hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1466 of 1472 FirstFirst ... 4669661366141614561463146414651466146714681469 ... LastLast
Results 29,301 to 29,320 of 29424

Thread: (UK EURO WAFFLE) Limey Civil War

  1. #29301
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    London (Silphe ingame)
    Posts
    3,037
    Quote Originally Posted by James Snowscoran View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    If international law isn't binding, then the logical conclusion would be that Syria was within its rights to gas its own people.
    Did you seriously just whatabout between legitimate armed forces bombing legitimate targets in a warzone and a fascist dictator gassing civilians?

    Go outside, sit down, have a breath of fresh air and think about that for a while.
    it follows naturally that so are everyone else.
    no

  2. #29302
    NoirAvlaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Location
    Liverpool, laaaa
    Posts
    4,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Snowscoran View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    If international law isn't binding, then the logical conclusion would be that Syria was within its rights to gas its own people.
    Did you seriously just whatabout between legitimate armed forces bombing legitimate targets in a warzone and a fascist dictator gassing civilians?

    Go outside, sit down, have a breath of fresh air and think about that for a while.
    it follows naturally that so are everyone else.
    no
    Oh OK then I guess that's that sorted

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

  3. #29303
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    London (Silphe ingame)
    Posts
    3,037
    Quote Originally Posted by NoirAvlaa View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Snowscoran View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    If international law isn't binding, then the logical conclusion would be that Syria was within its rights to gas its own people.
    Did you seriously just whatabout between legitimate armed forces bombing legitimate targets in a warzone and a fascist dictator gassing civilians?

    Go outside, sit down, have a breath of fresh air and think about that for a while.
    it follows naturally that so are everyone else.
    no
    Oh OK then I guess that's that sorted

    Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
    ty ty

  4. #29304

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    4,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Snowscoran View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    If international law isn't binding, then the logical conclusion would be that Syria was within its rights to gas its own people.
    Did you seriously just whatabout between legitimate armed forces bombing legitimate targets in a warzone and a fascist dictator gassing civilians?

    Go outside, sit down, have a breath of fresh air and think about that for a while.
    it follows naturally that so are everyone else.
    no
    So laws are only for people we don't like?

  5. #29305
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    London (Silphe ingame)
    Posts
    3,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Snowscoran View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    If international law isn't binding, then the logical conclusion would be that Syria was within its rights to gas its own people.
    Did you seriously just whatabout between legitimate armed forces bombing legitimate targets in a warzone and a fascist dictator gassing civilians?

    Go outside, sit down, have a breath of fresh air and think about that for a while.
    it follows naturally that so are everyone else.
    no
    So laws are only for people we don't like?
    See previous post on the academic applicability of international law vs. its effect in practicality.

  6. #29306
    Keckers's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 31, 2012
    Posts
    15,717
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    So laws are only for people we don't like?
    Laws are only for property rights we deem worthy of protection.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Mason
    It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

  7. #29307

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    4,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Snowscoran View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    If international law isn't binding, then the logical conclusion would be that Syria was within its rights to gas its own people.
    Did you seriously just whatabout between legitimate armed forces bombing legitimate targets in a warzone and a fascist dictator gassing civilians?

    Go outside, sit down, have a breath of fresh air and think about that for a while.
    it follows naturally that so are everyone else.
    no
    So laws are only for people we don't like?
    See previous post on the academic applicability of international law vs. its effect in practicality.
    That'll be a yes then.

  8. #29308
    Djan Seriy Anaplian's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    London (Silphe ingame)
    Posts
    3,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Djan Seriy Anaplian View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Snowscoran View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    If international law isn't binding, then the logical conclusion would be that Syria was within its rights to gas its own people.
    Did you seriously just whatabout between legitimate armed forces bombing legitimate targets in a warzone and a fascist dictator gassing civilians?

    Go outside, sit down, have a breath of fresh air and think about that for a while.
    it follows naturally that so are everyone else.
    no
    So laws are only for people we don't like?
    See previous post on the academic applicability of international law vs. its effect in practicality.
    That'll be a yes then.
    If you'd like to oversimplify it like you do with many things then sure, have at it.

  9. #29309

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    5,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    My point was that under international law they quite possibly weren't legitimate armed forces bombing legitimate targets in a warzone.
    So say that. Don't draw a moral equivalence between a proportionate, constrained response and genocide. It makes you look like a fucking idiot. I agree with you that under the strict letter of that school of thought what we did was clearly in violation of international law. My point is that doesn't matter, because international law is unfit for purpose.

    The problem with Labour's approach is they're trying to constrain the action of the UK government by applying utterly lunatic, impractical interpretations of international law that would equally bind parliament as much as they do the government, when this discussion is entirely about:
    1) Is it right to intervene
    2) Is what we did the correct intervention
    and
    3) Did the government follow the correct legal process in intervening

    International law does not and should not come into any of those.

    Quote Originally Posted by James Snowscoran View Post
    It's not whataboutery.
    Making a point by comparing two independent entities is exactly whataboutary. You don't need an extremist comparison to make the point.

    You're confusing the moral argument (we're shooting missiles at Syria because they're evil) with the legal one (we're shooting missiles at Syria because they're violating international law).
    There is only a moral argument.

  10. #29310
    James Snowscoran's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    650
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    The problem with Labour's approach is they're trying to constrain the action of the UK government by applying utterly lunatic, impractical interpretations of international law (...) this discussion is entirely about:
    1) Is it right to intervene,
    2) Is what we did the correct intervention, and
    3) Did the government follow the correct legal process in intervening

    International law does not and should not come into any of those.
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    There is only a moral argument.
    Just because you're not interested in the legal argument wrt international law doesn't make it a non-issue, and look, noone's forcing you to take part in the debate if you don't want to. While you argue that the UK government is unconstrained by int'l law (and as such the argument is irrelevant), that's not the position of, say, the UK government, which tries as best as it can to make a legal case for the bombings:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43770102



    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by James Snowscoran View Post
    It's not whataboutery.
    Making a point by comparing two independent entities is exactly whataboutary. You don't need an extremist comparison to make the point.
    Haha what. Comparing two independent entities is whataboutery? Are you serious?

    An argument that Syrian gassing of civilians isn't illegal because what about rocket strikes would be whataboutery, but nobody is making that argument. We can all agree that gassing civilians is reprehensible and forbidden under international law.

  11. #29311

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    5,987
    Quote Originally Posted by James Snowscoran View Post
    Just because you're not interested in the legal argument wrt international law doesn't make it a non-issue, and look, noone's forcing you to take part in the debate if you don't want to. While you argue that the UK government is unconstrained by int'l law (and as such the argument is irrelevant), that's not the position of, say, the UK government, which tries as best as it can to make a legal case for the bombings:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43770102
    I'm not saying it's a non-issue, or that it's irrelevant. I'm saying Labour are being stupid by dancing to the government's tune and making this a discussion about international law, when international law is poorly defined, not legally binding, unfit for purpose and can be twisted to say anything you want.

    If this becomes a discussion about international law it becomes a discussion consigned to the westminster bubble and the grauniad's live blog. People don't give a shit about international law. They do give a shit about whether it is right for us to bomb another country.

    Moreover, you can't sit there and say "Well, technically what we're doing is in breach of international law.." without also considering, just for a moment, that maybe the international law that allows such a situation to arise is utterly broken. To then try and reapply that obviously broken international law back onto ourselves illustrates how all of this talk about "international law" is just political wankery: we would not be talking about international law if parliament had held a vote.

    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Haha what. Comparing two independent entities is whataboutery? Are you serious?
    Yes. Responding to the actions of one group by saying "Well what about this other group!!!!" is literally, exactly whataboutery.

    An argument that Syrian gassing of civilians isn't illegal because what about rocket strikes would be whataboutery, but nobody is making that argument. We can all agree that gassing civilians is reprehensible and forbidden under international law.
    Awesome. So what's that got to do with us bombing some empty buildings in syria?

  12. #29312

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Chair
    Posts
    6,001
    Legal arguments aside, I'm not sure what such strikes are supposed to achieve. Those weapons aren't intended for use against other countries, but their own people - who they have plenty of other ways to terrorize. Really, unless Assad & his cronies fear that the next cruise missile will be coming through their window, I don't see what reason they have to care - & we prefer the killing of heads of state to at least look like it was done by their own people.

  13. #29313

    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Posts
    5,987
    Quote Originally Posted by Lancehot View Post
    Legal arguments aside, I'm not sure what such strikes are supposed to achieve. Those weapons aren't intended for use against other countries, but their own people - who they have plenty of other ways to terrorize. Really, unless Assad & his cronies fear that the next cruise missile will be coming through their window, I don't see what reason they have to care - & we prefer the killing of heads of state to at least look like it was done by their own people.
    You'd almost have to think there were other factors in play. Like there being a chemical weapons attack on one of the participants just a few weeks ago.

    It's an attempt to try and put the genie of chemical weapons back in their bottle, where they belong. It's important to remember the attacks aren't intended as a message to Assad, but to Russia. The fact the attacks seemed to hit practically derelict sites is itself a sign the western countries are giving Russia a chance to step back from their rhetoric that it's all a grand conspiracy orchestrated by the western media.

    Unfortunately thinking about what happens when they inevitably double down on their lunatic lies does not make for a happy future.

  14. #29314

    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Chair
    Posts
    6,001
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lancehot View Post
    Legal arguments aside, I'm not sure what such strikes are supposed to achieve. Those weapons aren't intended for use against other countries, but their own people - who they have plenty of other ways to terrorize. Really, unless Assad & his cronies fear that the next cruise missile will be coming through their window, I don't see what reason they have to care - & we prefer the killing of heads of state to at least look like it was done by their own people.
    You'd almost have to think there were other factors in play. Like there being a chemical weapons attack on one of the participants just a few weeks ago.

    It's an attempt to try and put the genie of chemical weapons back in their bottle, where they belong. It's important to remember the attacks aren't intended as a message to Assad, but to Russia. The fact the attacks seemed to hit practically derelict sites is itself a sign the western countries are giving Russia a chance to step back from their rhetoric that it's all a grand conspiracy orchestrated by the western media.

    Unfortunately thinking about what happens when they inevitably double down on their lunatic lies does not make for a happy future.
    Well we're apparently attempting genocide by sanctions, but I think there's still time for cooler heads to prevail.

  15. #29315
    Super Chillerator Global Moderator teds :D's Avatar
    Join Date
    November 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,552
    Quote Originally Posted by Lancehot View Post
    Legal arguments aside, I'm not sure what such strikes are supposed to achieve. Those weapons aren't intended for use against other countries, but their own people - who they have plenty of other ways to terrorize. Really, unless Assad & his cronies fear that the next cruise missile will be coming through their window, I don't see what reason they have to care - & we prefer the killing of heads of state to at least look like it was done by their own people.
    to try and make using chemical weapons taboo again, because you know that if you do decide to try it then you get a lot of cruise missiles heading your way.

  16. #29316

    Join Date
    May 11, 2011
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lancehot View Post
    Legal arguments aside, I'm not sure what such strikes are supposed to achieve. Those weapons aren't intended for use against other countries, but their own people - who they have plenty of other ways to terrorize. Really, unless Assad & his cronies fear that the next cruise missile will be coming through their window, I don't see what reason they have to care - & we prefer the killing of heads of state to at least look like it was done by their own people.
    You'd almost have to think there were other factors in play. Like there being a chemical weapons attack on one of the participants just a few weeks ago.

    It's an attempt to try and put the genie of chemical weapons back in their bottle, where they belong. It's important to remember the attacks aren't intended as a message to Assad, but to Russia. The fact the attacks seemed to hit practically derelict sites is itself a sign the western countries are giving Russia a chance to step back from their rhetoric that it's all a grand conspiracy orchestrated by the western media.

    Unfortunately thinking about what happens when they inevitably double down on their lunatic lies does not make for a happy future.
    Documented chemical attacks have been going on against civilians in Syria for at least 5 years now, its a tad late to call this putting the genie back in bottle.

    In other news DWP are now rape councillors - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-43784071, what a total bitch.

  17. #29317

    Join Date
    July 3, 2014
    Posts
    3,409
    We basically achieved a lot of live fire exercises to train air, ground, and sea crews; test weapons systems; test alliance integration attacks; and make a geopolitical statement.

  18. #29318
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    13,896
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-43784071

    A useful reminder that tories are literally soulless.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  19. #29319

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    4,296
    Quote Originally Posted by elmicker View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodj Blake View Post
    My point was that under international law they quite possibly weren't legitimate armed forces bombing legitimate targets in a warzone.
    So say that. Don't draw a moral equivalence between a proportionate, constrained response and genocide.
    I didn't.

  20. #29320
    Kai's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 2, 2012
    Posts
    6,369
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...itics-43784071

    A useful reminder that tories are literally soulless.
    Yes but what about Corwyn supporting Assad. Both sides are the same!

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •