Just beggars belief

[kdubya]

I had no time whatsoever for bin Laden. The world is a better place without him.

 

I think the Archbishop would have been better just keeping his mouth shut.

 

The bit I have a problem with :-

 

Idiots, in this country, can spout about killing British soldiers. We do nothing.

 

That said, we go into another country and execute a man, without trial. Why is it right to do it abroad, but not here?

 

Just a thought.

 

Would it have made a difference? IE who would try him? the yanks, us british, any would have wound up his followers into a frenzy,plus it would have the left wing handwringers shouting unfair, with say saddam we let his people try him and they topped him end of and out of our hair, with bin laden we had no country we could say here you are give this man a fair trial weve done our bit now you do yours, unless of course you handed him to pakistan which would ensure many many deaths and hostages in the sure to be repercussions,or perhaps hand him to al qaida and appologise for any inconvienence.

 

The tap on the back of the head was in this instance the right thing to do, and the learned idiot of the cloth should realise that, but then again when your so far detached from reality how can you possibly understand it.

 

KW

[PWD]

Worse things happen to nicer people than Bin Laden ...those who live by the sword should expect to die by the sword , had the mission failed and the seals were captured do you think this rag head would have put them on trail, hired them a lawyer . I think the yanks are as mad as fish and I hated the way they supported the IRA , but if that was my relatives in the Twin towers I to would be rejoicing and for what they did on 7/7 in the UK I will drink to that double tap . BYW I think he's still alive anyway ...why waste all that intel, if you going to get someone out quick better a walking one that a dead weight .

[Cannon]

I won't duck at all.

To a lot of muslims OBL is gallant and honoured.

No good saying their acts were cowardly.

They couldn't stand toe to toe with a force like the US so they went in the back door.

War on terror my ****, where was their war on terror when they were funding the IRA and our women & children were getting killed?

 

I'll defend him if you like, he fought for something he believed in, as far as his organisation were concerned they ahd a force from a foreign country invading their land.

If the same happened here and we had an underground force committing "terrorist" (and i use that term as debateable) acts would we be terrorists or freedom fighters.

The French resistance might have been classed as terrorists by the germans but not the rest of the world.

 

What do you think the IRA were fighting for? The sake of it?

[MaybeNextTime]

It's pointless using reason Dancake, these wise gentlemen have accepted that it's okay for certain individuals to be detained without trial, tortured and ultimately murdered. They have embraced the idea of the untermenschen with out even knowing and are damned for it.

 

Wonder what'll happen when it's their turn?

Edited May 6, 2011 by MaybeNextTime

[Cannon]

I think the most eye opening thing about the whole Osama murder is the fact that people are supporting justice through murder. What would happen if joe bloggs down the street shot one of your family and you returned the favour? Do you think people would be shouting and cheering? You'd be up in court before you could blink and made to feel that you're the worst person in the world.

[PWD]

True Dancake but morally you would be right and most folk would feel for you ...just a system written by others unconnected with you and your family tries to convince your to feel bad . I had thoughts about the whole thing being an assassination..and in truth that's what it was , but then it was mentioned about hostages being taken in exchange for BL and now he's reported as dead I hope innocents will be let off the hook on that one . When you think about it thousands of people die in the name of these freedom fighters called Bin Laden, Bush and the likes, they really are a load of egotistical piles of s**te and one less ain't a bad thing

[paulf]

Im aetheist so I can't get worked up by the bishop spouting rethoric and nonsense, its what i expect from the bloke.

[chrispti]

why could he not be taken alive a subject to a trial like any other criminal?

 

Because the threat of mass terrorist attacks and kidnappings would go through the roof in an attempt to secure his release.

[henry d]

Im aetheist so I can't get worked up by the bishop spouting rethoric and nonsense, its what i expect from the bloke.

 

Nice to see the atheist code of ethics and morals used to their best.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kdubya]

seems the archbishop has got over it, just popped down his local pet shop for some food for his goldfish, and bought this.

 

[MaybeNextTime]

Nice to see the atheist code of ethics and morals used to their best.

