The Student Room Group

What war crime has Tony Blair committed?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 160
Original post by john2054
Your not my mate. thanks. However you are nearly my age, thanks. What was your degree in?


Law. And it's a figure of speech. I'd think having been around for a bit, you'd have come across that.
Original post by L i b
Law. And it's a figure of speech. I'd think having been around for a bit, you'd have come across that.


kudos for you for getting a law degree. And what do you do now btw??
Reply 162
Original post by john2054
kudos for you for getting a law degree. And what do you do now btw??


That's not even close to being any of your business, mate.
Original post by L i b
That's not even close to being any of your business, mate.


you are probably an 19 year old troll huh?
Reply 164
Original post by john2054
you are probably an 19 year old troll huh?


Considering I first post on this forum in 2004, that would mean I was pretending to be a law student when I was seven...

Some of your points were faintly reasonable, but you've managed to undermine them by being faintly creepy and wildly off the mark.
Original post by L i b
Considering I first post on this forum in 2004, that would mean I was pretending to be a law student when I was seven...

Some of your points were faintly reasonable, but you've managed to undermine them by being faintly creepy and wildly off the mark.


good for you. i imagine you are either in the army, or a professional of some sorts. either way i asked you to stop calling me mate, and you continued. I don't care if it's a euphemism, syllogy, i asked you not to.

And like Pavlov said to his animals, 'stop it'!
Original post by john2054
good for you. i imagine you are either in the army, or a professional of some sorts. either way i asked you to stop calling me mate, and you continued. I don't care if it's a euphemism, syllogy, i asked you not to.

And like Pavlov said to his animals, 'stop it'!


I remember when I first moved into a town. I was a bit lonely and decided to join a working mans club. Went to the door to talk about it and used the word "mate" , they guy, like you said "I'm not your mate". I never went back. Its just rude. I think everyone should be everyones friend until proved otherwise, and even then go the extra mile.

If the Palestinians welcomed the Jewish people in and did not rise violently to oppose them, there would be no war and everyone would be happy.

Why were the Palestinians so against mass immigration to the point of extreme violence? That is the nub of the matter. Why couldn't the Palestinian people say "Hi Mate, you're welcome to live here too, I'm sure you will help bring this country into the 21st century, we could be the greatest country on earth. We really want you to come - all of you".

It would have been like the beginnings of an EU for Semitic peoples - instead we get "you're not my mate".
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by FredOrJohn
I remember when I first moved into a town. I was a bit lonely and decided to join a working mans club. Went to the door to talk about it and used the word "mate" , they guy, like you said "I'm not your mate". I never went back. Its just rude. I think everyone should be everyones friend until proved otherwise, and even then go the extra mile.

If the Palestinians welcomed the Jewish people in and did not rise violently to oppose them, there would be no war and everyone would be happy.

Why were the Palestinians so against mass immigration to the point of extreme violence? That is the nub of the matter. Why couldn't the Palestinian people say "Hi Mate, you're welcome to live here too, I'm sure you will help bring this country into the 21st century, we could be the greatest country on earth. We really want you to come - all of you".

It would have been like the beginnings of an EU for Semitic peoples - instead we get "you're not my mate".


I think you will find that it is the Jewish people who turn away the Palestinians, okay?
Did.
Original post by john2054
I think you will find that it is the Jewish people who turn away the Palestinians, okay?


Nope, the arabs rejected multi-culturalism and mass migration into their lands.
As Wikipedia states:
"
The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war. It broke out after the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution on 29 November 1947 recommending the adoption of the Partition Plan for Palestine.[4] When the British Mandate of Palestine expired on 14 May 1948, and with the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the surrounding Arab states, Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria invaded what had just ceased to be Mandatory Palestine,[5] and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements.[6] The conflict then turned into the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.
"

Basically Islam rejected multiculturalism and mass migration and instead tried to kill the immigrants. That is how it was,
Original post by FredOrJohn
Nope, the arabs rejected multi-culturalism and mass migration into their lands.
As Wikipedia states:
"
The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war. It broke out after the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution on 29 November 1947 recommending the adoption of the Partition Plan for Palestine.[4] When the British Mandate of Palestine expired on 14 May 1948, and with the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the surrounding Arab states, Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria invaded what had just ceased to be Mandatory Palestine,[5] and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements.[6] The conflict then turned into the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.
"

Basically Islam rejected multiculturalism and mass migration and instead tried to kill the immigrants. That is how it was,

Please don't rely on wikipedia as a factual source, because it is not one.
Original post by john2054
Please don't rely on wikipedia as a factual source, because it is not one.
Lets have the John2054 facts then - lets see who is the most honest Wikipedia or John2054?
Original post by Bill_Gates
he took us into an unjustified war against the wishes of the majority of the public. He killed millions of innocent civilians in the process. He is the devil himself.

I urge everyone to undertake a citizens arrest.


Not so. While the war was actually going on the public voted back the Labour party.

After 9/11, it seems to me that the enemy of the USA (and NATO) was significant parts of the Sunni extremist religion. The simpliest reply to this was to give Iraq to the majority Shia population and non-extremist Kurds.

The Sunni religion has been successfully removed from power in Iraq and since it became a democratic state (easily the most democratic state in the arab world), it had the knock on effect of creating an "Arab Spring" , which lead to the release of Tunisia from the yoke of Sunni imperialism and possibly, not that long away the release of Libya (still at war).

The 9/11 war is on going. I would say sunni extremists are losing.
Original post by FredOrJohn
Nope, the arabs rejected multi-culturalism and mass migration into their lands.
As Wikipedia states:
"
The 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine was the first phase of the 1948 Palestine war. It broke out after the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution on 29 November 1947 recommending the adoption of the Partition Plan for Palestine.[4] When the British Mandate of Palestine expired on 14 May 1948, and with the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, the surrounding Arab states, Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq and Syria invaded what had just ceased to be Mandatory Palestine,[5] and immediately attacked Israeli forces and several Jewish settlements.[6] The conflict then turned into the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.
"

Basically Islam rejected multiculturalism and mass migration and instead tried to kill the immigrants. That is how it was,


It is not the Palestinians who reject Israel, but Israel who rejects the Palestinians. Palestine is a tiny state compared to what Israel is, but even still on a daily basis these (Zionists?) take back more and more land, and shoot boys and pregnant mothers on the borders. This is not up for debate these are the facts, okay mate?
Original post by FredOrJohn
Not so. While the war was actually going on the public voted back the Labour party.

After 9/11, it seems to me that the enemy of the USA (and NATO) was significant parts of the Sunni extremist religion. The simpliest reply to this was to give Iraq to the majority Shia population and non-extremist Kurds.

The Sunni religion has been successfully removed from power in Iraq and since it became a democratic state (easily the most democratic state in the arab world), it had the knock on effect of creating an "Arab Spring" , which lead to the release of Tunisia from the yoke of Sunni imperialism and possibly, not that long away the release of Libya (still at war).

The 9/11 war is on going. I would say sunni extremists are losing.


This is also wrong. Iraq is not a stable democracy, but a basket case. Suicide bombings kill thousands there in market places and other places of gathering everyday. Imagine the outrage if something like that were to happen here in the UK. And actually before Britain and the USAs invasion in 2003, the Sunnis and Shiites were united in Iraq. This false division was actually created by the media to paint a false picture of the situation on the ground. Complete with Saddam Hussein, the biggest strawman history has ever known!
Original post by john2054
This is also wrong. Iraq is not a stable democracy, but a basket case. Suicide bombings kill thousands there in market places and other places of gathering everyday. Imagine the outrage if something like that were to happen here in the UK. And actually before Britain and the USAs invasion in 2003, the Sunnis and Shiites were united in Iraq. This false division was actually created by the media to paint a false picture of the situation on the ground. Complete with Saddam Hussein, the biggest strawman history has ever known!


As far as I understand it, Iraq democracy led to the Arab Spring (arabic people wanting what Iraq had got). Tunisia actually managed to escape from the Sunni dictatorship and form a democracy.

As far as I understand it, the Iraqi parliament is about the most democratic institution in the Arab world, apart from Tunisia. The majority, that is the Shia and Kurds, actually have got what they want. The minority, the baathist /isis sunni minority do not have what they want without killing people etc etc.

I'm not sure what agenda (I hate that word) you have but it certainly is not being trueful to the facts.
I think you should grow up and reject the Muslim religion which I suspect you have inherited from your parents. Grow up and embrace a world without gods and weird beliefs and just accept life as an existential event. Islam is not right, democracy is right.

Become the man that you want to be
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by FredOrJohn


Become the man that you want to be


good advice. that is why i'm not going to be doing a ma, and instead choosing to be a house husband. And yes i do know what i am talking about!

The arab spring fermented because of social media, much more that it did of the terrors in iraq, i'm afraid to say. But i agree, it (the arab spring) was a good thing.

Also btw i'm not a muslim, although i do have some close muslim friends. I am actually a gnostic christian. Google it.
Original post by FredOrJohn
UK is a case law nation so laws have to be tested in court before they have an real meaning.


Well that's just wrong and you clearly don't understand the difference between national and international law.
War is governed by international law, not national law.
Otherwise we would never have been able to hold Nirembourg trials or set up tribunals for the Rwandan and Yugoslavian war crimes.

War is governed on the international plane, not the national plane. We signed and ratified the UN Charter, we are therefore legally bound by it.
Original post by Bornblue
Well that's just wrong and you clearly don't understand the difference between national and international law.
War is governed by international law, not national law.
Otherwise we would never have been able to hold Nirembourg trials or set up tribunals for the Rwandan and Yugoslavian war crimes.

War is governed on the international plane, not the national plane. We signed and ratified the UN Charter, we are therefore legally bound by it.


International Law does not make Rock All part of the UK - its the Royal Navy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall

Clearly, it being uninhabited and the nearest mainland to it is Ireland, Ireland has the best international claim. However, in UK law it is part of the UK.

I don't think you know much about the law.

What counts is common law. It has to be tested in the courts.
Or, as some one told me, the REAL law is the law of the Policeman, he (or she) has to be bothered to arrest you. The lawyers is the bobby on the beat.
So far the boys in blue have not arrested the Royal Navy or the SAS for stealing RockAll
Original post by FredOrJohn
International Law does not make Rock All part of the UK - its the Royal Navy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall

Clearly, it being uninhabited and the nearest mainland to it is Ireland, Ireland has the best international claim. However, in UK law it is part of the UK.

I don't think you know much about the law.

What counts is common law. It has to be tested in the courts.
Or, as some one told me, the REAL law is the law of the Policeman, he (or she) has to be bothered to arrest you. The lawyers is the bobby on the beat.
So far the boys in blue have not arrested the Royal Navy or the SAS for stealing RockAll

Actually I do know law, having studied it and you're talking nonsense.

War is governed by international not national law. Section 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties- which we signed and ratified declares that national law is no excuse for violating international legal obligations.

We signed and ratified the UN Charter, it therefore legally binds us.

I'm not sure what you're going on about the common law. We have both statutory law and common law. Statutory law always takes precedence over the common law thanks to Parliamentary sovereignty. But that has nothing to do with international law.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending