LadyDeliah

Oh goody!

Frankito Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Damn... Whose next? I've got my sights on LadyD... > >:D< I'm flattered dear. Do you have good bone structure?

It's Customary Law, sort of like Common Law on an international level that built up over centuries. It's been codified by various UN Conventions and the International Criminal Court treaty more recently. I'm sure if you do a bit of digging you will be able to fund the actual bits of the various treaties that refer to it if you want to. I can't remember off the top of my head but might dig out my old International Public Law books if I can be arsed!

All my rage is perfectly rational, so I have nothing to add to this thread :))

If the war was illegal, then the deaths of the combatants and obviously the civilians, is a war crime also under either genocide or mass murder which is a crime against humanity.

northlondoner, sorry that this is from Wikileaks, but it accords with what I studied in International Public Law: "A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense usually for territorial gain and subjugation. The phrase is distinctly modern and diametrically opposed to the prior legal international standard of "might makes right", under the medieval and pre-historic beliefs of right of conquest. Since the Korean War of the early 1950s, waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law. Wars without international legality (e.g. not out of self-defense nor sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council) can be considered wars of aggression; however, this alone usually does not constitute the definition of a war of aggression; certain wars may be unlawful but not aggressive (a war to settle a boundary dispute where the initiator has a reasonable claim, and limited aims, is one example). The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."[1] Article 39 of the United Nations Charter provides that the UN Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and "shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security". The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the crime of aggression as one of the ?most serious crimes of concern to the international community?, and provides that the crime falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the Rome Statute stipulates that the ICC may not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agree on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted."

I get really pissed off with anti-dog arseholes tarring all dog owners with the same brush. Should I start a thread and bleat on about it for pages and pages of inanity, do you think?

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ok what about people who illegally park , Pee in > the Street, Blow their horns at 4 am. All > antisocial all breaking rules and NOT killing > anyone. Not paying fares on trains no TV license? > are they ok 'just having a bit of fun'? exempt' > Which rules/ laws is it ok to break? I'd just like > the Dog owners who think it IS ok to break laws to > tell me which ones it is ok to break. > I used to Like to Smoke with my Pint in the Pub - > Can I do that? (Should I restart smoking!) You must be such a joy to live with!

:))

You miserable bunch of sods! I love a good house party. I'll make sure I don't invite any of you miserable lot to my next one!

Can't let you get the last word in Huggie!

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ha ha, nah - that's too simple. :)) > > The first thing boils down to 'have I got what I > want'? > The second thing boils down to 'has he got what I > want'? Lol

Too funny!

That's a bit like that philosophy crap; does a tree that falls in the forest with no-one to hear it, actually make a sound. So Silverfox, does your recognition of success depend on the amount or quality od persons recognising it? If one tramp manages to make a roll up out of a couple of old dog ends and his fellow tramp is impressed, is he then a success under your definition?

SJ your thoughtful and inspiring posts leave me speechless with admiration.

Not necessarily dark, just time for change.

This is a dangerous precedent. I think the views of the EDL are abhorrent but they have a right to express them. Banning marches will not make the problem go away, it will make their supporters feel like resentful martyrs and give th legitimate cause for complaint. Also it allows the government licence to ban any marches which oppose government policy or on issues they don't like. This is a step closer to totalitarianism and with the impending economic crises and subsequent social fallout, does not bode well.

Fantastic post *Bob* and I agree that Marxist theory seems to be more relevant now than it's ever been.

Hugo, further evidence of US Govt lies in order to go to war. This time in the first Gulf War.

More evidence of unhealthy relationships between the Blair government and Murdoch. Maybe not exactly conspiracy stuff, but evidence that they were all too cosy, to the detriment of media truth and political accountability.

Jah Lush calls in Quids and Mick Mack to an emergency meeting to discuss how crap Arsenal played last week. http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100614183243/lifeonmars/images/a/ac/Camberwick_green.jpg

I'm partial to a good whizzle myself as it happens.

Lol, I find this thread amusing and occasionally informative!

This is quite interesting about the Bay of Pigs coup attempt as it also mentions the US support for the Guatemalan and Nicaraguan dictators.

My view on all this is that the elite are greedy bastards who ensure that their nests are feathered at the expense of the rest of us in relation to banking, control of resources, wars, laterly public services etc and the government fleece us through our taxes to pay these immoral profiteers and we keep on letting them.