crashfrog

joined 10 months ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Joins the cinematic “hardest to trademark” pantheon alongside “She”, “Her”, and “Them”

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 days ago

Illegal annexation of the west bank ruled by the UN to be illegal under international law.

Not ruled; advised. ICJ advisories are non-binding. Israel’s annexation of the West Bank, which was ceded to them through negotiated agreement with Jordan, is legal under both Jordanian and Israeli law and no other law applies because no other sovereignty applies.

The ICJ ruling that the United States “unlawfully” annexed Alaska or Hawaii would have similar import: literally none whatsoever. The simple fact is that borders move and land changes hand and the ICJ doesn’t have the authority to say what’s what.

We do not live in a pre world war 2 political order anymore

Israel’s claim to the lands of Judea and Samaria is based on agreements that predate WWII. Israel as a nation is older than several of the countries that make up the European Union, but nobody says that Germany unlawfully “annexed” West Berlin.

Under international law, a people under occupation by a foreign government have the right to armed resistance

Rape and murder of children aren’t “resistance”, hope that helps

[–] [email protected] -4 points 4 days ago

What numbers?

Again there’s no source for civilian casualties in Gaza. Any numbers you hear are estimates based on formulas; they’re not tallies of bodies.

The IDF’s estimates don’t make them look “bad.” It makes them look like the most moral, most professional army on Earth.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Why wouldn’t they be at war with Gaza when they were attacked by Gazans?

 

He's recently in the news for his early parole, but to my mind his conviction for murder was probably unjust.

  1. The prosecution was not able to rebut his testimony that he fired on what he thought was a burglar in his home. This was a reasonable fear - Pistorius is a double amputee despite his Olympic medals, and he lived in a neighborhood that was particularly attractive to break-in robberies due to the residents' wealth.

  2. The prosecution could not provide a motive for murder - the best they could speculate was that they had had an argument, but the prosecution could not provide details of any supposed argument, nor substantiate it from the testimony of any witnesses who actually would have been able to hear it.

  3. It probably was negligent and contributory to have fired on an "attacker" he could not see, but conversely, had he intended to murder his girlfriend during a spontaneous argument, there's no reason for him to have taken the risk of firing through a door in order to do so.

The traditional elements of the crime of murder are means, motive, and opportunity. Two of these are stipulated since, by the defense account, Pistorius fired the gun that killed Reeva Steenkamp The prosecution's argument for motive was specious speculation at best, and Pistorius' judicial conviction on appeal represents a miscarriage of justice since there was really no reason given to reject his defense. His original conviction of culpable homicide and reckless endangerment was correct and shouldn't have been appealed.

view more: next ›