U.N. Employees Beheaded Over Quran Burning

[In Between Man]

I was right with you till the first capital letter, ...... then, ..... not so much, sighed a fellow Christian

What exactly are you disagreeing with? The first capital letter was for the word "FALSE" as in the false characteristics that Muslims attribute to God.

Or are we in disagreement on whether or not Allah and God the Father are one in the same?

We Jews deny Christ too...it is only the pagan christians who worship false prophets and idols.

But as a Jew, you and I have the same Almighty God. God the Father who created the universe. God who made a covenant with Abraham. The same God who promised a Messiah to save the world. Our disagreement is whether or not the Messiah has come or not.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Pile on what? The only spelling mistake you tried to address, was incorrect. My spelling of that word was fine.

Fine , I learned to spell it differently but you have shown me an alternate.

Your assertion, that it's the Preachers fault, absolves them.

My assertion is that he carries liablility under the legal principle of causative effect. Both parties are liable and should be treated so. I have expressed that I understand the underlying reasons for their actions but have not accepted or condoned them in any way. If you wish to continue on this line please show where I specifically stated the killers were not individually responsible.

Your position indicates to me, that you support me killing a couple of my Muslim friends because some Muslim, somewhere, burns a Canadian flag. It would still be wrong for me to do, but it would be their (The ones that burnt my flag) fault.

Wow, Now you are telling me my position when I have clearly expressed otherwise. Maybe I should state your position for you. Is it your life goal to just contradict me or are you interested in a free and open exchange of views and ideas?

Let's be quite clear. I do not support murder or killing in any way for any reason! I can look at events surrounding the act of murder and see the effect they had on the outcome.

 

[CDNBear]

Fine , I learned to spell it differently but you have shown me an alternate.

Actually, since dictionaries say "See germane", your version is the alternate.

My assertion is that he carries liablility under the legal principle of causative effect.

I'm unfamiliar with this term, and can not find it in any legal dictionary, Canadian or American. Did you just make it up?

Both parties are liable and should be treated so.

Not at all. One was exercising his legal right to freedom of speech, while the other was murdering people.

I have expressed that I understand the underlying reasons for their actions but have not accepted or condoned them in any way. If you wish to continue on this line please show where I specifically stated the killers were not individually responsible.

You qualified, originally, that the Preacher was culpable. Sure you added the caveat that the murderers share some blame. But by applying any blame to the Preacher, you simply weaken your condemnation of the illegality of murder. This position, is in stark contrast to your belief that women bear no accountability for their actions. Which you then strengthened with, they could be lying in the street naked, and still not bear any accountability, and then strengthened again, by stating you are a man and you can control yourself.

But Muslims can't control themselves? And only bear part of the blame?

Wow, Now you are telling me my position when I have clearly expressed otherwise.

My analogy is exactly what your position is.

Maybe I should state your position for you. Is it your life goal to just contradict me or are you interested in a free and open exchange of views and ideas?

You don't believe in freedom of speech. That's why you hold the Preacher responsible.

Let's be quite clear. I do not support murder or killing in any way for any reason!

But you can justify it, by applying blame, whole or in part on the Pastor for expressing his legal rights?

I can look at events surrounding the act of murder and see the effect they had on the outcome.

So can I, the effect murder had on the outcome, was death.

 

[MHz]

The Afghan may not burn Bibles but the U.S. army will do it for them....just to placate them....:roll:
Military burns unsolicited Bibles sent to Afghanistan - CNN.com
And the Pastor was chastised by no less than Obama...
Obama criticizes Quran burning, Afghan attacks - Politics - msnbc.com

Two for two wrong.....You're on a roll.....

I believe the 'in protest' part was a main ingredient of the burning incident. Why not ship the back to America, they need to review some parts of Scripture anyway.

Must have been a fake, Obama would have him in Gitmo for a week of rehab. If the Prez is on him then it was inciting a roit and he got what he was after, a riot while he remains safe and sound.

 

[DaSleeper]

I believe the 'in protest' part was a main ingredient of the burning incident. Why not ship the back to America, they need to review some parts of Scripture anyway.

Must have been a fake, Obama would have him in Gitmo for a week of rehab. If the Prez is on him then it was inciting a roit and he got what he was after, a riot while he remains safe and sound.

Hey ...I don't make up the news....you can put whatever spin on it that makes you feel good;-):lol:

 

[Cannuck]

I'm unfamiliar with this term, and can not find it in any legal dictionary, Canadian or American. Did you just make it up?

Not surprisingly, it took all of ten seconds and Google to find a reference to the term? Why am i not surprised you haven't heard of it?

The Legal Effects of Resolutions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ

This article aims to extract from the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice a basic theory of legal effects of unilateral instruments of international organizations in public international law. These effects can be divided into three categories. The first is substantive effects. These include binding, authorizing and (dis)empowering effects. The second category is causative effects, whereby determinations of fact or of law bring substantive effects into existence.

 

[CDNBear]

Not surprisingly, it took all of ten seconds and Google to find a reference to the term? Why am i not surprised you haven't heard of it?

The Legal Effects of Resolutions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ

Sorry dude, it has a basis in international law, and the UN. Two things you have stated bear no weight. So unless you'd like to admit you don't follow any manner of logical consistency, and now accept international law. Your singular allocation of a single use of "causative effect". Which isn't found in Canadian or American legal dictionaries. Means nothing.

 

[Cannuck]

But by applying any blame to the Preacher, you simply weaken your condemnation of the illegality of murder.

According to screwy CB logic perhaps. I think most normal people would disagree.

I'm unfamiliar with this term, and can not find it in any legal dictionary, Canadian or American. Did you just make it up?

Clearly your insults have backfired. Playing word games will not hide this simple fact.

 

[CDNBear]

According to screwy CB logic perhaps. I think most normal people would disagree.

Are you now saying international law and the UN, have some weight?

A simple yes or no will do?

Clearly your insults have backfired. Playing word games will not hide this simple fact.

Are international law and the UN now acceptable sources Cannuck, yes or no?

 

[Cannuck]

Are you now saying international law and the UN, have some weight?

My opinion of the UN or international law has no bearing on you having your snide comments handed back to you. You can try and change the subject all you like but it won't change the facts. Perhaps if you apologized for suggesting PoliticalNick made the term up, you may be able to hold onto that last little bit of credibility you had left.

 

[CDNBear]

My opinion of the UN or international law has no bearing on you having your snide comments handed back to you. You can try and change the subject all you like but it won't change the facts. Perhaps if you apologized for suggesting PoliticalNick made the term up, you may be able to hold onto that last little bit of credibility you had left.

None of your red herrings, misdirections and deflections, yes or no?

I'll deal with Nick. Who already knows I can concede. Unlike the children that permeate this forum.

 

[Cannuck]

I'm unfamiliar with this term, and can not find it in any legal dictionary, Canadian or American. Did you just make it up? - CB




​

 

[CDNBear]

I'm unfamiliar with this term, and can not find it in any legal dictionary, Canadian or American. Did you just make it up? - CB




​

None of your red herrings, misdirections and deflections, yes or no?

I'll deal with Nick. Who already knows I can concede. Unlike the children that permeate this forum.

 

[PoliticalNick]

I'm unfamiliar with this term, and can not find it in any legal dictionary, Canadian or American. Did you just make it up?

Please read the first paragraph of this UN document.

http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/16/5/329.pdf

It is the most basic principle of cause and effect. If I were to leave my car parked out of gear and without a parking brake applied and the car then rolled down a hill and killed somebody I am held liable for the event as my actions were the cause and the death was the effect.

 

[CDNBear]

Please read the first paragraph of this UN document.

http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/16/5/329.pdf

It is the most basic principle of cause and effect. If I were to leave my car parked out of gear and without a parking brake applied and the car then rolled down a hill and killed somebody I am held liable for the event as my actions were the cause and the death was the effect.

I stand correct, sorry Nick. Being more familiar with domestic law, i over looked just googling it, instead choosing to use US and CDN dictionaries. Where the does not exist in that terminology. Give me some time to read that whole PDF please.

My opinion of the UN or international law has no bearing on you having your snide comments handed back to you. You can try and change the subject all you like but it won't change the facts. Perhaps if you apologized for suggesting PoliticalNick made the term up, you may be able to hold onto that last little bit of credibility you had left.

None of your red herrings, misdirections and deflections, yes or no?

I'll dealt with Nick. Who already knew I can concede. Unlike the children that permeate this forum.

Now answer the question. If you actually have the same credibility and fortitude I have.

 

[PoliticalNick]

There are many 'principles' in law that have no direct definition in a dictionary. the principles of justice are referenced in our Charter of Rights but there is no defined terms in any law dictionary of what they are. The principles of justice are based solely on the accepted maxims of law and accumulated case history of the land.


LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON

7.- Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the persons and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

I stand correct, sorry Nick. Being more familiar with domestic law, i over looked just googling it, instead choosing to use US and CDN dictionaries. Where the does not exist in that terminology. Give me some time to read that whole PDF please.

No worries Bear. I maybe should have used the more comon term of 'cause and effect'.:smile:

 

[CDNBear]

There are many 'principles' in law that have no direct definition in a dictionary. the principles of justice are referenced in our Charter of Rights but there is no defined terms in any law dictionary of what they are. The principles of justice are based solely on the accepted maxims of law and accumulated case history of the land.


LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON

7.- Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the persons and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

That and your use of causative effect bear no weight here.

1, We're talking about US law.
2, The use of causative effect, in the article you have presented, does not mean what you stated in the last post. Furthermore, it's very description, it qualifies itself, with...

This may or may not be legally relevant, but only if it legally relevant, is there any causative effect.

The First Amendment voids that.

No worries Bear. I maybe should have used the more comon term of 'cause and effect'.:smile:

That's a philosophical term.

So Cannuck, are you adult enough...

My opinion of the UN or international law has no bearing on you having your snide comments handed back to you. You can try and change the subject all you like but it won't change the facts. Perhaps if you apologized for suggesting PoliticalNick made the term up, you may be able to hold onto that last little bit of credibility you had left.

None of your red herrings, misdirections and deflections, yes or no?

I'll dealt with Nick. Who already knew I can concede. Unlike the children that permeate this forum.

Now answer the question. If you actually have the same credibility and fortitude I have.

 

[gerryh]

So Cannuck, are you adult enough...
None of your red herrings, misdirections and deflections, yes or no?

I'll dealt with Nick. Who already knew I can concede. Unlike the children that permeate this forum.

Now answer the question. If you actually have the same credibility and fortitude I have.

ain't gonna happen.

 

[PoliticalNick]

That's a philosophical term.

You can classify it as philosophical if you like but the principle is applied throughout legal decisions all the time. If your actions are the cause of something you can be held legally accountable both civily and criminally as applicable whether your actions are part of your exercising your first ammendment rights or not. If your 'free speech' is determined to incite a riot you can be held acountable under the law. Wrongful death suits are often related to this principle and are won based upon it all the time.

The principle is also applied as a mitigating factor in the detrmination of liability. While it does not absolve anyone of their actions entirely it is often used when considering sentencing for an act.

Not all law and judgements are contained within a dictionary. Judges are given judiciary discretion to apply the principles of justice.

 

[MHz]

Hey ...I don't make up the news....you can put whatever spin on it that makes you feel good;-):lol:

Actually I took it as good news, not on scale with some of the topics going around, that is why I was able to make light of it. Ever get the ID's of the ones killed, all I have seen is 'UN' as the whole identifier. Is that local UN workers or were they all Generals from various foreign countries?