| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
JW's view of the "law" is exactly the same as Trump's.Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Quite possibly the most stupid comment you've made on here, which is saying something.
Perhaps next time you make any statement about the rule of law I will claim you support the transatlantic slave trade too? Honestly, ridiculous.
And makes no attempt to address any of the points made
Quite possibly the most stupid thumbs up emoji you've made on here, too!
And makes no attempt to address any of the points made!
Can't think of anything to say? Simply say:
"Something something Trump!"
If it makes you feel better you can call it what you want. No one doubts the absolute horror of it all but there are legal definitions of things and that does actually matter. Legal definitions of things don't just change because say some people say something.
It also doesn't offer a quicker route out of the war. There are things you could say to do that however.
There was no point me saying anything, he perfectly captured how nonsensical your argument was.
But I am right. A genocide has not been declared. So I am correct. And in being correct he (and now you) have made the completely incoherent, illogical and irrelevant link to the transatlantic slave trade and gay rights. It's a stupid argument and you know it. If it was an analogy it was a really shit one.
How does being legally correct about something equal supporting the slave trade? Or opposing gay rights?
Thank you for answering my question. I appreciate you're not interested in a debate and nor am I particularly, but I'll just leave this here and leave it at that:
Genocide - the deliberate and systematic killing of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion or social status.
As of July 29, 2025, at least 60,034 Palestinians have been killed since the war began on October 7, 2023, according to Gaza’s Ministry of Health. This figure includes:
* 18,592 children
* 9,782 women
* Over 145,000 wounded
Thousands more are missing under rubble or presumed dead
The conflict has also led to:
* 90% of Gaza’s population displaced
* A worsening famine, with 147 deaths directly attributed to starvation
* Widespread destruction of homes, hospitals, and infrastructure
These numbers are widely cited by international organizations and humanitarian agencies, though Israel disputes them and has not provided an alternative count.
You have to ask why the BBC and most international media outlets have been barred from freely entering Gaza by the Israeli government since the war began in October 2023. Do you honestly think Netanyahu and his cronies are doing this out of concern for the safety of the journalists?
Why did Netanyahu advise Palestinians to move to the south of Gaza and then proceed to bomb that area anyway?
IDF whistle blowers have come out and have given grim details on what they were instructed to do.
There has been plenty of video footage doing the rounds of civilians being indiscriminately shot and killed, most recently while they've been queuing for food aid.
How much more evidence do you need?
Because people who campaigned against things that were morally and logically, but not legally wrong at one time were not proved to suddenly be right when the law changed, they’d been right all along, but the law took time to catch up with them.
Anyone who can look at the scenes we see in Gaza almost daily and is reduced to arguing that we’re not watching a genocide because it’s questionable whether it qualifies as one by the letter of the law is desperate and missing the point entirely.
You are absolutely taking several entirely different situations and lazily clubbing them together because I don't agree with you that you get to determine the legal status of things instead of an international court.
I completely agree on people being on the right or wrong side of history in terms of those who opposed slavery and other a great many other issues. I have on several occasions on here triumphed our role in ending the transatlantic slave trade and on any debate on the matter supported gay rights, quite possibly more than you have thoughout your life. So I don't need a moral lecture from you, AZ or anyone else on that thank you.
I also agree on the absolute horrors of the war. There is no dispute on that. I also agree I want an end to it asap. If I am honest, I think there are things people like you could have done more fruitfully in your arguments and protests in that regard but that's up to you.
I have explained that I think the horrors of Gaza are driven more by the gross unbalance in military powers between what is basically a bunch of islamist terrorists on one side and one of the world's biggest military powers on the other. I think that explains the disgraceful situation more than the pursuit of a genocide.
But that's not for me to judge, and it's not for you to judge. And it most definitely is not for you to judge my opinions on totally unrelated topics because I happen to devolve the legal definition of things to international courts as opposed to people like yourself to determine things as you see fit.
And that's why no one debates with people like you and AZ, (and the half dozen or so others on here) on it and it just becomes an echo chamber; even being in total agreement on the horrors of the situation but being correct on the legal definition of something gets someone a barrage or abuse and claims they would support slavery, oppose gay rights and not support women voting etc. You know inside what you are saying is illogical on this whether you choose to admit it or not.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it just might be a duck!
