• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israel Wants its Hero Spy who Betrayed America to be Allowed to Move to Israel

Fledermaus said:
If one takes steps top prevent civilian casualties it is not a war crime.

You call it a "war crime".

Under which law?
Click to expand...

You haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Have a guess what law applies to it.
 
Fledermaus said:
Blah, blah blah blah

You call it a "war crime".

Under which law?
Click to expand...

Now your strawman was exposed you return to ?........ "what war crime ?" :roll:

" blah, blah , blah " indeed
 
Fledermaus said:
If one takes steps top prevent civilian casualties it is not a war crime.

You call it a "war crime".

Under which law?
Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:
If one takes steps top prevent civilian casualties it is not a war crime.

You call it a "war crime".

Under which law?
Click to expand...

Wrong. Pro tip.

Learn the laws before you comment on them.
 
oneworld2 said:
Worse still he applies vastly different standards and defends many crimes and atrocities if they are committed by Jews/Israelis/Americans. Partisan hacks like that cannot be reached so the only thing left to do is rubbish their completely biased commentary in case any others actually fall for it.
Click to expand...

Yeah pretty much
 
Fledermaus said:
You call it a "war crime".

Under which law?
Click to expand...

I'm not your paid educator. How hard can it be to research the legality or not of an attack ? Clue you want to look at rule 12 and then take the third option
 
Fledermaus said:
You call it a "war crime".

Under which law?
Click to expand...

International Humanitarian Law as defined by the ICRC NOT me. Put some effort into your debating for a change
 
oneworld2 said:
International Humanitarian Law as defined by the ICRC NOT me. Put some effort into your debating for a change
Click to expand...

Still waiting for the statute for the war crime YOU claimed.

You seem completely incapable of pointing it out.

BTW - The ICRC refers to various other conventions that post date the incident. Your attempt to use the time machine is noted and rejected.
 
Last edited:
Fledermaus said:
Still waiting for the statute for the war crime YOU claimed.

You seem completely incapable of pointing it out.

BTW - The ICRC refers to various other conventions that post date the incident. Your attempt to use the time machine is noted and rejected.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, now you want to try to defend what is a war crime by calling into question the time it happened.

Wow do you pull out all of the stops to apply your biased anti Arab commentary. I am applying the standards applied to the Palestinians regardless of times and places. It must really sicken you that people wish to apply the same standards to all parties.

ON indiscriminate attacks

an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the tangible and direct military advantage anticipated.
Click to expand...

Indiscriminate attacks | How does law protect in war? - Online casebook

The hotel was both a civilian and military headquarters so it would have been known that many civilians would have died, as was the case............75 civilians 16 military deaths tells that story. 16 soldiers/military police was going to lead to a significant military advantage for the Jewish terror organisation ? Really ?

But hey, those terrorists that carried it out were Jewish so, not the same as Arabs obviously. ONly Arab terrorists come into your cross hairs because DA ARABS, the Jewish ones will be defended using all means possible :roll:
 
oneworld2 said:
Hahaha, now you want to try to defend what is a war crime by calling into question the time it happened.

Wow do you pull out all of the stops to apply your biased anti Arab commentary. I am applying the standards applied to the Palestinians regardless of times and places. It must really sicken you that people wish to apply the same standards to all parties.

ON indiscriminate attacks

Indiscriminate attacks | How does law protect in war? - Online casebook

The hotel was both a civilian and military headquarters so it would have been known that many civilians would have died, as was the case............75 civilians 16 military deaths tells that story. 16 soldiers/military police was going to lead to a significant military advantage for the Jewish terror organisation ? Really ?

But hey, those terrorists that carried it out were Jewish so, not the same as Arabs obviously. ONly Arab terrorists come into your cross hairs because DA ARABS, the Jewish ones will be defended using all means possible :roll:
Click to expand...

Except it wasn't "indiscriminate".

It clearly was a strike against the Command, Control and Communication hub for a occupying entity.

Nothing "indiscriminate" about it. A very direct, targeted attack.

From your link.

is not directed at a specific military objective (or person); (it was)

employs a method or means of warfare which cannot be directed at a specific military objective (or person); or (it was directed)

employs a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law. (Limited to the Hotel and the immediate surrounding)
 
Last edited:
Fledermaus said:
Except it wasn't "indiscriminate".

It clearly was a strike against the Command, Control and Communication hub for a occupying entity.

Nothing "indiscriminate" about it. A very direct, targeted attack.

From your link.

is not directed at a specific military objective (or person); (it was)

employs a method or means of warfare which cannot be directed at a specific military objective (or person); or (it was directed)

employs a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law. (Limited to the Hotel and the immediate surrounding)
Click to expand...



Wow, you deliberately hacked off the last part of the ICRC link , the part I referred you to specifically , so as to try to misrepresent the validity of the claim . :roll:

The compulsion you have for underhanded and dishonest tactics overwhelms me :roll:

from the link that you hacked off

an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the tangible and direct military advantage anticipated.
Click to expand...

What military advantage was gained ? 16 dead soldiers and a short term disruption to the military capacity of the British in Palestine ? For the deaths of 75 civilians ?


Some context to that death toll

All of the rockets from Gaza for 10 years(2004-2014) have claimed 1/3 the lives of those lost at the King David Hotel and have a ratio similar to the military v civilian deaths of Israelis and here you are defending the terrorist outfit that bombed the hotel purely because they are Jewish.

Obviously any sympathy for the deaths on innocent people is dependent for you on who carries out the attack. I'm not shocked.
 
oneworld2 said:
Wow, you deliberately hacked off the last part of the ICRC link , the part I referred you to specifically , so as to try to misrepresent the validity of the claim . :roll:

The compulsion you have for underhanded and dishonest tactics overwhelms me :roll:

from the link that you hacked off

What military advantage was gained ? 16 dead soldiers and a short term disruption to the military capacity of the British in Palestine ? For the deaths of 75 civilians ?

Some context to that death toll

All of the rockets from Gaza for 10 years(2004-2014) have claimed 1/3 the lives of those lost at the King David Hotel and have a ratio similar to the military v civilian deaths of Israelis and here you are defending the terrorist outfit that bombed the hotel purely because they are Jewish.

Obviously any sympathy for the deaths on innocent people is dependent for you on who carries out the attack. I'm not shocked.
Click to expand...

I quoted directed from the ICRC document and noted what was relevant.

What military advantage?

It is clear you have no concept of military operations, targets and/or tactics.

Was or was it not the center of command and control in that military district?

Yes. It was.

Was it or was it not a communication hub utilized by the military?

Yes. It was.

A major objective in ANY operation is to disrupt command, control and communication functions.

FFS. You have no clue. Why do you thing telephone/telegraph wires were severed in the past. Why are command centers targeted? Why are radios jammed?

My God. Even most non military people usually grasp this concept.

And the rocket from Gaza are the epitome of targeting civilians.

Oh. The truncated part.

an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the tangible and direct military advantage an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the tangible and direct military advantage anticipated.

Had the repeated warnings been heeded the would have been minimal loss of civilian life and/or injury to civilians.
 
Last edited:
Fledermaus said:
I quoted directed from the ICRC document and noted what was relevant.

What military advantage?

It is clear you have no concept of military operations, targets and/or tactics.

Was or was it not the center of command and control in that military district?

Yes. It was.

Was it or was it not a communication hub utilized by the military?

Yes. It was.

A major objective in ANY operation is to disrupt command, control and communication functions.

FFS. You have no clue. Why do you thing telephone/telegraph wires were severed in the past. Why are command centers targeted? Why are radios jammed?

My God. Even most non military people usually grasp this concept.

And the rocket from Gaza are the epitome of targeting civilians.

Oh. The truncated part.

an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the tangible and direct military advantage an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the tangible and direct military advantage anticipated.

Had the repeated warnings been heeded the would have been minimal loss of civilian life and/or injury to civilians.
Click to expand...

The " truncated " part was the part that was relevant to the point I was making and that's why decided to edit it out, obviously.

The hotel was both military and civil administration. Thus it was not just a military target and it would have been known to have caused , as it did , enormous civilian deaths both in the hotel and in the neighbouring buildings/street.

That 82% of the dead were civilians should tell people that it wasn't just a military target but apparently not you.

Within a month of that attack the British arrested virtually every Lehi/Irgun leader and operative leading to the folding of the Jewish Resistance Movement itself. Wow was that a spectacular military advantage ?

That you still believe that the phone calls , in amongst all of the hoaxes and the fighting going on outside the hotel just prior to the explosion , would have made a difference is a weak excuse imo for your supporting of the attack itself. The charge that you are defending the act of a terror group is unquestionable as is your blaming of the victims. Also by ommision
 
oneworld2 said:
The " truncated " part was the part that was relevant to the point I was making and that's why decided to edit it out, obviously.

The hotel was both military and civil administration. Thus it was not just a military target and it would have been known to have caused , as it did , enormous civilian deaths both in the hotel and in the neighbouring buildings/street.

That 82% of the dead were civilians should tell people that it wasn't just a military target but apparently not you.

Within a month of that attack the British arrested virtually every Lehi/Irgun leader and operative leading to the folding of the Jewish Resistance Movement itself. Wow was that a spectacular military advantage ?

That you still believe that the phone calls , in amongst all of the hoaxes and the fighting going on outside the hotel just prior to the explosion , would have made a difference is a weak excuse imo for your supporting of the attack itself. The charge that you are defending the act of a terror group is unquestionable as is your blaming of the victims. Also by ommision
Click to expand...

It was a military target. That there were civilian administration does not change that fact.

The "enormous" civilian casualties were exacerbated by people ignoring the warnings. That too is a fact.

Under which law was this a "war crime"?
 
Fledermaus said:
It was a military target. That there were civilian administration does not change that fact.
Click to expand...

Yes it does ,as was edited out by yourself of the link I supplied, and is a crucial aspect. It will appear again at the end of this post and you will likely ignore it again but it is actually there for any others/posterity
The "enormous" civilian casualties were exacerbated by people ignoring the warnings. That too is a fact.
Click to expand...

Why have you made much of my using the term " enormous " when decsribing the dead ? Is 82% civilian dead not enough for you to acknowledge as enormous ?

I recall giving you the stats that in ten years of rocket fire and mortars from Gaza the death toll is around 30% the death toll from that one attack.

The woman who took that call claimed there was virtually no time for an evacution. The perpetrators never phoned anyone who could have authorized an evacuation, such as the British military/ civilian admin residing in the hotel. There was a shooting match going on outside involving the British and Irgun operatives just prior to the blast. Should the authorities , even if they had known , evacuate people from the hotel into the streets during a shoot out ?

They are all facts too but they rubbish your defence of the Jewish terror group that carried out the attack and so you ignore them


Under which law was this a "war crime"?
Click to expand...

Under the indiscriminate attack guidelines given to you already. As promised above here is the last part from the guidelines as per the ICRC site on indiscriminate attacks

" an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the tangible and direct military advantage an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the tangible and direct military advantage anticipated.

It caused 82% civilian casualties ( deaths ) and damaged civilian objects ( surrounding buildings ) and the " military advantage " gained by it ? Within a month the British had arrested so many leaders and operatives of the Jewish Resistance Movement the whole thing collapsed and was abandoned. It could be argued that it backfired spectacularly on the Jewish resistance movement so there was no " tangible and direct military advantage " gained.

You just chose to defend the actions of a Jewish terror group that committed an indiscriminate attack against both a military and civil target knowing full well that many civilians would be killed , as was the case.

Which lays bare your constant claims about being against terrorists ,only, as utter rubbish. It clearly depends on the ethnicity of those doing the actions
 
oneworld2 said:
Yes it does ,as was edited out by yourself of the link I supplied, and is a crucial aspect. It will appear again at the end of this post and you will likely ignore it again but it is actually there for any others/posterity


Why have you made much of my using the term " enormous " when decsribing the dead ? Is 82% civilian dead not enough for you to acknowledge as enormous ?

I recall giving you the stats that in ten years of rocket fire and mortars from Gaza the death toll is around 30% the death toll from that one attack.

The woman who took that call claimed there was virtually no time for an evacution. The perpetrators never phoned anyone who could have authorized an evacuation, such as the British military/ civilian admin residing in the hotel. There was a shooting match going on outside involving the British and Irgun operatives just prior to the blast. Should the authorities , even if they had known , evacuate people from the hotel into the streets during a shoot out ?

They are all facts too but they rubbish your defence of the Jewish terror group that carried out the attack and so you ignore them




Under the indiscriminate attack guidelines given to you already. As promised above here is the last part from the guidelines as per the ICRC site on indiscriminate attacks

" an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the tangible and direct military advantage an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the tangible and direct military advantage anticipated.

It caused 82% civilian casualties ( deaths ) and damaged civilian objects ( surrounding buildings ) and the " military advantage " gained by it ? Within a month the British had arrested so many leaders and operatives of the Jewish Resistance Movement the whole thing collapsed and was abandoned. It could be argued that it backfired spectacularly on the Jewish resistance movement so there was no " tangible and direct military advantage " gained.

You just chose to defend the actions of a Jewish terror group that committed an indiscriminate attack against both a military and civil target knowing full well that many civilians would be killed , as was the case.

Which lays bare your constant claims about being against terrorists ,only, as utter rubbish. It clearly depends on the ethnicity of those doing the actions
Click to expand...

This is wrong. Your analysis and understanding of your bolded part is wrong.

What matters is the anticipated military benefit. Disrupting the entire control apparatus of the occupying British is as significant as it gets. You ignore that entirely. Whether it succeeded of not is irrelevant. Whether they were right in their assessment of the military strategy is irrelevant. You don’t get to play armchair general 90 years later, it doesn’t work that way and even suggesting it is frankly stupid.

Beyond that, the percentage of civilians killed is not relevant. If the mission failed and it blew up on the steps it could have resulted in 100% civilian casualties the same way a missile targeting a military base can fall short and kill civilians. Here the proportion of civilians would have been lower if the British had acted differently but at the end of the day it didn’t matter to the nature of the attack. This attack on C&C was arguably the beginning of the end of the British denial of Jewish national rights in Israel. That was the object, which was a valid military object and the attack was obviously proportionate to the achievement of that massively important object. But again, that doesn’t matter if they believed it was a good military strategy.

You come to different conclusions purely because you want to purposely misunderstand how this works. Simple as that.
 
oneworld2 said:
Yes it does ,as was edited out by yourself of the link I supplied, and is a crucial aspect. It will appear again at the end of this post and you will likely ignore it again but it is actually there for any others/posterity


Why have you made much of my using the term " enormous " when decsribing the dead ? Is 82% civilian dead not enough for you to acknowledge as enormous ?

I recall giving you the stats that in ten years of rocket fire and mortars from Gaza the death toll is around 30% the death toll from that one attack.

The woman who took that call claimed there was virtually no time for an evacution. The perpetrators never phoned anyone who could have authorized an evacuation, such as the British military/ civilian admin residing in the hotel. There was a shooting match going on outside involving the British and Irgun operatives just prior to the blast. Should the authorities , even if they had known , evacuate people from the hotel into the streets during a shoot out ?

They are all facts too but they rubbish your defence of the Jewish terror group that carried out the attack and so you ignore them




Under the indiscriminate attack guidelines given to you already. As promised above here is the last part from the guidelines as per the ICRC site on indiscriminate attacks

" an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the tangible and direct military advantage an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the tangible and direct military advantage anticipated.

It caused 82% civilian casualties ( deaths ) and damaged civilian objects ( surrounding buildings ) and the " military advantage " gained by it ? Within a month the British had arrested so many leaders and operatives of the Jewish Resistance Movement the whole thing collapsed and was abandoned. It could be argued that it backfired spectacularly on the Jewish resistance movement so there was no " tangible and direct military advantage " gained.

You just chose to defend the actions of a Jewish terror group that committed an indiscriminate attack against both a military and civil target knowing full well that many civilians would be killed , as was the case.

Which lays bare your constant claims about being against terrorists ,only, as utter rubbish. It clearly depends on the ethnicity of those doing the actions
Click to expand...

Your inability to understand what constitutes a military target is noted.

What law makes this a "war crime"?

The current ICRC guidelines are based on what conventions?
 
CJ 2.0 said:
This is wrong. Your analysis and understanding of your bolded part is wrong.

What matters is the anticipated military benefit. Disrupting the entire control apparatus of the occupying British is as significant as it gets. You ignore that entirely. Whether it succeeded of not is irrelevant. Whether they were right in their assessment of the military strategy is irrelevant. You don’t get to play armchair general 90 years later, it doesn’t work that way and even suggesting it is frankly stupid.

Beyond that, the percentage of civilians killed is not relevant. If the mission failed and it blew up on the steps it could have resulted in 100% civilian casualties the same way a missile targeting a military base can fall short and kill civilians. Here the proportion of civilians would have been lower if the British had acted differently but at the end of the day it didn’t matter to the nature of the attack. This attack on C&C was arguably the beginning of the end of the British denial of Jewish national rights in Israel. That was the object, which was a valid military object and the attack was obviously proportionate to the achievement of that massively important object. But again, that doesn’t matter if they believed it was a good military strategy.

You come to different conclusions purely because you want to purposely misunderstand how this works. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the fact that within a month of the attack the British response was the end of the Jewish Resistance Movement in Palestine kind of rubbishes the claim that a military advantage was gained but a terror tactic had succeeded wrt the British decision to get up and out.

Recall I have never referred to this as a terrorist attack like many others because I recognize the military target aspect to the attack. Recall also that the group had also engaged in authentic terror attacks that had targeted civilians only so it's correct to say they were a Jewish terror group.

Now, you have been an outspoken commentator on the " Oslo terror war " and have condemned the suicide bombings that took place then ( chronologically pardoning Israeli state terrorism that preceded it ) many of which were directed at IDF personnel but also claimed the lives of Israeli civilians. Classing them as terrorism only makes you guilty of that you are charging me of here. Thus you are not really in a position to call people on this sort of thing imo
 
oneworld2 said:
I would argue that the fact that within a month of the attack the British response was the end of the Jewish Resistance Movement in Palestine kind of rubbishes the claim that a military advantage was gained but a terror tactic had succeeded wrt the British decision to get up and out.

Recall I have never referred to this as a terrorist attack like many others because I recognize the military target aspect to the attack. Recall also that the group had also engaged in authentic terror attacks that had targeted civilians only so it's correct to say they were a Jewish terror group.

Now, you have been an outspoken commentator on the " Oslo terror war " and have condemned the suicide bombings that took place then ( chronologically pardoning Israeli state terrorism that preceded it ) many of which were directed at IDF personnel but also claimed the lives of Israeli civilians. Classing them as terrorism only makes you guilty of that you are charging me of here. Thus you are not really in a position to call people on this sort of thing imo
Click to expand...

I would argue that you don't understand military operations at any level.

And you have referred to "Jewish terrorists" time and again in reference to this attack.

oneworld2 said:
But hey, those terrorists that carried it out were Jewish so, not the same as Arabs.
Click to expand...

Have you figured out which convention was violated?
 
Last edited:
oneworld2 said:
I would argue that the fact that within a month of the attack the British response was the end of the Jewish Resistance Movement in Palestine kind of rubbishes the claim that a military advantage was gained but a terror tactic had succeeded wrt the British decision to get up and out.

Recall I have never referred to this as a terrorist attack like many others because I recognize the military target aspect to the attack. Recall also that the group had also engaged in authentic terror attacks that had targeted civilians only so it's correct to say they were a Jewish terror group.

Now, you have been an outspoken commentator on the " Oslo terror war " and have condemned the suicide bombings that took place then ( chronologically pardoning Israeli state terrorism that preceded it ) many of which were directed at IDF personnel but also claimed the lives of Israeli civilians. Classing them as terrorism only makes you guilty of that you are charging me of here. Thus you are not really in a position to call people on this sort of thing imo
Click to expand...

Yes I am and you once again show you don’t know what you are talking about. Attacking a civilian pizzeria because there might be a soldier there in civilian clothes is obviously (to normal people) different than attacking a military headquarter.

And once again it seems to be beyond you that whether an attack works in achieving an objective is not relevant to whether the attack is allowed under the laws of war.

Your analysis is frankly terrible even within the narrow construct you want us to play. You should give up. You won’t, but you should.
 
Fledermaus said:
I would argue that you don't understand military operations at any level.
Click to expand...

And you would be wrong again because I have acknowledged the military target in the attack in every post I have made that mentioned it. I do, however, also mention that it wasn't just a military building

And you have referred to "Jewish terrorists" time and again in reference to this attack.
Click to expand...

Correct., but have I ever referred to the attack itself as a terrorist attack ? No. The group that carried the attack out also engaged in outright terrorist attacks as well as legitimate attacks on armed forces. The same is true of he Palestinian groups but you , in the vast amount of posts you have compiled here, ALWAYS refer to these groups as terror groups



Have you figured out which convention was violated?[/QUOTE]

Probably either the Hague Convention or the 4th Geneva Convention seing as the ICRC link is based on a summary of IHL created by Cambridge University. That the attack preceded the 4thGC isn't relevant to how we view that attack today imo.

It would be rather biased to view the acts of Jewish terror groups as different because they preceded this or that convention when the general principles can be used to assess both pre and post convention actions.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Yes I am and you once again show you don’t know what you are talking about. Attacking a civilian pizzeria because there might be a soldier there in civilian clothes is obviously (to normal people) different than attacking a military headquarter.
Click to expand...

Of course it is and that's why I have never referred to the attack as a terrorist attack. But not every attack by Palestinian suicide bombers has been against civilians either , as you well knowbut still blanket address the wave of bombings as a terror war


And once again it seems to be beyond you that whether an attack works in achieving an objective is not relevant to whether the attack is allowed under the laws of war.
Click to expand...

So you support the rocket attacks from Gaza ?
Your analysis is frankly terrible even within the narrow construct you want us to play. You should give up. You won’t, but you should.
Click to expand...

It's always down to interpretations and you could be right and I could be wrong but at lest I am consistant. I set my stall out a long time back when I stated that I think there are 3 types of attacks available

An attack solely on a miltary group which is unquestionably a legitimate act of armed resistance , though I will venture that when these have been carried out by Palestinian terrorist groups you would balk at the idea of applying the same standards

Then there is the attack that aims at military but will inevitably kill large amounts of innocent people. This I refer to as indiscriminate attacks regardless as to who commits the act and indiscriminate attacks can still be deemed illegal under the laws of war.

Then there is the attack that solely aims at civilian targeting which I class as terrorist attack ( the one you cited above for example )

I don't stray from this set up but you people obviously do. I might call an indiscriminate attack differently from others here but generally apply the same standards to all acts. Can you say the same ? Have you ever acknowledged a Palestinian attack as legitimate resistance to occupation ? I don't ever recall one and have seen you back the murder of people that posed no mortal and imminant threat to those that shot them dead from a distance of 100's of metres,

If I am wrong on my interpretation on this I can live with that but at least I remain consistant and don't have to perform the somersaults people like you are forced to perform just because you don't try to apply the same standards
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom