₦airaland Forum

Gbadebo19:
Rest!!!!
Muhammed himself killed over 1000 Jews in his lifetime

I didn't know Mein Kampf took inspiration from Islam

Thanks for the info man

IMEI:
Okay man

I like that you do concede some points, get well bro

Allow the pig to roll in the mud alone please. He's not worth the hassle.

Gbadebo19:
By God, you are not a lawyer!!!!
It says, any of the following act COMMITTED....
That means any of the underlisted act MUST be committed.

A mere intention to commit it does not make a genocide. Go back to school, my friend.

If we go by your logic and I primarily wish that a certain group in X country be killed in large numbers, does that mean I have committed Genocide? Definitely NO. I will only commit genocide if any of the understlisted acts occur or be liable for attempted genocide if I begin to take steps to carry it out.
As long as the underlisted acts do not occur, there is no genocide, the worst that can occur is an attempted genocide.

GO BACK TO SCHOOL

Show me anywhere I said a mere intention constitutes genocide

You stupidly said genocide must be pre-planned, I said no, there must be an intention to commit, for it to qualify

You're a clown

IMEI:
Show me anywhere I said a mere intention constitutes genocide

You stupidly said genocide must be pre-planned, I said no, there must be an intention to commit for it to qualify

You're a clown

You don't know how to interpret statutes.
Go back to school.
You can't be more than a 100 level student.

Crayfish09:
Allow the pig to roll in the mud alone please. He's not worth the hassle.

I'll take your advice

Gbadebo19:
You don't know how to interpret statutes.
Go back to school.
You can't be more than a 100 level student.

Are you a lawyer?

IMEI:
Show me anywhere I said a mere intention constitutes genocide

You stupidly said genocide must be pre-planned, I said no, there must be an intention to commit, for it to qualify

You're a clown

If you know how to interpret statutes, you would understand that the statute is statimg that a mere intention does not qualify but rather an intention coupled with any of the underlisted occurrences.
Now tell me how an intention coupled with any of the underlisted occurrences will not point at a pre-plan.
Take the locus classicus case of Tutsi's Vs Hutu's in Rwanda to be better guided

IMEI:
Are you a lawyer?

Have you ever attended a court sitting and listen to lawyers argue statutes and judges interpret before?

It could be brought back if people in Africa take education seriously and do proper historical research instead of living with fairytales of magic people dropping from the sky and other fairytales of their ancestors signing treaties with European papers and pens thousands of years ago.

Heck, it requires intellectual honesty and educational efforts, that ain't happening in Africa, I think you're right...

Procashtips:
Unfortunately, it's long gone.

Lawag3:
Nope I generally don't care about the spelling sometimes I spell it as Muslim other times as moslem.

Sorry if it annoys you I'll spell it correctly from now on.

There are things that offend me but spelling Muslim as moslem isn't one of them.

You only ever spell it as moslem. I was wondering why, so I did some research and discovered that certain people use Moslem as a derogatory term and insult when referring to Muslims.

You can continue to call it whatever you want. I give very little F about it.

Gbadebo19:
If you know how to interpret statutes, you would understand that the statute is statimg that a mere intention does not qualify but rather an intention coupled with any of the underlisted occurrences.
Now tell me how an intention coupled with any of the underlisted occurrences will not point at a pre-plan.
Take the locus classicus case of Tutsi's Vs Hutu's in Rwanda to be better guided

See you trying your hardest to validate your submission

You know what, when proving prior preparation (pre-planning) becomes a pre-requisite for proving genocide in a competent Law Court, I'll indulge your efforts

Gbadebo19:
Have you ever attended a court sitting and listen to lawyers argue statutes and judges interpret before?

Answer simple question, are you a lawyer? Keep in mind, impersonation is a crime

IMEI:
Answer simple question, are you a lawyer? Keep in mind, impersonation is a crime

I don't need to answer you. Just go back to school.
Genocide is AN ACT COMMITTED WITH THE INTENTION TO ACHIEVE SOME OBJECTIVES

NOT

AN INTENTION TO ACHIEVE SOME OBJECTIVES as you have misinterpreted that provision

Gbadebo19:
I don't need to answer you. Just go back to school.
Genocide is AN ACT COMMITTED WITH THE INTENTION TO ACHIEVE SOME OBJECTIVES

NOT

AN INTENTION TO ACHIEVE SOME OBJECTIVES

You've already answered

Don't be running your mouth up and down,humble yourself

shoodboi2:
There are things that offend me but spelling Muslim as moslem isn't one of them.

You only ever spell it as moslem. I was wondering why, so I did some research and discovered that certain people use Moslem as a derogatory term and insult when referring to Muslims.

You can continue to call it whatever you want. I give very little F about it.

Nice spot

IMEI:
You've already answered

Don't be running your mouth up and down,humble yourself

We know your type. Turn to insults when you are loosing the argument. I will still educate you. An intention coupled with the underlisted act is what qualifies. An ordinary intention does not qualify.
Now, go and study the Rwandan Genocide so as to understand the decision of the court on how I arrived at pre-planning being a requisite factor.
Shalom

Gbadebo19:
We know your type. Turn to insults when you are loosing the argument. I will still educate you. An intention coupled with the underlisted act is what qualifies. An ordinary intention does not qualify.
Now, go and study the Rwandan Genocide so as to understand the decision of the court on how I arrived at pre-planning being a requisite factor.
Shalom

You took that as an insult?

There's a rule, if you're going to be full of yourself, make sure you can back it up

It's clear your arrogance is hollow, just empty braggadocio and I gave you sincere advice

It's up to you to ponder on it

IMEI:
You've already answered

Don't be running your mouth up and down,humble yourself

If at this point, you are still adamant, I don't need a prophet any longer to tell me you are NOT a lawyer.
If you are, you are doomed for failure.
Nairaland foolish boys giving you likes and shares will only destroy your career.
Read the part that talks about organizational plan or policy in the image attached. I had to get this for you cos I can't be flipping through endless pages to get it for you from the Rwandan Genocide case. That is a snapshot from the United Nations archives.
This one is just to prove to you that I know my onions whenever I am arguing here.

IMEI:
You took that as an insult?

There's a rule, if you're going to be full of yourself, make sure you can back it up

It's clear your arrogance is hollow, just empty braggadocio and I gave you sincere advice

It's up to you to ponder on it

Sincere advice my foot.
Read my last response and see that you are the one that has been full of braggadocio and an empty brain.
Shalom.

Lawag3:
Yeah I agree with that they were treated better but were still inferiors
In year 20 of the Muslim era, or the year 641 CE, Muhammad's successor the Caliph Umar decreed that Jews and Christians should be removed from all but the southern and eastern fringes of Arabia—a decree based one saying of Muhammad: "Let there not be two religions in Arabia". The two populations in question were the Jews of the Khaybar oasis in the north and the Christians of Najran
Jews under Islamic rule were given the status of dhimmi, along with certain other pre-Islamic religious groups.


Persecutions happened but not to the scale of Europe.


Bottom line is the Bible doest have a verse where Christians are told to kill and maltreat Jews or people of other religions, the Quran does.

@ the bolded

Oya come and twist it as usual

https://www.openbible.info/topics/killing_non_believers

Gbadebo19:
If at this point, you are still adamant, I don't need a prophet any longer to tell me you are NOT a lawyer.
If you are, you are doomed for failure.
Nairaland foolish boys giving you likes and shares will only destroy your career.
Read the part that talks about organizational plan or policy in the image attached. I had to get this for you cos I can't be flipping through endless pages to get it for you from the Rwandan Genocide case. That is a snapshot from the United Nations archives.
This one is just to prove to you that I know my onions whenever I am arguing here.

You said for it to be genocide it must fulfill three conditions, of which you said one is that "it must be pre-planned"

In your image, existence of a State Policy or Organizational policy is just one of the evidences that could be used to show Intent which is one of the the pre-requisites for proving genocide

Existence of a State Policy or plan isn't needed, it's just used sometimes in case law to buttress a claim of existence of an intention to commit a genocide

Gbadebo study well

IMEI
I will be waiting for your response on this image. If you cannot provide one, Nairaland foolish black monkeys are already making your career even as a wannabe lawyer to take a nosedive.

My honest advice to you:
Don't just read statutes, read case laws. They provide better insights at understanding legal provisions.

IMEI:
You said for it to be genocide it must fulfill three conditions, of which you said one is that "it must be pre-planned"

In your image, existence of a State Policy or Organizational policy is just one of the evidences that could be used to show Intent which is one of the the pre-requisites for proving genocide

Existence of a State Policy or plan isn't needed, it's just used sometimes in case law to buttress a claim of existence of an intention to commit a genocide

Gbadebo study well

It is well my friend. I understand defeat can be painful. Enjoy your likes and shares.

Gbadebo19:
IMEI
I will be waiting for your response on this image. If you cannot provide one, Nairaland foolish black monkeys are already making your career even as a wannabe lawyer to take a nosedive.

My honest advice to you:
Don't just read statutes, read case laws. They provide better insights at understanding legal provisions.

You literally talk like an aspiring lawyer, you're just spouting what you learnt as a law student

Gbadebo19:
It is well my friend. I understand defeat can be painful. Enjoy your likes and shares.

You didn't even understand the import of the image you shared

IMEI:
You said for it to be genocide it must fulfill three conditions, of which you said one is that "it must be pre-planned"

In your image, existence of a State Policy or Organizational policy is just one of the evidences that could be used to show Intent which is one of the the pre-requisites for proving genocide

Existence of a State Policy or plan isn't needed, it's just used sometimes in case law to buttress a claim of existence of an intention to commit a genocide

Gbadebo study well

It is either you are too proud to accept defeat or just simply don't understand English language. The image clearly states that case law has associated intent with the existence of on organizational plan or policy.
Abeg, if case law has done something, does it not become something you can use to make an argument?
Unfortunately, you said it is just "one of the evidences"
No, it is no longer one of the evidences the moment a court of competent jurisdiction has ruled on it. It has become a point of reference in subsequent legal cases of that nature.

Gbadebo19:
It is either you are too proud to accept defeat or just simply don't understand English language. The image clearly states that case law has associated intent with the existence of on organizational plan or policy.
Abeg, if case law has done something, does it not become something you can use to make an argument?
Unfortunately, you said it is just "one of the evidences"
No, it is no longer one of the evidences the moment a court of competent jurisdiction has ruled on it. It has become a point of reference in subsequent legal cases of that nature.

You do know International Courts and tribunals aren't bound by Stare decisis right?

IMEI:
You do know International Courts and tribunals aren't bound by Stare decisis right?

They aren't bound does not mean that they cannot use it.
My friend, that is not how to win an argument.
You simply need to bring another United Nations doc or case law that proves another means by which intent in genocide can be proven and that has been accepted by international courts.
If me and you were arguing in court, would you tell the court not to make its decision based on my submission? No, you simply make a better submission or disprove my submission using methods of that particular case being decided per incuriam or other methods.
Simplicita!!!!!!!

Gbadebo19:
They aren't bound does not mean that they cannot use it.
My friend, that is not how to win an argument.
You simply need to bring another United Nations doc or case law that proves another means by which intent in genocide can be proven and that has been accepted by international courts.
If me and you were arguing in court, would you tell the court not to make its decision based on my submission? No, you simply make a better submission or disprove my submission using methods of that particular case being decided per incuriam or other methods.
Simplicita!!!!!!!

Prove yourself to the Council of Legal Education, not me

My advice remains the same, be humble