I have to say that was one of the most triggered responses I have seen for a while.
For my five pennyworth the discussion about legal definitions is irrelevant. The likelihood of the USA allowing the UN to reach such a legal definition is the lesser part of zero.
Meanwhile the International Court of Justice is unlikely to reach a legal conclusion that Israeli Actions in Gaza meet the definition of genocide until 2027 at the earliest. Israel has ignored all the rulings in the case brought by South Africa in its interim judgment of 2024.
Trump responded to the case by halting aid to South Africa and making his own "legal" conclusion that Afrikaaner farmers were subject to genocide such that they were fast tracked for asylum in the US.
Meanwhile hungry non-combatants are shot at aid stations or starve out of fear of trying to get food with such regularity and scale that it almost fails to register as newsworthy.
Apologies in advance if you find these conclusions abusive!
Damn right I was triggered. That's what happens when someone implies you would support slavery or hate on gay people merely for subscribing to international legal definitions. I'd understand such an irrational response to my answer (i was specifally asked a question) had I not purposefully made the point of illustrating throughout how awful the situation is, which we would all be absolutely in agreement upon.
People come on here for debate, but if you disagree with one of half a dozen or so people on here then you get labelled a Nazi / fascist / scum and now supporter of slavery of all things. It goes on all the time, it totally ruins this thread and yes, it's fking annoying.
Oh God, listen to yourself - “a barrage of abuse”? No one is abusing you in this discussion, I called your views nonsensical, but I’d say you’ve been giving out more than you got in recent posts in this thread.
I’ve nothing to add apart from saying this article from November 2023 where Time magazine debates whether Israel was committing a genocide even then is interesting - getting towards two years later, what would the academics consulted say now?
https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-ha...ocide-experts/
I’m not someone who can dryly proclaim that Gaza is not a genocide because of the way para x, y or z can be interpreted. I do know though that in the early nineties what happened in Bosnia was deemed to be a genocide, yet what’s happening in Gaza seems worse than that to me.
JW you are acting like a fanny
Its Genocide
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqlerg1n67no
Palestine Action has won permission to challenge its controversial ban by the UK government under terrorism legislation.
In a major decision, the High Court ruled that the proscription of the group, that has carried out break-ins at defence firms linked to Israel as part of direct action protests, should be reviewed.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...st-free-speech
I packed a toothbrush, books and a notepad in a small rucksack, took my laptop from the house and hid it, gave my phone to a friend to look after and put a “bust card” (lawyers’ details and legal advice) in my back pocket. I wasn’t certain I would be arrested, but I wanted to be ready. Then I stepped, with other, much braver people into a legal labyrinth.
So broad are sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and so madly oppressive is the government’s order applying it to the proscribed protest group Palestine Action that it is difficult, when contesting it, to tell which side of the law you might be on, and what the response of the authorities might be. When people who oppose all forms of violence, who are trying to stop war and terrorism, are arrested on terrorism charges, nothing makes sense any more.
In some places, the police have gone berserk. South Wales police, for example, arrested, among others, two women of 75 and 80 who were sitting peacefully in Cardiff, holding signs the officers alleged were supportive of Palestine Action. They used the extended detention powers the act permits, denied one of them essential medicines, broke open the doors of their homes, seized not only electronic devices but also books about Palestine and a Palestinian flag and appeared to test the food in their kitchens for radiation. Obviously, if someone has been arrested under the Terrorism Act they must be planning an atrocity, perhaps cooking up a dirty bomb (doubtless a vegan one, to boot).
West Yorkshire police arrested a man in Leeds for holding a cartoon from Private Eye satirising the government’s ban. Armed police in Kent threatened to arrest a woman for holding a Palestinian flag, claiming that this, too, contravened the Terrorism Act. An officer told her: “Mentioning freedom of Gaza, Israel, genocide, all of that all come under proscribed groups, which are terror groups that have been dictated by the government.” At least he got the dictated bit right. Other forces seem to have decided they had better things to do. Or maybe, just maybe, they’ve determined that our freedom of expression, enshrined in the Human Rights Act, overrides the ban on free expression applied through the Terrorism Act. The two are in direct conflict, leaving the police as confused as we are.
Sorry, I missed the bit where being likened to someone who supported slavery, and opposed gay and women's rights counted as a compliment!
It's a waste of time trying to engage with some of you lot in a lot of cases.
I was asked a question and I answered it reasonably and honestly.
Finally, the International Criminal Court has spoken!
I'll leave you lot to it, to endlessly agree with each other about everything. Much easier for all parties! 👍
You aren’t half a drama queen sometimes. You weren’t alive when slavery was abolished, when gays were jailed and women didn’t have the vote, so what was it exactly that upset you so much? As I tried to explain about nine hours ago those three things were examples of laws that were morally and logically wrong and were reconsidered and eventually corrected.
However, based on your attitude towards whether Gaza is a genocide or not, you would have argued that slavery was fair, gays should be jailed and women shouldn’t have the vote, not because you were in favour of these things, but because of what the law at the time said.
I will dip out of this debate because as I say, it's impossible to debate things with some of you. But I can't let that bollocks lie.
Drama queen?! I wrote a sober response to a question asked. It's you and AZ that went all internet troll like and added the drama.
You are so wide or the mark here, it baffles me you can't see it.
This isn't a question on the morality, severity, pain or the war of the amount that Palestinian people are suffering. We all agree on thay. It's about the legal definition of a word that carries tremendous consequences. Theres no endorsement of anything, there's no denial of the victims and horrors, it's about the literal definition of a word, and the irony is, I am correct on that. It hasn't been declared a genocide by an international court.
If what you and AZ were implying is correct (and trust me, it isn't) then I would be enthusiastically supporting the war, and I am anything but doing that. Your reference to slavery, women's and gay rights was entirely inappropriate.
Hope that clears it up for you. Why don't we leave it there? You can all slap eachother on the back and I can avoid being associated with the slave trade. Deal?
I’m not sure I could have made it any clearer than I did in my last message that I wasn’t accusing you of being in favour of slavery etc. I was accusing you of being a “more than my job’s worth” type who adheres to rules they know to be daft solely because they are the rules.
It's strange to see how you ended up in this emotional redoubt.
From what I gather from the thread you believe that Yvette Cooper's actions in getting Palestine Action proscribed under Anti-Terrorism Laws were appropriate.
Most posters disagreed though there were some who rightly pointed out that some their activists have gone beyond peaceful protest. The last act at Brize Norton pushed things too far. Ironically the government probably had the Two Tier Kier smear in its thoughts when it (over) reacted.
Then we had the rather bizarre argument that until something is legally defined as a genocide there needs to be an undefined lesser response from the international community. As I suggested earlier there is no speedy "white legal charger". The acts are the same and the consequences. I am at a loss how that makes a difference now if the ICJ or another body pronounces years after the event because if their processes and political expediency.
Finally, there is the adherence to law and those that are energised enough to try and change laws. I have a bit of sympathy with you here as you seem to have taken the straw man examples others gave of laws that got overturned due to public and moral pressure very personally.
I have no way of knowing whether the 18th, 19th of 20th Century version of James would have reacted in the same way as the 21st century version has on the proscription of Palestine Action as suggested. We only have the here and now to judge I guess!
I would suggest in future that you properly read the post I made and if you want to project something from it, then endorse far less inflammatory accusations than accusing someone of supporting slavery. Even for this football forum, where we routinely get called fascists for not agreeing with people, it was a total overeach.
It also implied that I didn't think genocide should be illegal. I do. The question was whether they are committing genocide and I take a not unreasonable position of devolving that to people who can legally define it. You may disagree, but it's not unreasonable. I also explained that I think a key factor in the horrors is the disproportionate power of the two militaries in question, which is also true.
Thank you for clarifying however.
It's not strange. It's a natural reaction to being associated with something that you absolutely aren't, and it happens a lot on here and tbh I think it's part of the reason the forum is dwindling. It was a totally inappropriate response to something that was not unreasonable.
I have always actually been fairly anodyne on the proscription and have written that several times.
What I did disagree with is those on here who thought proscribing a group who targeted the military as being some shocking decision and aimed at "stopping us protesting about Gaza", whereas I think right or wrong, it's not hard to see where the govt are coming from.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote