us with their rayguns...or something? yeah?
Ah rationality.

E.T killed Kennedy.
2010-02-26 09:44:01
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6841
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0226/israelembassy.html

Just round the corner from where I work. In an office block in which Irish civilians go about their daily business.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-02-26 09:44:47)

2010-02-26 09:50:49
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land

CameronPoe wrote:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0226/israelembassy.html

Just round the corner from where I work. In an office block in which Irish civilians go about their daily business.
what was the suspicious package.

I'm just glad the number 18 bus is running again - without that Dublin is f.u.c.k.e.d.
2010-02-26 09:56:19
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6867|SE London

Dilbert_X wrote:

Stratfor wrote:

But think of Fidel Castro, whose central role in the Cuban government was undeniable. Assume that he is the enemy of another country like the United States. It is an unofficial hostility — no war has been declared — but a very real one nonetheless. Is it illegitimate to try to kill such a leader in a bid to destroy his regime? Let’s move that question to Adolph Hitler, the gold standard of evil. Would it be inappropriate to have sought to kill him in 1938 based on the type of regime he had created and what he said that he would do with it?

If the position is that killing Hitler would have been immoral, then we have a serious question about the moral standards being used. The more complex case is Castro. He is certainly no Hitler, but neither is he the romantic democratic revolutionary some have painted him as being. But if it is legitimate to kill Castro, then where is the line drawn? Who is it not legitimate to kill?
I have no idea how they get from Castro being in the Cuban govt to being a legitimate target for assassination.


They spelt Adolf Hitler wrong. That really doesn't do much for the credibility of the article.
2010-02-26 15:15:22
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If the defendant isn't there to appear answer their charges in court, it's not OK. Even the ICC agrees with that basic concept.
So why aren't you condemning the Israelis then? Oh right, you're fine with whatever they do however immoral.
I wasn't aware it had been proven it was the Israelis that had done this. Maybe that's why.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And if there was a trial, it wasn't a summary execution.
If it was a secret trial with no option of appeal then its as good as a summary execution.
No, then it's a trial in absentia. Which would mean a trial occurred. Which would mean it wasn't--couldn't be--a summary execution. By definition.

Dilbert_X wrote:

There was no "ranting" about Castro. Go back and read it again.

Stratfor wrote:

But think of Fidel Castro, whose central role in the Cuban government was undeniable. Assume that he is the enemy of another country like the United States. It is an unofficial hostility — no war has been declared — but a very real one nonetheless. Is it illegitimate to try to kill such a leader in a bid to destroy his regime? Let’s move that question to Adolph Hitler, the gold standard of evil. Would it be inappropriate to have sought to kill him in 1938 based on the type of regime he had created and what he said that he would do with it?

If the position is that killing Hitler would have been immoral, then we have a serious question about the moral standards being used. The more complex case is Castro. He is certainly no Hitler, but neither is he the romantic democratic revolutionary some have painted him as being. But if it is legitimate to kill Castro, then where is the line drawn? Who is it not legitimate to kill?
I have no idea how they get from Castro being in the Cuban govt to being a legitimate target for assassination.
I have no idea how you figured that to be a rant about Castro. Nor do I understand how you can read the entire article and NOT see how they get from Castro being in the Cuban government to being a legitimate target for assassination. They spell it out in fairly clear terms for both him and others, as well as the counterargument.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-02-26 15:19:37
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX
Nope, don't see how the US has the right to assassinate Castro.
Its based on an assumption which is fantasy.
Fuck Israel
2010-02-26 15:29:06
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

ruisleipa wrote:

OK so what makes you think that anyone on these forums from Europe 'didn't have a problem with it' and therefore 'it must be OK under certain circumstances'? Nice of you to think that 'us Euros' have the power to say when something is right or wrong under any circumstances but I rather think you're mistaken. btw what's a murkin?
As I stated before (quite unambiguously, I might add) the in absentia discussion regarding euros on this forum and their views was pretty much beat to death in the thread involving the in absentia trial of the CIA agents accused, tried and convicted in absentia in Italy a few months back.

A "murkin" is a short, slang, sarcastic term for an American. Think about it.

ruisleipa wrote:

The reason I refer to you as an Israel apologist is because you keep insinuating that whenever anyone (of 'us Euros') criticisies Israel your knee-jerk reaction is to accuse us of being totally unobjective and hypocritical, which is bollocks.
Show where you've been objective vis a vis Israel. Show where you've applied the same rule set to Israel that you apply to Israel's enemies. You don't. Therefore, you are unobjective and hypocritical.

ruisleipa wrote:

You have spent lots of time pointlessly saying that trials in absentia are bad but then making out like when Israel assassinates someone in another country and uses false passports to do so somehow we're being really naughty by saying that they performed a morally wrong action. You say 'those sorts of trials seem to be OK to many European countries' but you haven't provided any evidence for that either except some Italian court judgement to do with the CIA - one example which I happily admit I don't know about so can't comment on it's relationship with the thread, but if Italy held a trial in absentia of someone which led to them being assassinated by Italian secret servcies, show me and I'll also say that they were wrong to do it, too.
Now you're stretching. You're saying I made connections that I simply did not make. If you make connections in your own head, I cannot control that. But I never made those connections nor did I make the accusations that you claim.

ruisleipa wrote:

Instead of going on and on about someone saying 'summary execution' which you consider to be a semantic mistake just ignore it and replace those words with 'assassination', then concentrate on their argument on the rightness or wrongness of the act. Plus, I might point out again, you're the one (I think) who brought up the whole trial in absentia thing which is irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of the assassination in question.
We don't know if it was an assassination or not, do we? You are assuming it was an assassination, because you are assuming it was the State of Israel that was responsible for it (thus making it an assassination). However, it could have just as easily been a simple murder by an arms cartel. The problem is that there is no evidence to state either way who is responsible. True, circumstantial evidence would seem to point towards Israel, but circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to convict for capital crimes.

ruisleipa wrote:

Personally I think it was Israel a) cos the guy was wanted by Israel, b) countries including Britain whose passport information was illegally used also think it was Israel c) israel has lots of form in this area previously d) there is NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE to suggest it was anyone else. So yeah, I'd bet my bottom dollar it was israel based on the scant evidence we have from internet sources and newspapers. So how is it hypocritical to say that Israel shouldn't have done it? It's not at all. Next time someone assassinates an Israeli politician anywhere I'd be happy to say they were wrong too, but that's beside the point, cos Israel murdered someone and they shouldn't bloody well have done it if they want to maintain the sliver of moral high ground they have left...which has all but disappeared anyway.
So you think assassination is never justified. I disagree. I think the STRATFOR article I posted made some pretty good arguments as to why assassination is still a viable tool of national power. There is much that must be done in this world that is distasteful. This is one example.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-02-27 00:01:47
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land

FEOS wrote:

As I stated before (quite unambiguously, I might add) the in absentia discussion regarding euros on this forum and their views was pretty much beat to death in the thread involving the in absentia trial of the CIA agents accused, tried and convicted in absentia in Italy a few months back.

A "murkin" is a short, slang, sarcastic term for an American. Think about it.
Once again there are many different countries in Europe not all of whom (most of whom) don't have the same mindset as the Italian government. Good try at generalisation but try growing a brain. never heard murkin before, so sorry.

FEOS wrote:

Show where you've been objective vis a vis Israel. Show where you've applied the same rule set to Israel that you apply to Israel's enemies. You don't. Therefore, you are unobjective and hypocritical.
LMFAO you have no clue and don't read my posts! You mean objective like all the bits where say that assassination is wrong no matter who does it. If you show me where an Israeli is assassinated by anyone I'll condemn it too. Or when someone tries to build illegal settlelemtns in Israel or refuses Israelis basic human rights or crushes their houses with bulldozers and I'll condemn that shit too. BUT THEY DON'T. ISRAEL DO. Get it?

I've also said that of course rocket attacks into Israel are wrong, but they're also totally inefficient and of a vastly different scale to the full on military onslaught of the IDF into Gaza. But please, if you want to point out some bits where you think I'm being one-sided against Israel be my guest.

FEOS wrote:

Now you're stretching. You're saying I made connections that I simply did not make. If you make connections in your own head, I cannot control that. But I never made those connections nor did I make the accusations that you claim.
Well in that case you know how it feels when you make assumptions and dumb statements regarding my post. but you're right, I can't stop you making connections that aren't there.

FEOS wrote:

We don't know if it was an assassination or not, do we? You are assuming it was an assassination, because you are assuming it was the State of Israel that was responsible for it (thus making it an assassination). However, it could have just as easily been a simple murder by an arms cartel. The problem is that there is no evidence to state either way who is responsible. True, circumstantial evidence would seem to point towards Israel, but circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to convict for capital crimes.
Who gives a shit? This is a friggin internet forum not a court of law. If, if if. Who else would it be then? In my post which you quoted below I explain why I think it almost certainly was Israel. Do you have any other suggestions as to who it was and why? Oh, and there IS evidence to suggest it was Israel but if you want to ignore all that in the name of 'objectivitiy' go ahead.

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Personally I think it was Israel a) cos the guy was wanted by Israel, b) countries including Britain whose passport information was illegally used also think it was Israel c) israel has lots of form in this area previously d) there is NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE to suggest it was anyone else. So yeah, I'd bet my bottom dollar it was israel based on the scant evidence we have from internet sources and newspapers. So how is it hypocritical to say that Israel shouldn't have done it? It's not at all. Next time someone assassinates an Israeli politician anywhere I'd be happy to say they were wrong too, but that's beside the point, cos Israel murdered someone and they shouldn't bloody well have done it if they want to maintain the sliver of moral high ground they have left...which has all but disappeared anyway.
So you think assassination is never justified. I disagree. I think the STRATFOR article I posted made some pretty good arguments as to why assassination is still a viable tool of national power. There is much that must be done in this world that is distasteful. This is one example.
Well then we can agree to disagree then can't we.
2010-02-27 05:11:46
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6867|SE London

FEOS wrote:

A "murkin" is a short, slang, sarcastic term for an American. Think about it.
I thought it was a pubic wig.
2010-02-27 05:50:46
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6697|'Murka

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

As I stated before (quite unambiguously, I might add) the in absentia discussion regarding euros on this forum and their views was pretty much beat to death in the thread involving the in absentia trial of the CIA agents accused, tried and convicted in absentia in Italy a few months back.

A "murkin" is a short, slang, sarcastic term for an American. Think about it.
Once again there are many different countries in Europe not all of whom (most of whom) don't have the same mindset as the Italian government. Good try at generalisation but try growing a brain. never heard murkin before, so sorry.
"try growing a brain". Nice baseless attack. Reported. Try having a rational debate.

The generalization wasn't based on the Italian government. It was based on people from multiple European countries defending the practice. Hence the term "euros" and not "Italians".

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Show where you've been objective vis a vis Israel. Show where you've applied the same rule set to Israel that you apply to Israel's enemies. You don't. Therefore, you are unobjective and hypocritical.
LMFAO you have no clue and don't read my posts! You mean objective like all the bits where say that assassination is wrong no matter who does it. If you show me where an Israeli is assassinated by anyone I'll condemn it too. Or when someone tries to build illegal settlelemtns in Israel or refuses Israelis basic human rights or crushes their houses with bulldozers and I'll condemn that shit too. BUT THEY DON'T. ISRAEL DO. Get it?
Have you ever condemned Hamas for their actions/tactics? No. You justify them by decrying Israel's tactics/actions. See below.

ruisleipa wrote:

I've also said that of course rocket attacks into Israel are wrong, but they're also totally inefficient and of a vastly different scale to the full on military onslaught of the IDF into Gaza. But please, if you want to point out some bits where you think I'm being one-sided against Israel be my guest.
Case in point.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Now you're stretching. You're saying I made connections that I simply did not make. If you make connections in your own head, I cannot control that. But I never made those connections nor did I make the accusations that you claim.
Well in that case you know how it feels when you make assumptions and dumb statements regarding my post. but you're right, I can't stop you making connections that aren't there.
Really? Only one of us goes straight into fiction. And it's not me. Honestly, I don't know where you get your conclusions.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

We don't know if it was an assassination or not, do we? You are assuming it was an assassination, because you are assuming it was the State of Israel that was responsible for it (thus making it an assassination). However, it could have just as easily been a simple murder by an arms cartel. The problem is that there is no evidence to state either way who is responsible. True, circumstantial evidence would seem to point towards Israel, but circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to convict for capital crimes.
Who gives a shit? This is a friggin internet forum not a court of law. If, if if. Who else would it be then? In my post which you quoted below I explain why I think it almost certainly was Israel. Do you have any other suggestions as to who it was and why? Oh, and there IS evidence to suggest it was Israel but if you want to ignore all that in the name of 'objectivitiy' go ahead.
Who else could it be? That has already been put out there:

Nation states - Syria, Iran, or Russia
International cartels - Any number

Hamas does business with very shady characters. This guy was one of the prime dealers with those shady characters. If he was doing any kind of business that went bad, any of those other players could have put a hit on him and set it up to look like the Israelis. Typically, Mossad operates in a more professional manner than this, much less obvious. Not saying it couldn't be Israel. It certainly could. But it could just as easily be other players. There is certainly reasonable doubt.

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Personally I think it was Israel a) cos the guy was wanted by Israel, b) countries including Britain whose passport information was illegally used also think it was Israel c) israel has lots of form in this area previously d) there is NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE to suggest it was anyone else. So yeah, I'd bet my bottom dollar it was israel based on the scant evidence we have from internet sources and newspapers. So how is it hypocritical to say that Israel shouldn't have done it? It's not at all. Next time someone assassinates an Israeli politician anywhere I'd be happy to say they were wrong too, but that's beside the point, cos Israel murdered someone and they shouldn't bloody well have done it if they want to maintain the sliver of moral high ground they have left...which has all but disappeared anyway.
So you think assassination is never justified. I disagree. I think the STRATFOR article I posted made some pretty good arguments as to why assassination is still a viable tool of national power. There is much that must be done in this world that is distasteful. This is one example.
Well then we can agree to disagree then can't we.
Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last time.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-02-27 06:00:09
mcminty
Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.
+879|7007|Sydney, Australia
Just a reminder to everyone in this thread to cool off. Remember, the subtitle for this thread is "If you can't keep a level head this forum is not for you".

Cheers.
2010-02-27 06:08:33
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5523|Cleveland, Ohio
ya feos
2010-02-27 11:37:48
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land

FEOS wrote:

"try growing a brain". Nice baseless attack. Reported. Try having a rational debate.
Did you tell on people at school too? I'd love to have a debate if you wouldn't misrepresent me constantly.

FEOS wrote:

The generalization wasn't based on the Italian government. It was based on people from multiple European countries defending the practice. Hence the term "euros" and not "Italians".
Like who? And so what?

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Show where you've been objective vis a vis Israel. Show where you've applied the same rule set to Israel that you apply to Israel's enemies. You don't. Therefore, you are unobjective and hypocritical.
LMFAO you have no clue and don't read my posts! You mean objective like all the bits where say that assassination is wrong no matter who does it. If you show me where an Israeli is assassinated by anyone I'll condemn it too. Or when someone tries to build illegal settlelemtns in Israel or refuses Israelis basic human rights or crushes their houses with bulldozers and I'll condemn that shit too. BUT THEY DON'T. ISRAEL DO. Get it?
Have you ever condemned Hamas for their actions/tactics? No. You justify them by decrying Israel's tactics/actions. See below.
Well OK. I have NEVER justified Hamas' actions. If you show me where I have then I'll take it back. It's very wrong to shoot rockets at anyone. Happy now?

I could equally say you always go on about Hamas being the bad guys while totally ignoring any of Israel's illegal actions again and again. But I guess if you do it, it's OK? That's why I called you an Israel apologist. Never seen you say a bad word about Israel, now I come to think of it.

FEOS wrote:

Case in point.
What case in point? I just said they were wrong, and you say I'm justifying them!!!

FEOS wrote:

x
Really? Only one of us goes straight into fiction. And it's not me. Honestly, I don't know where you get your conclusions.
hmmmm

FEOS wrote:

Who else could it be? That has already been put out there:

Nation states - Syria, Iran, or Russia
International cartels - Any number

Hamas does business with very shady characters. This guy was one of the prime dealers with those shady characters. If he was doing any kind of business that went bad, any of those other players could have put a hit on him and set it up to look like the Israelis. Typically, Mossad operates in a more professional manner than this, much less obvious. Not saying it couldn't be Israel. It certainly could. But it could just as easily be other players. There is certainly reasonable doubt.
The vast majority of evidence points to it being Israel. The British government seems to think it's Israel. Nowhere else apart for from you have I heard anyone suggest it could be Syria, Iran or Russia. I explained why I think it's Israel and as you admitted yourself all the evidence points to it being Israel. I don't see what the problem is.

FEOS wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Personally I think it was Israel a) cos the guy was wanted by Israel, b) countries including Britain whose passport information was illegally used also think it was Israel c) israel has lots of form in this area previously d) there is NOT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE to suggest it was anyone else. So yeah, I'd bet my bottom dollar it was israel based on the scant evidence we have from internet sources and newspapers. So how is it hypocritical to say that Israel shouldn't have done it? It's not at all. Next time someone assassinates an Israeli politician anywhere I'd be happy to say they were wrong too, but that's beside the point, cos Israel murdered someone and they shouldn't bloody well have done it if they want to maintain the sliver of moral high ground they have left...which has all but disappeared anyway.
So you think assassination is never justified. I disagree. I think the STRATFOR article I posted made some pretty good arguments as to why assassination is still a viable tool of national power. There is much that must be done in this world that is distasteful. This is one example.
Way to ignore all the evidence. Jeez talk about head in the sand. You say I'm hypocritical yet when I explain myself you ignore your previous accusation perhaps cos you're aware you were wrong. Show me my hypocrisy or inconsistency, please, I beg you.

Aww actually ya know what, forget it. We can pick this up next time an Israel thread comes up cos I can't be arsed repeating myself again and again and again ad infinitum while you fail to grasp my very simple points and baselessly accuse me of hypocrisy.

ZZzzzzz.

Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-02-27 11:43:55)

2010-02-27 11:38:38
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5523|Cleveland, Ohio

mcminty wrote:

Just a reminder to everyone in this thread to cool off. Remember, the subtitle for this thread is "If you can't keep a level head this forum is not for you".

Cheers.
2010-02-27 11:41:04
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land

11 Bravo wrote:

mcminty wrote:

Just a reminder to everyone in this thread to cool off. Remember, the subtitle for this thread is "If you can't keep a level head this forum is not for you".

Cheers.
Aye.

I thought my last post was pretty civil.

I have no problem with FEOS having different views on anything. I don't like being accused of being hypocritical (notice I didn't report him for those personal attacks) without any proof.

Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-02-27 11:44:50)

 

Pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard