they don't want to brake into laboratories or commit crimes but they only do that to save animals.
what did Charles Darwin's origin of species justify and hi
Social Darwinism
yes!
President Truman justified using the atomic bomb in World War II by claiming it would lead to a quicker end to the war and save countless lives, both American and Japanese, by avoiding a costly invasion of Japan. Many scientists, including some involved in the Manhattan Project, opposed its use due to ethical concerns and the potential for unprecedented destruction and civilian casualties. Truman did not bomb Tokyo because it had already suffered extensive damage from previous bombings, and targeting cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki was intended to demonstrate the bomb's devastating power while minimizing further destruction in major urban centers.
I justify my conclusions by relying on a combination of credible data, logical reasoning, and relevant evidence from reputable sources. I critically analyze the information, ensuring that it is up-to-date and applicable to the context. Additionally, I consider alternative perspectives and counterarguments to strengthen my position and ensure a well-rounded understanding of the topic. Finally, I aim for clarity and coherence in presenting my conclusions to facilitate understanding.
The United States supported the Ottoman Empire's persecution of Muslims.
The United States supported the Ottoman Empire's persecution of Muslims.
Yes, it is true.
The fact that we sent troops into Iraq is one reason they give.
The United States supports Israel's right to control Jerusalem.
The United States supports Israel's right to control Jerusalem.
The tang dynasty rulers justify their claims to power by war against other dynasty's!!
No,it is crime against humanity
If you commit a crime, then you're breaking the law. If you call breaking the law a crime, then yes, you're committing a crime by committing a crime.Added; A criminal act is composed of two conscious acts: The Mens Reus (the criminal intent) and the Actus Reus (the criminal act). By committing the act you are completing the 2nd part of the offense necessary to convict you - therefore YES, you are engaged in committing a crime.But it's still a paradox. If you commit a crime by committing a crime, then wouldn't you be committing a crime for the committed crime for committing a crime> It goes on forever, but then final answer is YES.
No. It's called unconstitutional. Against the constitution.
The Declaration of Independence lists 27 grievances against Britain which are the colonists grounds for Independence
Jury