DeletedUser
"Two wrongs don't equal a right" is nonsense. I believe if you wrong the person who wronged you (or a family member or friend or even stranger) that cancels it out.
DeletedUser
You would be gravely mistaken then.
With a view of justice like that, you will have a blood feud going in no time.
DeletedUser
Imagine you kill a friend of mine, and then I come and ripped your arms off.
Would that make the world a better place?
Would that make the world a better place?
DeletedUser
On the justice for all front a guy I know was killed last year over refusing to give someone a cigarette (which he didn't have - as he didn't smoke), and the killer got 18 months because the judge bought his 'I'm sorry - didn't mean to do it' plea.
They doubled the sentance after all the legality... but 3 years... for murder?
Anyway, thats probably a different story.
As for Israel knowing how to deal with terrorists? I'd say their tale is a sorry one on how not to achieve anything with terrorists.
Talking does work... the reconsiliation process in Northern Ireland has achieved the kind of peace the normal people of Northern Ireland (and to a lesser extent mainland Britain) have craved for decades. Its still not perfect, but the difference is incredible.
They doubled the sentance after all the legality... but 3 years... for murder?
Anyway, thats probably a different story.
As for Israel knowing how to deal with terrorists? I'd say their tale is a sorry one on how not to achieve anything with terrorists.
Talking does work... the reconsiliation process in Northern Ireland has achieved the kind of peace the normal people of Northern Ireland (and to a lesser extent mainland Britain) have craved for decades. Its still not perfect, but the difference is incredible.
DeletedUser
THe Northern Ireland conflict does not compare to the middle-eastern conflict.
I do belive the diffrences in percieving mercy has been brought up.
I do belive the diffrences in percieving mercy has been brought up.
DeletedUser
Yes, the middle eastern terrorists have a more one-sided, less negotiable mindset than the IRA since they have truly been brainwashed all their lives into thinking the way they do.
DeletedUser
You do realise when Lockerbie happened half the middle eastern terrorists were on the side of the US and Britain don't you?
The Mujahideen was under the pay of the USA for instance...
Besides if you read up on the official history of this you'll find it had more to do with a set of incidents between the US and Libya, not a religious conflict.. more ideological.
The Mujahideen was under the pay of the USA for instance...
Besides if you read up on the official history of this you'll find it had more to do with a set of incidents between the US and Libya, not a religious conflict.. more ideological.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
You're blaming the Ulster Troubles on the IRA?
The whole thing could have been completely avoided if the UVF hadn't entered the scene.
And a lot of the Middle Eastern terrorists were just regular people before they became terrorists, and weren't brainwashed into Islamism from birth.
DeletedUser
why because 1 man blows up a plane he is a terrorist when the u.s military blows up citys they are liberators
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Attacking your enemy in a war is one thing, blowing up a bunch of innocent, unsuspecting people on a plane is another. Sure the Iraq war was a huge mistake, but we didn't purposefully target citizens.
DeletedUser
baghdad is a city who lives there? civilians by bombing a city of course your targetting civilians.
DeletedUser
The main target of the bombings was the Iraqi Presidential Palace, a government building. It's unfortunate that civilians were killed in the attack, but far more civilians were killed in Sadaam's genocidal attacks on his own citizens and the terrorist attacks that occured after the invasion. I believe the war was unnecessary myself, but what you said in your post is that terrorism is justified because of the civilian deaths caused by the war.
DeletedUser
I think when a government kills civilians 'unfortunately'.. they should take a look at themselves... personally.. I also think that the killing civilians is one of those things that tends to create the ideal recruiting grounds for terrorists.
DeletedUser
terrorism is an opinion the mujahideen supplioed and trained by america to defend afghanistan now because they are still doing ur job they are labeled terrorists.the lokerbie bomber is a hero in libya not a terrorist
DeletedUser
We trained them to fight a war not sneak bombs onto planes full of civilians and blow them up.
DeletedUser
I doubt they would have managed to be so successful without your training.
DeletedUser
Ollieman, that's just grossly incorrect. More civilian lives have been lost, and in greater numbers, per year during the war in Iraq than in any year during Saddam's regime.
Annual deaths during Saddam rule: between 25,000 to 50,000
Annual deaths during U.S. Occupation: about 66,000
http://www.stinkzone.com/cgi-bin/archives/000184.html
These figures also do not consider the region's destabilization, financial toll, lives lost due to population displacement (refugees), or antiquities destroyed/stolen. But, a better argument to all of this is, "at what point is the death of civilians a tactical necessity?" The answer to that is, "never."
Still, the debate is about the bomber, his release to captivity, and the implications of such an action. As I indicated earlier, it was a horrible decision and presents far-reaching consequences. Exactly what those consequences are, I cannot say specifically, because they have not happened yet. As a political move, it may very well have been a financially profitable tactic that may very well be yet another scene of trading lives for cash.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Disclaimer, I did not read all posts in this thread. However, I found some interesting article.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/96c991a2-9690-11de-84d1-00144feabdc0.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/96c991a2-9690-11de-84d1-00144feabdc0.html
Financial Times said:
DeletedUser
that's an embarrassing bit of evidence
DeletedUser
WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Do you read a newspaper, watch an unbiased newspaper, have a brain?
Scotland has it's own legal system and it was not (in theory) a political decision but one made by a minister appointed by the government.
If you don't know what you are talking about or just watch FOX NEWS then please don't bother.
This post is a mickey -take right?
I mean firstly, prison IS meant to rehabilitate because without it the only logical course is death for all prisoners regardless of crimes.
Secondly, what danger is a terminally-ill man going to pose to the US or UK. Do you think that he might try to plot agian (if he did in the first place).
Thirdly, "less motivation to stay alive more motivation to die before his cancer starts taking away his sensibilities and causing him excruciating pain" - like being in a hospital bed in Libya will speed his recovery!!!!!!
Please, I beg you people. THINK before you post.
Whether he did or did not do it - and the Jury is out on this apparently (no pun intended) - real politik rules.
Before Americans start boycotting scotch whisky in a misguided protest (like they ever would), think about the lives lost in Iraq/Afghanistan etc. and then try to incite a complete boycott of Haliburton-owned products.
It's REAL POLITIK. If I had lost a family member I would be angry at the murderers but does letting an old and possibly innocent man out of prison to die really help me with my grief? Better to take the oil deals and then benefit from the tax dollars that flow to me and/or my family. It's a case of the greater good and has been going on for thousands of years of diplomacy.
Yes, I think since the "Troubles" started with the IRA being reformed in the North and starting a campaign of insurgency, then yes, the "Troubles" can be blamed on the IRA. If you are talking about the greater problem of Catholic disenfranchisement, discrimination and a basically apartheid system, then this has roots hundreds of years earlier and is the fault of successive British governments not wanting to deal with the plantation mistakes of Cromwell's time.
In modern times, I suppose that this is the classic argument of "One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist" with the crucial exception that the Catholic minority has always had the vote and will shortly be the majority in the North (something to do with Catholics and condoms :laugh
. It has been a pointless campaign and the peace now was an eventual realisation by the Provos that Great Britain really didn't care enough about Ulster Protestants but 1. couldn't be defeated; and 2. Demographics will eventually create a United Ireland.That's my perspective anyway for what it's worth.
Last edited by a moderator: