Marky Mark
Member
Subscribing to this thread.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
Again, a legal definition is not the only one. It's not even the most important one since almost nobody who ever participated in a genocide will be tried for it. The idea that a legal definition is the only one that matters is one of the silliest ideas I have come across.
Bloody lawyers thinking they have some grasp on universal truths, when all they have is pieces of paper with words on them.
The realpolitik ensured the definition was narrow as fuck anyway.
The problem in this thread is acting like that is the only correct definition.
Looks to me as if points a, b, c and e all inarguably occurred with d being likely as well.
Thank you for making the point I have been trying to find the right words for. Lawyers are insufferable.
But it's a legal construct. Murder is not the same as homicide. Genocide is not the same thing as killing a whole bunch of the same people. How do we determine whether one happened and not the other? How do we deem if it's a homicide or murder? You can have your common definition of genocide, but I'm not going to apologise for taking issue with it.
When it's done to seize their land and attempt to neuter their cultural practices it is.
Guess what happened in Australia?
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
You can't have your law and practice it to.
Also in today's SMH quick crossword there was a clue: "Deliberately killing an ethnic group." No points to whoever guesses the answer.
Also in today's SMH quick crossword there was a clue: "Deliberately killing an ethnic group." No points to whoever guesses the answer.
No, it's not. It is many things. How do you decide if something is red or purple, do you have to consult your book of laws?
This legal absolutism is a refuge for people who are unable to make a logical or moral decision for themselves.
LOL
Anyway, leaving that discussion for now.
Don't tempt me. We have an act saying that the sun rises and sets.
If it gets overturned, will the sun no longer set?
So the law is wrong.
I, personally, am too scared to find out.
Maybe it doesn't count as setting if it's an accident.
Tim the Wiz
Banned
The law is often irrelevant to conceptions of ethics or historical justice. You should look at it as a tool used to enforce safety and order--and little more.
Are you a first year law student?
Worse, I'm a post-grad.
Post-grad is awesome, you get all the benefits of being staff AND a student
Abbott really likes his 'death cult' soundbite.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-25/tony-abbott-speaks-at-un-general-assembly/5767576
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-25/tony-abbott-speaks-at-un-general-assembly/5767576
Why is that so important? Julie Bishop is there. You know, our deputy PM.
Let alone this snippet that I found...
The Guardian said:
It's almost like this happened 13 years ago
Aarglefarg
Member
"Julie Bishop's speech to UN climate summit repeated the $2.55b figure for Direct Action ERF. Budget says $1.1b"
https://twitter.com/beneltham/status/514978740158201856
"Bishop also failed to tell UN delegates that Direct Action hasn't even been passed by federal Parliament"
https://twitter.com/beneltham/status/514978971037872128
When you're there to lecture the world on death cults where 'every country is a target' and then completely skip the climate change summit the day before it's important.
Last week the Climate Council estimated the costs of sea level rise to be "from three tenths of a percent of loss of GDP per year, all the way up to 9 percent", not to mention the inevitable loss of life due to extreme weather events. The real risks from climate change dwarf the threat of ISIS.
But ISIS is a threat right now? From the New York Times 'American intelligence agencies have concluded that it poses no immediate threat to the United States. Some officials and terrorism experts believe that the actual danger posed by ISIS has been distorted in hours of television punditry and alarmist statements by politicians, and that there has been little substantive public debate about the unintended consequences of expanding American military action in the Middle East.'
Fox News priorities.
Last week the Climate Council estimated the costs of sea level rise to be "from three tenths of a percent of loss of GDP per year, all the way up to 9 percent", not to mention the inevitable loss of life due to extreme weather events. The real risks from climate change dwarf the threat of ISIS.
But ISIS is a threat right now? From the New York Times 'American intelligence agencies have concluded that it poses no immediate threat to the United States. Some officials and terrorism experts believe that the actual danger posed by ISIS has been distorted in hours of television punditry and alarmist statements by politicians, and that there has been little substantive public debate about the unintended consequences of expanding American military action in the Middle East.'
Fox News priorities.
You're right, my bad. Foreign affairs minister. Still...we don't have a Presidential System..the relevant minister is the highest (legal) authority in their field. Really it should have been Greg Hunt. Our PM isn't our President.
I guess you can legislate international law and natural justice principles out of existence. I knew the former but didn't think the latter would actually occur. Who knew.
