| Author | Message | | DanielDives | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 10:59 am Post subject: |
| Q: First of all 40 mins and not 75. Secondly length of attack only proves that it was not planned in advance. If it was planned atatck would length 1 minute.
R: Really?!
As you [continuously] do not post any verifiable [Israeli] links, the 4o minutes claim is as void as you are.
40 minutes and you still call it an accident?
You should write books.
You’re good at fairytales.
Anyway
.: | |  | | Ilana_Halevy | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
Yes filth. Try to shove your head out of Arab ass and read US inquiry. HB posted links.
| Quote: | | 40 minutes and you still call it an accident? |
As I said, if attack was planned it would last couple minutes. No more. | | | | DanielDives | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:36 am Post subject: |
| Wow. You can spell your profanities without mistakes... Well done!
Don't you have something 'nookelar' to tend to?
Anyway
.: Got a watch? | | | | Ilana_Halevy | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: |
| What a pathetic Arab whore and filth 
 | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:57 am Post subject: |
| No Israeli evidence
No Israeli witnesses
No Israeli testimony
NO ISRAELI DEFENSE | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 2:02 pm Post subject: |
| Mistake (criminal law)
But, if A was in transit through an airport and picked up a bag which looked like his own, and that bag was to contain a bomb, A might attempt to argue that a mistake prevented him from being in possession of the bomb. In fact, this argument would fail because the defendant had the legal right to open, examine, and verify the contents of the bag. If he or she neglected to do so, then he or she was reckless as to the nature of the contents and therefore in possession of them. Only persons such as postal workers or other carriers who have no right to open the boxes and bags that they carry, can claim that they are not in possession of the contents. The same fate would befall defendants who tried to argue that they took another person's coat from a coat rack when they intended to take their own and so were not in possession of the prohibited drugs found in one of the pockets. In neither of these cases does the mistake prevent the defendants from forming the requisite mens rea to possess the contents. Such defendant intend to possess the contents, no matter what those contents may later prove to be
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Mistake+(criminal+law)
Lets apply this to our situation:
If Israel was engaged in a war and spotted a neutral ship that looked like an enemy and proceeded to bomb that ship she might attempt to argue that a mistake of identity prevented her from committing murder, malicious wounding and destruction of property. In fact this argument would fail because Israel had every right and opportunity to check the identity of the ship. If Israel neglected to do so then she was reckless as to the true identity of the ship and therefore intended to bomb it. The mistake of identity does not prevent Israel from forming the requisite mens rea to commit the crimes of murder, wounding and destruction.
Visibility was 100%. Israel had total dominance of the skies. The Arab air forces were annihilated. The Liberty, while not advertising her presence, was not hiding. How do you hide something as big as a ship? Israel had every opportunity to establish beyond all doubt the true identity of the Liberty. And in fact she did so identify her. Therefore her attack can only be intentional. In fact Israel murdered, maliciously wounded, and destroyed property. After pages and pages of argument the matter is finally settled. The Law has spoken. Did I hear correctly? I believe so, but only time will tell. | | | | DanielDives | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|  | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 2:30 pm Post subject: |
| mistake of fact in criminal law and in mistake in contract law
Thus, only mistakes relating to the factual basis of what is being attempted can form this defense and, in the majority of situations, it will only offer limited benefit to a defendant of ordinary capacity since the state owes no general duty to save citizens from the effects of their own ignorance or stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excuse | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 2:52 pm Post subject: |
| Israel was attempting to destroy the Liberty (and succeeded).
She claims she thought she was attacking the El Queseir.
Israeli High Command is of above ordinary capacity.
Mistake of fact will offer only limited benefit since the world owes no general duty to save Israel from the effects of her own ignorance and stupidity. | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 7:11 pm Post subject: |
| "Six days of war, 40 years of secrecy"
Link from Australia | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
