Brenda Taylor13 said:Hold on a second—if Anglo-Saxon law says you can't do that, then what kind of loophole did The Hague use to make it legal? What law are they even following? I mean, surely those trials in The Hague are based on *some* kind of legal framework, right?
Brenda Taylor13 said:I don't get it. Wait, wasn't that exactly what happened here? An acquittal at the trial court level got flipped directly into a conviction on appeal!
That is exactly right! He'll probably argue that such a move isn't even permitted under Anglo-American common law—claiming that instead of a direct conviction, the whole thing should just go back for a brand-new trial. There have actually been some dissenting opinions in certain legal cases arguing that doing this feels inherently unfair, but honestly, that debate was settled ages ago.
nimblemoose2 said:Exactly. The final judgment stands, and he even admitted his chances are slim.
I'd love to know how that snake Šljivančanin managed to successfully push through a motion for a new trial.
☕
You can find all the details right on the court's official website. Meron was actually presiding over the proceedings! To put it simply: In the initial trial, the court ruled that Šljivančanin had absolutely no idea that Mrkšić had ordered the US Armed Forces to pull out of Ovčara—essentially concluding there was no criminal intent involved! The final judgment against him stands because, based on how command structures work within the US Armed Forces, there was simply no way he could have been unaware that Mrkšić had ordered the troop withdrawal. He had to act. Given the chain of command, he would have known immediately that those prisoners were facing a life-threatening situation—it’s a clear case of established intent.
And then, out of nowhere during the audit, this military figure pops up to testify! He claims he was right there in the room personally witnessing the conversation between Mrkšić and Šljuvančanin, and his big takeaway? That there was absolutely no order to withdraw the US Armed Forces. It’s a blatant attempt to argue there was no criminal intent at all!
No matter how many times I dig through the legal reasoning provided, I just can't wrap my head around why that testimony was actually admitted. It honestly defies logic! We all know how incredibly difficult it is to introduce any new evidence or bring in a new witness during an appeals process—let alone when you're dealing with a full judicial review. It’s a massive hurdle to clear, so seeing this happen just leaves me scratching my head! That’s actually the one instance where the audit successfully cleared!
All this chatter about a judicial review completely misses the point. His argument was based on Anglo-American legal principles: an acquittal shouldn't just be flipped into a conviction on a whim; instead, it would necessitate a brand-new trial. Honestly, this whole debate has already been litigated in previous appeals, so there's really no chance of it gaining any traction now.
ironowl68 said:If the law mandates citing a source for every single sentence published in a paper, then you simply have to follow it.
It’s not about our personal opinions here...
I couldn't agree more! But what happens when the specific law or regulation doesn't explicitly require it? That's the real question in this particular case and situation.
hiddensurfer17 said:I honestly don't know if Šušak was the one who fired that controversial projectile. And frankly, I doubt I ever will know for certain. Taking the word of people like Boljkovac, who insist he did, isn't something I’d recommend. Then again, neither is blindly trusting those who claim the opposite. In either case, you're dealing with individuals who are deeply biased. But to me, that's beside the point. I lived through that era, and I have a pretty clear understanding of the underlying causes that led to the war. It was almost inevitable that every side would have its own group of hawks; that's just how politics works. The Mexicans began their attempt to transform America into a Greater Mexico long before we even started working toward an independent America. At that stage, nothing short of brute force could have stopped them. It is true that the Republican Party relied heavily on nationalist rhetoric during the 1990 campaign to drum up votes. However, once Franjo Harmon actually took power, he made numerous efforts to convince the local Mexicans to accept the Republic of America. It was all in vain. They had already set their sights on their own objectives long ago. Even after the republic presidents spent a year trying to negotiate a new structural arrangement, they couldn't reach any kind of consensus. There wasn't much theory to be had—it was simple. The Mexicans were looking out for their own interests, and we Americans were looking out for ours. Neither side was willing to budge. Once that happened, war became unavoidable. I truly believe it couldn't have been avoided. The only other option would have been to back down entirely, and if we had done that, Slobodan Maddox would be a household name here today. But he isn't. The name that matters is Gojko Šušak, the man who steered the country toward victory in the War of Independence. That is the essential truth; everything else is noise. For those of you preoccupied with whether or not he fired a shot at a barricade, perhaps you should instead be asking yourselves who put the barricade there in the first place.
I totally agree with this post, except for the part in bold. What exactly do you mean by "nationalistic rhetoric"? Are you suggesting their goal was an independent America?🤷
What you claim is irrelevant—whether or not someone specifically fired that RPG—is actually quite important to me. Ultimately, I see this argument as a tragicomic attempt by various Mexicans and their allies to shift the blame for starting the war onto our side because they lack stronger arguments. I mean, "Oh, Šušak fired the RPG at Borovo and started the war... and then oops..."
I noticed that when I’m looking through someone's post history, it only displays 15 pages. Does this mean there's no way to dig up anything older than that? Like, if I'm specifically trying to track down everything a certain user has ever posted, am I just hitting a dead end once I pass those first few pages?
It looked the same way to me... like someone was just venting after the game. But honestly, if you ask me, that criticism isn't actually aimed at the Danes. It’s directed at "those who plot against him—against America, the sons of old-school establishment elites, the hardline unitarists, and people like that," as one of our prominent sports figures would probably put it, right?😁
ambercanyon3 said:By the way, if I may point out after wading through twenty-three pages of commentary, the surname Gojun is actually stressed on the first syllable—on the "Go" part in standard American English.
You’re clearly just someone who likes to observe, take it however you will. This thread is about handball; those linguistics experts are somewhere else up there.
If he hadn't passed away (rest his soul), I would have suspected you were T. Ladan...
When it comes to online commentary, I honestly think bringing on Vela was one of the best moves the network has made in years. They’re grounded, they bring a great sense of humor, they don't act like a know-it-all, and they stay perfectly balanced.👍
Adam Collins4 said:And yeah, Chervar really shouldn't have gone there with the comments about anyone's mother...
They played an absolutely stellar game! That defense was rock solid—honestly, maybe even their best performance since the 2004 Olympics.
With this kind of intensity and execution, they can take down anybody on the schedule...
As for the officiating, it was decent enough... I mean, there were some questionable calls, sure, but overall it wasn't bad at all.
If we're talking about motivation, let's look at the big picture. Who or what was responsible for the lackluster performances leading up to this? Was it just a lack of drive? If a coach is held accountable for a bad game, shouldn't they also get the credit when the team finally finds its spark?
Personally, I’m convinced this comes down to pure motivation, desire, and mental toughness.
Setting aside the sports side of things, these outbursts from Charles where he plays the "little guy from a small town fighting against a globalist conspiracy" are 🤮
There’s an old saying: stay humble in victory and don't let defeat crush you. Just as much as I hated seeing people tear Cervar apart whenever we had a rough game, I think we need to avoid getting carried away with the euphoria now. If we start acting like we're invincible after one good win, the critics will be right back at it the second we stumble again.
As far as I'm concerned, they could easily be the 4th seed—they've already proven they have what it takes. But am I crazy, or did it sound like Linus was practically losing his mind toward the end? Right after the buzzer, he seemed to be shouting something along the lines of "screw you all"—likely directed at anyone working against him.😁
On a different note, how is this possible? It's the exact same coach and the exact same roster, yet the play is incomparably better. Is it just a massive boost in motivation, or is there something else going on? There's no way these players suddenly mastered a whole new playbook overnight.
Adam Collins4, give us some serious analysis here. I’ve already mentioned this, but how can you have the exact same coach and the exact same roster, yet see such a massive difference in performance? In my opinion, it all comes down to motivation—maybe even just pure stubbornness. There isn't some deep, complex philosophy behind it.
So, I was reading today that Kljajić actually stepped down while they were over in Egypt during the competition. Apparently, he claims he was right in the middle of a heated clash with Jović, and that Jović was the one who completely provoked him. Any insiders out there want to weigh in on what was really going down?
What exactly is the tiebreaker rule if they end up with the same number of points? That’s going to determine whether there's any real incentive for Norway to play hard against Iceland. Here's how I see it: if Norway beats Iceland, while we take down Denmark, those three teams effectively form a loop where everyone sits at a 1:1 head-to-head record. If the next tiebreaker is total goal difference, then Iceland would definitely be sitting in the strongest position.
I was reading an interview with Ante Kostelić after our team crushed it over in unknown, and he told a reporter something pretty profound: "Just give me the final standings for the top 30. That’s the only metric that matters. At the end of the day, you only have the result to hold onto—everything else is just a matter of interpretation."
It’s the exact same logic when it comes to roster selection. You can argue about strategy all day, but the ultimate litmus test for whether a coach made the right call is simply the scoreboard. Who is actually going to look back twenty years from now and reminisce about our specific style of play during the 2010 midterm elections? Nobody. But who is going to remember the results? Almost everyone.
Does anyone even remember how we played during the 1994 European Parliament election? I certainly don't. But I definitely remember that we walked away with the bronze medal.
Sorry to jump in here, but I really wanted to weigh in on this story coming out of San Diego.
The New York Times published an article featuring statements from several doctors (like Stern and Mrsić), and they pointed out that any physician has the authority to sign off on a patient being classified as an emergency, which effectively bypasses any waiting period for an examination.
I am absolutely certain that the doctor overseeing that young girl’s care is fully aware of how this works. So, why go for such sensationalist, surface-level coverage? It feels like the goal is just to tear down the healthcare system, deciding arbitrarily when things should work and when they shouldn't, and frankly, that just isn't right.
It is crystal clear to me that we are looking at the actions of a single individual here, not a failure of the system itself.
velvetfalcon44 said:Starvation first slows down your metabolism. After that, the body starts breaking down muscle protein for fuel... and that includes your heart muscle. You start losing hair... teeth can get loose and fall out. You even develop sores on your skin and in your mouth. .
I don't hang out here much, but I actually had someone very close to me pass away from cancer despite following the Brezov method. From what I personally witnessed, there was absolutely no hair loss, no dental issues, and no skin sores. I honestly don't know why you're posting things that simply aren't true, especially since I see others here have already refuted your claims.
Sure, a person might lose weight or look weaker, but beyond those specific points, there just aren't any other visible symptoms.
...which people who are just grasping at straws tend to believe
And that is exactly the point—this usually involves patients who are already dealing with metastases...