 

 

Maybe he's a little too fond of bashing the bishop.

[Ian750]

I think the most eye opening thing about the whole Osama murder is the fact that people are supporting justice through murder. What would happen if joe bloggs down the street shot one of your family and you returned the favour? Do you think people would be shouting and cheering? You'd be up in court before you could blink and made to feel that you're the worst person in the world.

 

 

Not the same thing at all, your Joe Bloggs would have had to wipe out an entire small town, beheading a few folk on the way, all whilst threatening to wipe out entire countries, if not continents. Add this to the fact that this guy is at war, is a military figure, not a civilian, however he himself has no problem at all with killing unarmed civilians in any quantity, he knows exactly the risks he is playing with.

[Cannon]

Not the same thing at all, your Joe Bloggs would have had to wipe out an entire small town, beheading a few folk on the way, all whilst threatening to wipe out entire countries, if not continents. Add this to the fact that this guy is at war, is a military figure, not a civilian, however he himself has no problem at all with killing unarmed civilians in any quantity, he knows exactly the risks he is playing with.

 

It is the same thing, just on a different scale. Different civilisations have different methods of dealing with things. People are so blind they suck up all the biased opinionated media tripe and convince themselves that everybody else is wrong and the BBC/CNN is right. In response to killing unarmed civilians, why do you think the US employed the use of predator drones? If they secure a kill on a pre-determined target and civilians die in the process, they simply just blame a 'machine' for the error. Was Osama not reputed to be unarmed?

[GW80]

I think somebody has already menitioned Noriad? Pack of ill in formed ***** if ever i have meet.

[Ian750]

It is the same thing, just on a different scale. Different civilisations have different methods of dealing with things. People are so blind they suck up all the biased opinionated media tripe and convince themselves that everybody else is wrong and the BBC/CNN is right. In response to killing unarmed civilians, why do you think the US employed the use of predator drones? If they secure a kill on a pre-determined target and civilians die in the process, they simply just blame a 'machine' for the error. Was Osama not reputed to be unarmed?

 

I seriously hope you are not trying to suggest the US employed predator drones for the specific purpose of civilian casualties? I'm afraid that's how your post reads, I really do hope I'm wrong! If drones do inflict civilian casualties whilst in military use, whether mechanical or human it is an error, and a horrible one which no-one would wish to happen. Flying aircraft into buildings in New York or blowing up buses in central London is most certainly not a military target, the sole target is maximum civilian casualty.

Personally I don't care that he was potentially unarmed, in the split second the Navy Seal had to make a decision, I'm sure frisking him to make absolutely sure was not foremost in his mind. We must remember, it's fine and dandy to say from our keyboards, 'oh he was unarmed' he was also potentially armed and with more than one person to concentrate on in the room I think the correct action was taken. Of course this is all based on what we have been fed by the media, which is probably far from the truth anyway.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Ian750

[MaybeNextTime]

I seriously hope you are not trying to suggest the US employed predator drones for the specific purpose of civilian casualties? I'm afraid that's how your post reads, I really do hope I'm wrong! If drones do inflict civilian casualties whilst in military use, whether mechanical or human it is an error, and a horrible one which no-one would wish to happen. Flying aircraft into buildings into buildings in New York or blowing up buses in central London is most certainly not a military target, the sole target is maximum civilian casualty.

 

But we build memorials to our heroes that did similar things to civilian targets 70 years ago.

 

Perhaps what you are struggling to say is that you think what we did is just because we did it? It would be an indefensible position but it would be an honest one.

[Cannon]

I seriously hope you are not trying to suggest the US employed predator drones for the specific purpose of civilian casualties? I'm afraid that's how your post reads, I really do hope I'm wrong! If drones do inflict civilian casualties whilst in military use, whether mechanical or human it is an error, and a horrible one which no-one would wish to happen. Flying aircraft into buildings in New York or blowing up buses in central London is most certainly not a military target, the sole target is maximum civilian casualty.

Personally I don't care that he was potentially unarmed, in the split second the Navy Seal had to make a decision, I'm sure frisking him to make absolutely sure was not foremost in his mind. We must remember, it's fine and dandy to say from our keyboards, 'oh he was unarmed' he was also potentially armed and with more than one person to concentrate on in the room I think the correct action was taken. Of course this is all based on what we have been fed by the media, which is probably far from the truth anyway.

 

I'm not saying the US employed predator drones for the sole purpose of killing civilians, but they are fully aware that civilian casualties are more likely whilst using such weapons. Do they care? Not likely. Civilian casualties are inevitable in any war, but most are completely avoidable. Tha navy seal who pulled the trigger must now be feeling immortal due to the general feeling of righteousness for what he has done echoing around the world. Will he feel the same when he's staring death in the face? Who knows.

[Ian750]

But we build memorials to our heroes that did similar things to civilian targets 70 years ago.

 

Perhaps what you are struggling to say is that you think what we did is just because we did it? It would be an indefensible position but it would be an honest one.

 

I maybe wrong here, my history of WW2 isn't the best, but I always understood targets to have had at least some military significance, be it an arms factory or whatever. Either way, we're not talking about 70 years ago are we, back then we didn't have the technology we do now. I can't get past the fact that Osama Bin Laden is a military commander, who has no problem attacking a PURELY civilian target. This has nothing to do with 'it's ok because we did it'

[MaybeNextTime]

I maybe wrong here, my history of WW2 isn't the best, but I always understood targets to have had at least some military significance, be it an arms factory or whatever. Either way, we're not talking about 70 years ago are we, back then we didn't have the technology we do now. I can't get past the fact that Osama Bin Laden is a military commander, who has no problem attacking a PURELY civilian target. This has nothing to do with 'it's ok because we did it'

 

The obvious couple are Dresden (1945, 25000 civilians deaths) and Hamburg (1943, 50000 civilian deaths) but pretty much any night time mass carpet bombing raid will do.

 

Not that I'm forgetting Hull or Coventry but I'm not the one arguing that people who deliberately target civilians during war can be shot without trial. The Nuremberg Trials proved something other than that we had won the war.

[Elby]

I'll defend him if you like, he fought for something he believed in, as far as his organisation were concerned they ahd a force from a foreign country invading their land.

If the same happened here and we had an underground force committing "terrorist" (and i use that term as debateable) acts would we be terrorists or freedom fighters.

The French resistance might have been classed as terrorists by the germans but not the rest of the world.

 

What do you think the IRA were fighting for? The sake of it?

Did I ever say they weren't fighting for a cause they believed in?

My complaint was that a large lump of their money came from the USA.

It's ok for them to fund terrorists when it suits them as long as it don't happen on their doorstep.

[Vince Green]

I have been to NYC twice since 9/11. Stayed with a family for 2 weeks in Syracuse in NY state (300 miles from the city island in 2009 and they feel so strong about what happened) toured ground zero and the museum, which was the third most moving thing in my life after marriage and birth of my children. My god, what you see there is Christianity. What a *****!

I know Syracuse very well.

[Vince Green]

I maybe wrong here, my history of WW2 isn't the best, but I always understood targets to have had at least some military significance, be it an arms factory or whatever. Either way, we're not talking about 70 years ago are we, back then we didn't have the technology we do now. I can't get past the fact that Osama Bin Laden is a military commander, who has no problem attacking a PURELY civilian target. This has nothing to do with 'it's ok because we did it'

There is a lot of criticism of the bombing of cities like Dresden by RAF and USAF in the thousand bomber raids because they were purely civilian targets and held no military significance. Whats more it was terror bombing which created a firestorm and thousands of civilians were killed.

[kdubya]

There is a lot of criticism of the bombing of cities like Dresden by RAF and USAF in the thousand bomber raids because they were purely civilian targets and held no military significance. Whats more it was terror bombing which created a firestorm and thousands of civilians were killed.

 

needs must, nagasaki and hiroshima being classic excamples

 

KW