I thought the intelligence agencies were generally in agreement that by treating them as a threat and attacking them they've actually become a threat now
You really want to make the argument that the media circus surrounding the terror raids last week was totally necessary?
You really want to make the argument that there is nothing to worry about and that there is no risk? Cause that seems to be the argument being made here by a few users... repeatedly.
Cause I wasnt making that argument to begin with. In fact you quoted me saying that it was bad....
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
I was gonna say you stole my post with that quote but now I'm not sure if you 're taking it quite the same way I did. Of the many nations and leaders at the summit, that's not exactly the most esteemed company.
So why did Abbott travel to New York to address the UN about ISIS in the same week as the Climate Summit instead of sending Greg Hunt and David Johnston on a trip together? They could have shared a twin suite to cut costs.
I still burst out laughing every time Shaun Micallef calls it the Abbott-Truss Government.
Please read any post by Myansie and people agreeing with him.
Who's ready for new anti-terror laws?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-22/new-anti-terrorism-laws-explained/5761516
Some highlights:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/tony-abbott-trade-freedom-security
One would hope there's exceptions to this law for say....members of the French Foreign Legion....or even the Australian Military? Because those are very broad terms.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-22/new-anti-terrorism-laws-explained/5761516
Some highlights:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/tony-abbott-trade-freedom-security
One would hope there's exceptions to this law for say....members of the French Foreign Legion....or even the Australian Military? Because those are very broad terms.
Because sharks are being sharks.
Driving is dangerous.
People go mental and kill their families.
We cant do much about these things other then accept and try to minimise them.
When people are plotting on the internet, and we have intelligence to stop them, the government would be derelict in its duty to not do something.
If Sharks were planning an attack on Sydney beach goes this coming weekend and 'oh well, people die in car crashes' then that government is incompetent.
Isis is a new threat, its got recruits the world over that are drawn to its message like flys to shit. They are killing thousands of people in Syria and Iraq, ethnic cleansing, religious cleansing... etc... you name it. You seem to suggest 'we are only targets for doing something against them' Well good. We should be doing something, and we should be doing something to protect civillians here from there followers when we can and have intel on it.
You even brought up the horrible story of a man killing his family (Whats wrong with you) And try to make a point out of it? If the NSW police had intel that it was about to happen and did nothing, what would you say? Oh well, shark attacks! Car accidents! Etc?
You can have valid complaints about many of the things that the police and government do and did do. You cant try and pretend that A: Theyre only trying to kill Abboot (That makes it ok? whats wrong with you) or B: That theres more dangeorus things so whatever.
You are ideologically blind.
Im sick of people pretending that this is a non issue that we shouldnt worry about, which is essentially your argument. Bringing up shark attacks and car crashes and people killing their families proves nothing other then how awful your mind operates.
And yet, I bet you chewed out Abbot for saying 'shit happens'. That seems to be your entire ideological basis.
Driving is dangerous.
People go mental and kill their families.
We cant do much about these things other then accept and try to minimise them.
When people are plotting on the internet, and we have intelligence to stop them, the government would be derelict in its duty to not do something.
If Sharks were planning an attack on Sydney beach goes this coming weekend and 'oh well, people die in car crashes' then that government is incompetent.
Isis is a new threat, its got recruits the world over that are drawn to its message like flys to shit. They are killing thousands of people in Syria and Iraq, ethnic cleansing, religious cleansing... etc... you name it. You seem to suggest 'we are only targets for doing something against them' Well good. We should be doing something, and we should be doing something to protect civillians here from there followers when we can and have intel on it.
You even brought up the horrible story of a man killing his family (Whats wrong with you) And try to make a point out of it? If the NSW police had intel that it was about to happen and did nothing, what would you say? Oh well, shark attacks! Car accidents! Etc?
You can have valid complaints about many of the things that the police and government do and did do. You cant try and pretend that A: Theyre only trying to kill Abboot (That makes it ok? whats wrong with you) or B: That theres more dangeorus things so whatever.
You are ideologically blind.
Im sick of people pretending that this is a non issue that we shouldnt worry about, which is essentially your argument. Bringing up shark attacks and car crashes and people killing their families proves nothing other then how awful your mind operates.
And yet, I bet you chewed out Abbot for saying 'shit happens'. That seems to be your entire ideological basis.
What a shock. What despicable people Abbott and his henchman are.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked