Re: #84 - Main news thread - conflicts, terrorism, crisis from around the globe

[Matjaz]

British F-35 crashed because one of these covers wasn't removed  
https://theaviationist.com/2021/11/24/f-35b-crash-cover-possible-cause/

Too much vodka for sure.

[Matjaz]

ANd I'm telling you, as it is now already, there have been so many rights broken, there is enough material to take them to courts. Ten years from now or whatever, we have legit case of suing the managment because of severe breaking of human rights.

Which crooked court, which corrupt judge is supposed to decide "in the name of the people" or in the interest of the people?

In Germany, for example, a supreme constitutional court judge was specially appointed, who is guaranteed not to "dispense justice" in the interest of the people. As he put it: "The Basic Law will not be changed, it will only apply differently in the pandemic".

It doesn't matter if the courts are crooked. This is about the law, legal justice is very clear. You can't pretend and do turns around a clear law. If you do that then you don't have a "rule of law" anymore. So let us be honest and clear on that.

You have a system that is based on rule of law, or you don't. So let us stop pretending we have a democracy. Simple as that. I hope there are still people out there who cares about rule of law and democracy.

[刘汉]

ANd I'm telling you, as it is now already, there have been so many rights broken, there is enough material to take them to courts. Ten years from now or whatever, we have legit case of suing the managment because of severe breaking of human rights.

Which crooked court, which corrupt judge is supposed to decide "in the name of the people" or in the interest of the people?

In Germany, for example, a supreme constitutional court judge was specially appointed, who is guaranteed not to "dispense justice" in the interest of the people. As he put it: "The Basic Law will not be changed, it will only apply differently in the pandemic".

It doesn't matter if the courts are crooked. This is about the law, legal justice is very clear. You can't pretend and do turns around a clear law.  If you do that then you don't have a "rule of law" anymore.  So let us be honest and clear on that.

You have a system that is based on rule of law, or you don't.  So let us stop pretending we have a democracy.  Simple as that. I hope there are still people out there who cares about rule of law and democracy.

It matters! Because if the courts are corrupted, the law is just worthless words written on paper you can use to wipe your a** with. "The rule of law" is a typical phrase of the Angles and Saxons and their "common law". This is one of the reasons why the Western system is so dangerous to the world. They impose their legal system on all the world, that actually supports the powerful and mighty and does not protect the weak. This system is a poisonous illusion and must be abandoned at all costs.

[刘汉]

#Syria Al Tanf
Unkonwn fighters attacked the garrison - no reports about damages or casualties so far. https://t.co/yYkMBfXnI2

— -- GEROMAN -- - (@GeromanAT) December 5, 2021

[Matjaz]

ANd I'm telling you, as it is now already, there have been so many rights broken, there is enough material to take them to courts. Ten years from now or whatever, we have legit case of suing the managment because of severe breaking of human rights.

Which crooked court, which corrupt judge is supposed to decide "in the name of the people" or in the interest of the people?

In Germany, for example, a supreme constitutional court judge was specially appointed, who is guaranteed not to "dispense justice" in the interest of the people. As he put it: "The Basic Law will not be changed, it will only apply differently in the pandemic".

It doesn't matter if the courts are crooked. This is about the law, legal justice is very clear. You can't pretend and do turns around a clear law.  If you do that then you don't have a "rule of law" anymore.  So let us be honest and clear on that.

You have a system that is based on rule of law, or you don't.  So let us stop pretending we have a democracy.  Simple as that. I hope there are still people out there who cares about rule of law and democracy.

It matters! Because if the courts are corrupted, the law is just worthless words written on paper you can use to wipe your a** with. "The rule of law" is a typical phrase of the Angles and Saxons and their "common law". This is one of the reasons why the Western system is so dangerous to the world. They impose their legal system on all the world, that actually supports the powerful and mighty and does not protect the weak. This system is a poisonous  illusion and must be abandoned at all costs.

Look, the courts might be corrupted but they can't go against the law. The Law is pretty clear, no matter how strong is corruption and misleading of narrative and so on. All that might work with MSM or public debates and so on but when it comes to the Law you can not fake it. It is written pretty clear so either you function by the Law or you don't, there is no gray area here.

Nice example was "Kyle Rittenhouse case". If it would be according to MSM, the corrupt narrative that they put out and followed, the mob riot that were fueling it, then Kyle would have lost. But because the case was managed, looked and dealt with through "rule of Law", there was nothing they could do to him. Because Rule of Law is pretty clear, there are no grey areas you can manipulate with, no matter how strong is manipulation or corruption, you either stick with the words written in the Law, or you don't and your society stops being a democracy. There's no gray area around this, you can not fake it.

[刘汉]

ANd I'm telling you, as it is now already, there have been so many rights broken, there is enough material to take them to courts. Ten years from now or whatever, we have legit case of suing the managment because of severe breaking of human rights.

Which crooked court, which corrupt judge is supposed to decide "in the name of the people" or in the interest of the people?

In Germany, for example, a supreme constitutional court judge was specially appointed, who is guaranteed not to "dispense justice" in the interest of the people. As he put it: "The Basic Law will not be changed, it will only apply differently in the pandemic".

It doesn't matter if the courts are crooked. This is about the law, legal justice is very clear. You can't pretend and do turns around a clear law.  If you do that then you don't have a "rule of law" anymore.  So let us be honest and clear on that.

You have a system that is based on rule of law, or you don't.  So let us stop pretending we have a democracy.  Simple as that. I hope there are still people out there who cares about rule of law and democracy.

It matters! Because if the courts are corrupted, the law is just worthless words written on paper you can use to wipe your a** with. "The rule of law" is a typical phrase of the Angles and Saxons and their "common law". This is one of the reasons why the Western system is so dangerous to the world. They impose their legal system on all the world, that actually supports the powerful and mighty and does not protect the weak. This system is a poisonous  illusion and must be abandoned at all costs.

Look, the courts might be corrupted but they can't go against the law. The Law is pretty clear, no matter how strong is corruption and misleading of narrative and so on. All that might work with MSM or public debates and so on but when it comes to the Law you can not fake it. It is written pretty clear so either you function by the Law or you don't, there is no gray area here.

Nice example was "Kyle Rittenhouse case". If it would be according to MSM, the corrupt narrative that they put out and followed, the mob riot that were fueling it, then Kyle would have lost. But because the case was managed, looked and dealt with through "rule of Law", there was nothing they could do to him. Because Rule of Law is pretty clear, there are no grey areas you can manipulate with, no matter how strong is manipulation or corruption, you either stick with the words written in the Law, or you don't and your society stops being a democracy. There's no gray area around this, you can not fake it.

A law is written with words. Words can be interpreted. Nothing is clear. Everything is possible.

[Matjaz]

ANd I'm telling you, as it is now already, there have been so many rights broken, there is enough material to take them to courts. Ten years from now or whatever, we have legit case of suing the managment because of severe breaking of human rights.

Which crooked court, which corrupt judge is supposed to decide "in the name of the people" or in the interest of the people?

In Germany, for example, a supreme constitutional court judge was specially appointed, who is guaranteed not to "dispense justice" in the interest of the people. As he put it: "The Basic Law will not be changed, it will only apply differently in the pandemic".

It doesn't matter if the courts are crooked. This is about the law, legal justice is very clear. You can't pretend and do turns around a clear law.  If you do that then you don't have a "rule of law" anymore.  So let us be honest and clear on that.

You have a system that is based on rule of law, or you don't.  So let us stop pretending we have a democracy.  Simple as that. I hope there are still people out there who cares about rule of law and democracy.

It matters! Because if the courts are corrupted, the law is just worthless words written on paper you can use to wipe your a** with. "The rule of law" is a typical phrase of the Angles and Saxons and their "common law". This is one of the reasons why the Western system is so dangerous to the world. They impose their legal system on all the world, that actually supports the powerful and mighty and does not protect the weak. This system is a poisonous  illusion and must be abandoned at all costs.

Look, the courts might be corrupted but they can't go against the law. The Law is pretty clear, no matter how strong is corruption and misleading of narrative and so on. All that might work with MSM or public debates and so on but when it comes to the Law you can not fake it. It is written pretty clear so either you function by the Law or you don't, there is no gray area here.

Nice example was "Kyle Rittenhouse case". If it would be according to MSM, the corrupt narrative that they put out and followed, the mob riot that were fueling it, then Kyle would have lost. But because the case was managed, looked and dealt with through "rule of Law", there was nothing they could do to him. Because Rule of Law is pretty clear, there are no grey areas you can manipulate with, no matter how strong is manipulation or corruption, you either stick with the words written in the Law, or you don't and your society stops being a democracy. There's no gray area around this, you can not fake it.

A law is written with words. Words can be interpreted. Nothing is clear. Everything is possible.

Nonsense! The Law is very clear in most cases, specially when it comes to human rights and freedoms. No grey areas, either you stick with it or you don't. Question is, do people still care whether they live in democratic society or we don't. Do we care if we live in authoritarian regime? That's all there is that needs to be clarified. People are egoistic in most cases, so the more they will vaccinate the less they will care.

[Zambeezi]

В РПЦ считают, что кампания против QR-кодов и прививок в России режиссируется из-за рубежа

The Russian Orthodox Church believes that the campaign against QR codes and vaccinations in Russia is being executed from abroad https://t.co/l9a3XQwTc6

— Frussian (@alexandrelatsa) December 5, 2021

 
clever propaganda.
defending the mechanisms of state tyranny and global enslavement now becomes 'christian' AND PATRIOTIC. seig heil.



Russian State media is pushing/pumping the narrative.
You're now a 'heretic' and a 'CIA tool' if you oppose the QR/population tagging system.

A voice was heard from the chamber of the Russian Orthodox Church:the battle mage,Metropolitan Illarion Volokolamsky,said that all opponents of chipping and QR codes in Russia appeared because of the actions of the pendos.Let's bomb the West-collective immunity will go up the hil pic.twitter.com/RMfMQRT2UT

— Oleg But (@olegbut52) December 5, 2021

[刘汉]

Kyle Rittenhouse case

This is a typical case for "common law". He has killed some people. The question is: Has he done this in self-defense or not? This can be discussed. So everything is possible. And a jury was involved. So it is about convincing the jury. If he has enough money to pay a lawyer, who can convince the jury, he can win, no matter, what happened. That's why this system is not trustworthy.

[Matjaz]

Kyle Rittenhouse case

This is a typical case for "common law". He has killed some people. The question is: Has he done this in self-defense or not? This can be discussed. So everything is possible. And a jury was involved. So it is about convincing the jury. If he has enough money to pay a lawyer, who can convince the jury, he can win, no matter, what happened. That's why this system is not trustworthy.

Kyle Rittenhouse shot at people who were threatening him with his life. It is taped, clearly on video. Not very complicating and difficult to process.

[Matjaz]

Kyle Rittenhouse case

This is a typical case for "common law". He has killed some people. The question is: Has he done this in self-defense or not? This can be discussed. So everything is possible. And a jury was involved. So it is about convincing the jury. If he has enough money to pay a lawyer, who can convince the jury, he can win, no matter, what happened. That's why this system is not trustworthy.

Kyle Rittenhouse shot at people who were threatening him with his life. It is taped, clearly on video. Not very complicating and difficult to process.

Actually, everything else then self-defense claim, was a grey area. Was he justified to cross the state border, what was he doing in that community, was he protecting it or agitating, was he allowed to "open carry" etc. All this questions are gray area. What is most important in this case is, was he acting in self-defense and the answer is clear, yes!

It is also important how people looked at this story. Did they wanted to see Kyle dead, stomped by angry mob? In most cases from the people on "left" the answer would be, yes. "We would love see him being stomped by the mob". But this is not law justice, it is rule of crowds, got nothing to do with democracy and rule of law.

[刘汉]

Kyle Rittenhouse case

This is a typical case for "common law". He has killed some people. The question is: Has he done this in self-defense or not? This can be discussed. So everything is possible. And a jury was involved. So it is about convincing the jury. If he has enough money to pay a lawyer, who can convince the jury, he can win, no matter, what happened. That's why this system is not trustworthy.

Kyle Rittenhouse shot at people who were threatening him with his life. It is taped, clearly on video. Not very complicating and difficult to process.

Actually, everything else then self-defense claim, was a grey area. Was he justified to cross the state border, what was he doing in that community, was he protecting it or agitating, was he allowed to "open carry" etc. All this questions are gray area. What is most important in this case is, was he acting in self-defense and the answer is clear, yes!

It is also important how people looked at this story. Did they wanted to see Kyle dead, stomped by angry mob? In most cases from the people on "left" the answer would be, yes. "We would love see him being stomped by the mob". But this is not law justice, it is rule of crowds, got nothing to do with democracy and rule of law.

I am not talking about this specific case. Maybe the judgement was right, maybe not. That's irrelevant for my point. My point is, that the judgement rests on convincing people (the jury) with words. If you can pay a specialist to do this, you can get away with everything.

[KneelB4Zod!]

Kyle Rittenhouse case

This is a typical case for "common law". He has killed some people. The question is: Has he done this in self-defense or not? This can be discussed. So everything is possible. And a jury was involved. So it is about convincing the jury. If he has enough money to pay a lawyer, who can convince the jury, he can win, no matter, what happened. That's why this system is not trustworthy.

Kyle Rittenhouse shot at people who were threatening him with his life. It is taped, clearly on video. Not very complicating and difficult to process.

We're seeing what we're allowed to see. In the era of deep fake anything can be manipulated. I'm speaking in general, I did not follow the Rittenhouse's case very closely though. He was ridiculous at the court, I have to add.

[KneelB4Zod!]

[Matjaz]

Kyle Rittenhouse case

This is a typical case for "common law". He has killed some people. The question is: Has he done this in self-defense or not? This can be discussed. So everything is possible. And a jury was involved. So it is about convincing the jury. If he has enough money to pay a lawyer, who can convince the jury, he can win, no matter, what happened. That's why this system is not trustworthy.

Kyle Rittenhouse shot at people who were threatening him with his life. It is taped, clearly on video. Not very complicating and difficult to process.

Actually, everything else then self-defense claim, was a grey area. Was he justified to cross the state border, what was he doing in that community, was he protecting it or agitating, was he allowed to "open carry" etc. All this questions are gray area. What is most important in this case is, was he acting in self-defense and the answer is clear, yes!

It is also important how people looked at this story. Did they wanted to see Kyle dead, stomped by angry mob? In most cases from the people on "left" the answer would be, yes. "We would love see him being stomped by the mob". But this is not law justice, it is rule of crowds, got nothing to do with democracy and rule of law.

I am not talking about this specific case. Maybe the judgement was right, maybe not. That's irrelevant for my point. My point is, that the judgement rests on convincing people (the jury) with words.If you can pay a specialist to do this, you can get away with everything.

Not when it comes to human rights and freedom. I disagree strongly, there is no attorney who could win against breaching of basic human rights. Like I said before, you either go by the words written in the law or you don't. But if you don't, you can't still pretend you are living in a democracy.

[Matjaz]

Kyle Rittenhouse case

This is a typical case for "common law". He has killed some people. The question is: Has he done this in self-defense or not? This can be discussed. So everything is possible. And a jury was involved. So it is about convincing the jury. If he has enough money to pay a lawyer, who can convince the jury, he can win, no matter, what happened. That's why this system is not trustworthy.

Kyle Rittenhouse shot at people who were threatening him with his life. It is taped, clearly on video. Not very complicating and difficult to process.

We're seeing what we're allowed to see. In the era of deep fake anything can be manipulated. I'm speaking in general, I did not follow the Rittenhouse's case very closely though. He was ridiculous at the court, I have to add.

I didn't followed it either, didn't had to to see what it was all about anyway. They wanted to lynch him and it failed because the Law was functioning as it was supposed to.

[KneelB4Zod!]

Kyle Rittenhouse case

This is a typical case for "common law". He has killed some people. The question is: Has he done this in self-defense or not? This can be discussed. So everything is possible. And a jury was involved. So it is about convincing the jury. If he has enough money to pay a lawyer, who can convince the jury, he can win, no matter, what happened. That's why this system is not trustworthy.

Kyle Rittenhouse shot at people who were threatening him with his life. It is taped, clearly on video. Not very complicating and difficult to process.

Actually, everything else then self-defense claim, was a grey area. Was he justified to cross the state border, what was he doing in that community, was he protecting it or agitating, was he allowed to "open carry" etc. All this questions are gray area. What is most important in this case is, was he acting in self-defense and the answer is clear, yes!

It is also important how people looked at this story. Did they wanted to see Kyle dead, stomped by angry mob? In most cases from the people on "left" the answer would be, yes. "We would love see him being stomped by the mob". But this is not law justice, it is rule of crowds, got nothing to do with democracy and rule of law.

I am not talking about this specific case. Maybe the judgement was right, maybe not. That's irrelevant for my point. My point is, that the judgement rests on convincing people (the jury) with words.If you can pay a specialist to do this, you can get away with everything.

Not when it comes to human rights and freedom. I disagree strongly, there is no attorney who could win against breaching of basic human rights. Like I said before, you either go by the words written in the law or you don't. But if you don't, you can't still pretend you are living in a democracy.

Laws being written by those, who intend to break them in the way their masters told. Just saying...

[Matjaz]

Kyle Rittenhouse case

This is a typical case for "common law". He has killed some people. The question is: Has he done this in self-defense or not? This can be discussed. So everything is possible. And a jury was involved. So it is about convincing the jury. If he has enough money to pay a lawyer, who can convince the jury, he can win, no matter, what happened. That's why this system is not trustworthy.

Kyle Rittenhouse shot at people who were threatening him with his life. It is taped, clearly on video. Not very complicating and difficult to process.

Actually, everything else then self-defense claim, was a grey area. Was he justified to cross the state border, what was he doing in that community, was he protecting it or agitating, was he allowed to "open carry" etc. All this questions are gray area. What is most important in this case is, was he acting in self-defense and the answer is clear, yes!

It is also important how people looked at this story. Did they wanted to see Kyle dead, stomped by angry mob? In most cases from the people on "left" the answer would be, yes. "We would love see him being stomped by the mob". But this is not law justice, it is rule of crowds, got nothing to do with democracy and rule of law.

I am not talking about this specific case. Maybe the judgement was right, maybe not. That's irrelevant for my point. My point is, that the judgement rests on convincing people (the jury) with words.If you can pay a specialist to do this, you can get away with everything.

Not when it comes to human rights and freedom. I disagree strongly, there is no attorney who could win against breaching of basic human rights. Like I said before, you either go by the words written in the law or you don't. But if you don't, you can't still pretend you are living in a democracy.

Laws being written by those, who intend to break them in the way their masters told. Just saying...

Not when it comes to basic human rights. You can break the law all the time and win but when it comes to basic human rights AND freedoms, that's the point in time when you can't manipulate. If you do, your society becomes tyrannical. Now the question from start that I asked, Are we prepared to accept tyranny? Do we care? Apparently we don't.

Imagine this Kyle case that gives me a bit of a hope. Why? Imagine modern day America 2021, where iron fist tyranny rules supreme in their society. The far left ideology has swept the land like the bolsheviks did in Russia back in 1917. The only thing missing in modern USA are gulaks where communists were purging their society. That's the only thing missing in USA today but the rest is same as Russia 1917. And in this kind of environment, where Kyle should have absolutely no chance, he won. They couldn't do anything to him because the Law was on his side.

[KneelB4Zod!]

Well, I'm here...

[khnum]

We here in Australian have no bill of rights just privileges which they turn on and off at the drop of the hat.The Australian government and its States are in breach of the Constitution,the Nurenburg code the International declaration of bioethics and human rights; we are now under a military/medical dictatorship and there is no rule of law.If you look at the British commonwealth it is obvious they have declared war on its own subjects.I do not only not respect the authorities that have injured 83000,10000 permanently in this country(you cannot find accurate death figures here)I no longer recognize them.We are beyond any solution other than becoming a republic.

[KneelB4Zod!]

Belarus announced that border guards will undertake “tough retaliatory measures” in case of new violations of the Belarus state border by Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/M2ofkZTRdq

— Vera Van Horne (@VeraVanHorne) December 5, 2021

[Zambeezi]

Russian people show vaccinations QR codes at the mall entrance pic.twitter.com/ZFKSIWV6Ui

— Russia No Context (@officialrus1) December 4, 2021

incrementalism:
Now in Russia, the 'covid recovered' QR extends from half a year, now get 1 year QR code, beginning from this week.

[Matjaz]

We here in Australian have no bill of rights just privileges which they turn on and off at the drop of the hat.The Australian government and its States are in breach of the Constitution,the Nurenburg code the International declaration of bioethics and human rights; we are now under a military/medical dictatorship and there is no rule of law.If you look at the British commonwealth it is obvious they have declared war on its own subjects.I do not only not respect the authorities that have injured 83000,10000 permanently in this country(you cannot find accurate death figures here)I no longer recognize them.We are beyond any solution other than becoming a republic.

It is because we are not managed by statemen anymore. Our societies are ruled by corporations. Corporations became so powerful they can afford to buy out governments. Governments became a middle man, don't have any usefulness anymore. If it is like that, then we should cut them off(statemen) and let corporations rule us. Why spent tax money on our government if they are just a middle man. Corporations should be honest and just declare their rule.

[KneelB4Zod!]

Kyle Rittenhouse case

This is a typical case for "common law". He has killed some people. The question is: Has he done this in self-defense or not? This can be discussed. So everything is possible. And a jury was involved. So it is about convincing the jury. If he has enough money to pay a lawyer, who can convince the jury, he can win, no matter, what happened. That's why this system is not trustworthy.

Kyle Rittenhouse shot at people who were threatening him with his life. It is taped, clearly on video. Not very complicating and difficult to process.

Actually, everything else then self-defense claim, was a grey area. Was he justified to cross the state border, what was he doing in that community, was he protecting it or agitating, was he allowed to "open carry" etc. All this questions are gray area. What is most important in this case is, was he acting in self-defense and the answer is clear, yes!

It is also important how people looked at this story. Did they wanted to see Kyle dead, stomped by angry mob? In most cases from the people on "left" the answer would be, yes. "We would love see him being stomped by the mob". But this is not law justice, it is rule of crowds, got nothing to do with democracy and rule of law.

I am not talking about this specific case. Maybe the judgement was right, maybe not. That's irrelevant for my point. My point is, that the judgement rests on convincing people (the jury) with words.If you can pay a specialist to do this, you can get away with everything.

Not when it comes to human rights and freedom. I disagree strongly, there is no attorney who could win against breaching of basic human rights. Like I said before, you either go by the words written in the law or you don't. But if you don't, you can't still pretend you are living in a democracy.

Laws being written by those, who intend to break them in the way their masters told. Just saying...

Not when it comes to basic human rights. You can break the law all the time and win but when it comes to basic human rights AND freedoms, that's the point in time when you can't manipulate. If you do, your society becomes tyrannical. Now the question from start that I asked, Are we prepared to accept tyranny? Do we care? Apparently we don't.

Imagine this Kyle case that gives me a bit of a hope. Why? Imagine modern day America 2021, where iron fist tyranny rules supreme in their society. The far left ideology has swept the land like the bolsheviks did in Russia back in 1917. The only thing missing in modern USA are gulaks where communists were purging their society. That's the only thing missing in USA today but the rest is same as Russia 1917. And in this kind of environment, where Kyle should have absolutely no chance, he won. They couldn't do anything to him because the Law was on his side.

Basic human rights being destroyed on daily bases. Just through the covidist fascist restrictions. Not even international law works as we can see in Syria or Yemen. Rittenhouse's case is nothing but another distraction imho.

[KneelB4Zod!]

ASB News / MILITARYPart
@ASBMilitary
·
1h
BREAKING: Ukraine invites Britain, USA & Canada to deploy soldiers in the east and south of Ukraine.

[KneelB4Zod!]

And that's it...

[Matjaz]

Kyle Rittenhouse case

This is a typical case for "common law". He has killed some people. The question is: Has he done this in self-defense or not? This can be discussed. So everything is possible. And a jury was involved. So it is about convincing the jury. If he has enough money to pay a lawyer, who can convince the jury, he can win, no matter, what happened. That's why this system is not trustworthy.

Kyle Rittenhouse shot at people who were threatening him with his life. It is taped, clearly on video. Not very complicating and difficult to process.

Actually, everything else then self-defense claim, was a grey area. Was he justified to cross the state border, what was he doing in that community, was he protecting it or agitating, was he allowed to "open carry" etc. All this questions are gray area. What is most important in this case is, was he acting in self-defense and the answer is clear, yes!

It is also important how people looked at this story. Did they wanted to see Kyle dead, stomped by angry mob? In most cases from the people on "left" the answer would be, yes. "We would love see him being stomped by the mob". But this is not law justice, it is rule of crowds, got nothing to do with democracy and rule of law.

I am not talking about this specific case. Maybe the judgement was right, maybe not. That's irrelevant for my point. My point is, that the judgement rests on convincing people (the jury) with words.If you can pay a specialist to do this, you can get away with everything.

Not when it comes to human rights and freedom. I disagree strongly, there is no attorney who could win against breaching of basic human rights. Like I said before, you either go by the words written in the law or you don't. But if you don't, you can't still pretend you are living in a democracy.

Laws being written by those, who intend to break them in the way their masters told. Just saying...

Not when it comes to basic human rights. You can break the law all the time and win but when it comes to basic human rights AND freedoms, that's the point in time when you can't manipulate. If you do, your society becomes tyrannical. Now the question from start that I asked, Are we prepared to accept tyranny? Do we care? Apparently we don't.

Imagine this Kyle case that gives me a bit of a hope. Why? Imagine modern day America 2021, where iron fist tyranny rules supreme in their society. The far left ideology has swept the land like the bolsheviks did in Russia back in 1917. The only thing missing in modern USA are gulaks where communists were purging their society. That's the only thing missing in USA today but the rest is same as Russia 1917. And in this kind of environment, where Kyle should have absolutely no chance, he won. They couldn't do anything to him because the Law was on his side.

Basic human rights being destroyed on daily bases. Just through the covidist fascist restrictions. Not even international law works as we can see in Syria or Yemen. Rittenhouse's case is nothing but another distraction imho.

Yes distraction, but still it was a nice example of how hard it is to stomp the Law, no matter how strong is the push from MSM, politics, mob justice.

[Matjaz]

And that's it...

yep, we don't care. And the managment knows it.

[KneelB4Zod!]

[Zambeezi]

Hebrew media: "Mossad chief David Barnea flew to Washington tonight, and War Minister Benny Gantz will fly on Thursday. The two will try to persuade the United States to take military action against the Iranian nuclear facilities or bases." pic.twitter.com/D34PyZgzCx

— Lebanese News and Updates (@LebUpdate) December 5, 2021