Are soldiers murderers?

[sigh] Pietro, Pietro, Pietro... You are so dense, I see I shall
have to explain...

With regard to murder being defined as unlawful killing, I had asked
the good captain "... are the ten commandments laws?"

You then butted in with another question: "Which of the 10
commandments, if followed would cause a Federal or State law
to be broken?"

And this, my dear chap, was the non sequitur. the red herring, the
complete wank. It was utterly irrelevant to the topic i.e. the
question "are the ten commandments laws?"

About time...

Now piss off and go play with Wyzl.

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

What an odd point of view. Wonder where you got that from. Your
statement is nonsense but at least its not illogical.

Nev..

 

You made an argument you did not ask a question.

Pure and utter bullshit.

The escape of the deluded mind.

 

Can you think up some nice latin phrase to describe that type of logical
argument?

Try Ad Hominem then look to see you that have no ground left to stand on.

Of course you have also failed to consider that possibility of International
courts finding someone guilty of murders committed during wartime as a
plausible alternative to patriotism, or are all International courts rigged
because they were set up by the victors?

 

Your question "Which of the 10 commandments, if followed would cause a
Federal or State law to be broken?" was a response to an argument I
was making? Really? Care to point out what that argument was?

I think you're not just off topic, I think you've lost the plot.

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Oh do get over yourself...

So let's see... In _this_ thread you first try to obfuscate the
point I was making with a bit of non sequitur. That failed, so now
you try the "international law" gambit which is still a deflection
from the point I was making. You really cannot stay on topic, can
you, Pietro. Non sequiturs, deflection, obfuscation, that's all you
got?

Since you're so thick, I'll spell it out for you: Saying you haven't
committed murder when, in the process of your mass-killing spree, you
also deftly dismantle the judicial system of the country in which you
are doing the mass-killing, hardly gives any credence to your claim
that you are not murderers. If you wanted to know if you are
murderers or not, you would need to leave the judicial system of that
country intact and untampered-with, and surrender yourselves to the
jdudicial process of that country. Now that's not going to happen is
it?

Tampering with the legal system and then asking "are soldiers
murderers?" has got to be a bit of a sick joke.

If you want to talk about international law, both the Iraq war and the
Afghanistan war are contraventions of international law. So ask
yourself, is the killing there illegal? Is it murder?

We know that the only stuff that makes it to "guilty" verdicts are
those cases which have the imprimatur of the the US, so don't talk to
me about international law, it's a bit of a joke at the moment. When
there is no proper independent justice system, it's stupid to ask "are
soldiers murderers."

Now go play with Wyzl.

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Cut and paste verbatim from post BY YOU on 27 April 2009

"One person's myth is another persons's absolute truth. Christians, I
would argue, would need to treat the ten commandments as God's laws.
Ergo, laws which supercede federal and state laws. God is great, no?"

My question was in direct response to that argument put forward by you.
Seeking clarification if you like but definitely NOT a non sequitur.

 

Read your question "Which of the 10 commandments, if followed would
cause a Federal or State law to be broken?" Very carefully, Pietro.
It is non-seqitur. Maybe you meant to ask something else, but what
you asked is ridiculous. Clue: Make sure brain is engaged when
critically reviewing your question.

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Really?

You argue that Christians - ( and really it should be Jews too since it was
their God who supposedly issued the 10 commandments) should treat the 10
commandments as superceding Federal or State Law, i.e being God's law.

Lets see - why would you make such a statement? Assuming of course you
will admit to having actually made that statement at all.

Could it be because you believe that people who obey "God's law" will
somehow be in breach of Federal or State law? If so, I invite you to
clarify which of the 10 commandments is in conflict with Federal or State
law?

If that was not your point, what was the point you were trying to make?

 

Read on, Mc Duff...

I've quoted it _several_ times. Is that like admitting it?

Ahhhh.... We finally get to your erroneous assumption... You
made an erroneous, unfounded assumption and then, by basing your
response on that, you ran yourself off-topic... Right into
non-sequitur territory... ;-)

My point was multi-faceted:

[1] That our laws were evolved from the ten commandments.

