<br>[color:blue]As for the US lying their way into the war in the first place or not, that wasn't the point of the OP or this thread ...</font color=blue><br><br>Without invasion no bomb-makers and thus no civilian-shooting GIs .... <br><br><br><br><br>

Which wasn't the point of the OP -- and certainly wasn't the point I was "missing" ...<br><br>Turn up the signal, wipe out the noise ...

<br>Precisely <br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>

Without invasion no bomb-makers and thus no civilian-shooting GIs .... <br><br>You are right. THere would only be ethnic murders by Saddam and his men. <br><br>I love this arm-chair debaters here. The reason we are there is on false pretense as far as I know, but we are there. And we aren't the only ones there.<br><br>You see what the media reports, which is not the full story. I don't care where you get your sources from...CNN/Fox/BBC/Yahoo...it's all the same. <br><br>Civilian casualties will happen in combat. Unfortunately it's something that happens. I don't like it one bit but when you have suspected bomb makers using these people as shields or whatever, then something like this might happen.<br><br>Don't read into what I am posting as saying that I like it or endorse it or whatever. I don't like war, I don't like killing, etc. But it will always happen, whether it's justified or not. Just skim through history and you will see.<br><br>What brings my blood to a boil is your painting everything with a wide-brush. "Civilian-shooting GI's" is nothing more than a comment by someone who hasn't ever been there. It sounds the same as people who call all cops "pigs" or "donut eaters" or whatever, when in fact they don't know what the heck they are talking about. <br><br>I try to stay out of the politics thread because it's not worth it and I only came here to see if anyone posted about the baby with 2 faces. I clicked on this one thread and couldn't resist. But now I'm gone again because honestly you two don't know what you are talking about since you all haven't ever been there.<br><br>Ask McTeak, I'm sure he can provide you all with plenty of information.<br><br><br><br>my photos

[color:blue]On what planet is manufacturing BOMBS IN YOUR HOME even remotely considered "legitimate"?? </font color=blue><br><br>The common law planet. I cited the case of Attorney General’s Ref (No2 of 1983) in which the accused was charged with making petrol bombs, as it happens in his home, contrary to the Explosive Substances Act 1883. This headnote from the law report explains why he was not guilty:<br><br>[color:purple][1984]1 Q.B.456 <br>[COURT OF APPEAL]<br><br>ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REFERENCE (No. 2 of 1983) 1984 Jan. 3; Feb. 3 <br>Lord Lane C.J., McCowan and Leggatt JJ.<br><br>Crime - Explosive substances - 'Lawful object" - Petrol bombs made for protecting maker's property against rioters - Whether defence of self-defence available - Whether "lawful object" - Explosive Substances Act 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 3), s. 4(1)<br><br>The respondent, whose property was attacked and damaged by rioters, feared that it might be the subject of further attack. He made some petrol bombs, which he intended to use purely to repulse raiders from his property. He was tried on, inter alia, a count of having made an explosive substance in such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had not made it for a lawful object, contrary to section 4(1) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883.1 A prosecution submission that self-defence was not open to the respondent was rejected on the basis that it must be open to a defendant to say that his lawful object was self-defence. The jury, who were directed to consider the reasonableness of the means adopted for the repulsion of raiders, acquitted the respondent. The Attorney-General referred for the court's opinion the question whether the defence of self-defence was available to a defendant charged with an offence under section 4 of the Act of 1883.<br><br>On the reference:-<br><br>Held that, in the opinion of the court, the defence of "lawful object" was available to a defendant against whom a charge under section 4 of the Act of 1883 had been preferred, if he could satisfy the jury on balance of probabilities that his object was to protect himself or his family or his property against imminent apprehended attack and to do so by means which he believed were no more than reasonably necessary to meet the force used by the attackers (post, p. 470C-F).<br><br>Reg. v. Fegan [1972] N.I. 80, C.C.A. applied.<br><br>Dicta in Palmer v. The Queen [1971] A.C. 814, 831-832, P.C. and in Evans v. Hughes [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1452, D.C. considered.<br><br>Per curiam. Although a person may "make" a petrol bomb with a lawful object, nevertheless if he remains in possession of it after the threat has passed which made his object lawful, it may cease to be so. It will only be very rarely that circumstances will exist where the manufacture or possession of petrol bombs can be for a lawful object (post, p. 470C-D).</font color=purple> <br><br>So, it is always necessary to examine the reasons why a person is making bombs because it could be for reasons of legitimate self-defence. As I said earlier in the thread, that would include protecting oneself from unawful acts of coalition soldiers of the kind we have all heard obout in Iraq.<br><br>[color:blue]When in fact *both* should be responsible and answerable for their actions, you're trying to let one side off the hook ... and that's fairly disgusting.</font color=blue><br><br>Not really. What would be disgusting would be the law taking sides with an aggressor or war criminal by saying that one is not entitled to resist the illegality. That right will never be taken away from people in a free society.<br><br>km<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The common law planet.<p><hr></blockquote><p>the common law planet lacks common sense.<br><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>

[color:blue]the common law planet lacks common sense.</font color=blue><br><br>You wouldn't think that if someone came at you or your family with a flame-thrower and you were told you weren't allowed to meet the threat with equivalent force.<br><br>km<br><br>

you are citing British law or international law? it's not clear to me. and the confrontation took place in Iraq, correct? i am trying to understand the position you are taking. TIA.<br><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>"The need to act must not have been created by conduct of the accused in the immediate context of the incident which was likely or intended to give rise to that need … Where a police officer is acting lawfully and using only such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime or in effecting the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders, self defence against him is not an available defence."<p><hr></blockquote><p>who decides whether the British soldier and others were acting lawfully in Iraq?<br><br>i still think you're debating some national law that isn't even in place in Iraq, no?<br><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>

[color:blue]you are citing British law or international law?</font color=blue><br><br>Both. The Attorney General's reference case is authority in England and America where the law on self-defence is the same. You'd have to live in some kind of tin pot dictatorship not to have the right in law to use reasonable force in self-defence. International law prohibits such acts as, genocide crimes against humanity and torture so in defence of oneself or one's family, or others for whom one is responsible, virtually any force is reasonable to resist such extreme threats.<br><br>km<br><br>