anonymus
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,870
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
Your long harangue is comical and worthless since you have failed to show where the law restrict the use of force to "self defence".
YOU made up that excuse, so it is up to YOU to show where the words "self defence" are used.
Secondly only in your English-challenged mind is there any requirement that the threat of harm must be immediate and involve visible weapons.
In the normal English speaking world, which I invite you to join, a terrorism suspect is someone who is suspected of having an intention to harm people at some time in the future.
This relaxation of lethal use is not just my interpretation, it is the view of the Daily Telegraph, which can hardly be accused of being sympathetic to Muslim concerns. Quite, quite, the opposite!
You have not disproven even a single point of mine , except frothing from the end of your mouth.Let's rip your post line by line.
Your long harangue is comical and worthless since you have failed to show where the law restrict the use of force to "self defence".
YOU made up that excuse, so it is up to YOU to show where the words "self defence" are used.
Now this is what i call a shameless white lie.
The reference of " self-defence " is not from any link that i have posted, but from your own link.
Under new laws, Australia’s spooks will also retain legal immunity if they kill or cause grievous bodily harm to terrorism suspects to protect the lives of bystanders or themselves.
No Cookies | dailytelegraph.com.au
Let's analyse each phrase of this sentence, since you are either language challenged or pretending to be one .
Under new law : This phrase signifies that this was not the case under old law.
Australia’s spooks will also retain legal immunity: This clause talks about the legal fact that agents would be retaining legal immunity.
if they kill or cause grievous bodily harm to terrorism suspects: This clause is the first conditional modifier setting condition on aforementioned clause that legal immunity would be retained "only" in case where receptor is a terrorist.
to protect the lives of bystanders or themselves: This clause is a second conditional modifier which further limits the scope of immunity of officials to instance where the aforementioned terrorist " posed a danger to their lives or that of bystanders " which presupposes that Terrorist must have potential to endanger life of a law officer or a by stander.Pretty much the definition used as standard in US.
Secondly only in your English-challenged mind is there any requirement that the threat of harm must be immediate and involve visible weapons.
First, reference to harm was brought up by you.
It only talks about preventing harm to others.
It was one of your lies where you deliberately misinterpreted " to protect lives of bystanders or themselves" as " harm ".
Second, Your vocabulary is either defected, or you are lying because you are motivated to make excuse for your Jihadi brothers but in English, Definition of harm is
harm(härm)
n.
1. Physical or psychological injury or damage.
2. Wrong; evil.
tr.v. harmed, harm·ing, harms
To do harm to.
harm - definition of harm by The Free Dictionary
harm
[hahrm] Spell Syllables
noun
1.
physical injury or mental damage; hurt:
to do him bodily harm.
2.
moral injury; evil; wrong.
verb (used with object)
3.
to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt:
to harm one's reputation.
Harm | Define Harm at Dictionary.com
1harm
noun\ˈhärm\
: physical or mental damage or injury : something that causes someone or something to be hurt, broken, made less valuable or successful, etc.
Harm - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
What you are babbling about is Potential to harm, not harm. And even a potential to harm means carrying some weapon , visible or conceal carry .
BTW, I have already stated that presence of weapon has to be proved, not that it was visible.
Similar is the case with "harm". In order to potentially harm someone, you must have capacity to harm.To cause harm to bystanders, a terrorist must have a weapon or explosive ( at least a boxcutter ) on his person.
In the normal English speaking world, which I invite you to join, a terrorism suspect is someone who is suspected of having an intention to harm people at some time in the future.
Which normal English speaking world? Jihadist Koranic english speaking cult where the final objective of language learning is to misinterpret laws ,in order to claim victimhood