[2] That devout Christians would consider their God's commandments to
be more binding than Federal or State laws. Here I was edging towards
the "thous shalt not kill" commandment, trying to establish that all
killing is unlawful in the eyes of their God. G-S spotted this
immediately and tried to head me off at the pass with a pile of
hastily contrived obfuscations.

Being in breach of Federal or State laws was not the issue. The Issue
was that Federal or State laws may excuse some killings but that still
leaves God's law which says "thou shalt not kill".

=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Asolutely, Murder is a legal concept. Maybe you respect the court, maybe
you don't. Clem nailed it when he observed that one counties courts may
find a person, say George W., guilty of murder while another country, say
USA, will find that he has no case to answer. So then I guess he is a
murderer in Iran but not anywhere else and not even in Iran according to
everyone except the Iranian courts. I guess it's up to whatever court you
respect as to whoever you deem to be a murderer as opposed to an aledged
murderer. A cold blooded killer is much more easier to define.

Capt. A. L.

 

I don't think you "got" what I was getting at. [sigh]


=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

Sort of like levels of government eh... where a federal government you
feel like murdering them and you just feel unkind towards the state
version ;-)


G-S

 

Indeed - despite all the rumours indicating Rudd intends to pick my
pocket in the budget I still prefer that lot to Rees' bunch of
incompetents and corrupt bagmen

JL

 

">> Asolutely, Murder is a legal concept.

I don't believe I'm mistaken in the case of murder, the only case in point.
Until judged a murderer by a court that detirmines that the killing was
indeed murder and not manslaughter or justifiable homocide or some other
lesser charge, the acused remains an aledged murderer.

But enlightem me as to the application of "murderer" outside the
jurisdiction of the courts, in relation to the question,"Are soilders
murderers"

Capt. A. L.

 

labour is labour.

--

- KRudd at his finest.

"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.

"This is the recession we had to have!"
- Paul Keating explaining why he gave Australia another Labour recession.

"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.

"By 1990, no child will live in poverty"
- Bob Hawke again, desperate to win another election.

"A billion trees ..."
- Borke, pissed as a newt again.

"Well may we say 'God save the Queen' because nothing will save the governor
general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee for Governor General John Kerr.

 

It's obvious that you don't live in NSW. :-|

regards,
CrazyCam

 

In the case of NSW state government members, I reckon murder isn't the
right word anyway.

Don't vets "put down" rather than murder?

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Uh, you appear to be under the misguided impression that courts
need to sit in court-houses. Courts and court-houses have bugger all
to do with each other, except that court-houses tend to be rather
conveniently contain the judges' and court staff's offices and
court-rooms are kinda convenient, what with being purpose built
and all. Court-houses and court-rooms aren't courts though. The
Federal Court of Australia sits on plastic chairs under gum trees
in the middle of butt **** nowhere with some regularity. A court-
room, nor a court-house, does not a court make.


GB

 

Clue, GB : "sorta like.." can be read as a phrase introducing a
metaphor.

It was a fucking metaphor you dickfor.

Taking metaphors literally is the mark of a braindead drongo.

Also, you'd neatly snipt the preceding para where I said "Isn't it a
bit of a Catch-22 when, in invading another country, we
trash the very legal system which would find us guilty of murder?"

Clearly you need this explained to you: When we invade another
country, we obliterate their judicial system. And even if they were
to sit around under a tree in plastic chairs, our marauding mob,
having disempowered them by force of arms, would disregard their
findings. To then say "we haven't been found guilty of murder by any
court in the country in which the killings occurred, is a very sick
joke indeed. It is the sick joke that invaders everywhere perpetrate
upon those they have subjugated. It is the brainwork of arrogant
control freaks.

That this has to be explained to you, says something about your
boneheadedness.

Now bugger off and leave the debating of the loftier echelons of
logic, reason, morals, ethics, and conflict reslolution to those with
the cerebral wherewithall to do so.

=================

Onya bike

Gerry