Sentences should be related. If the rape sentence is too short, then get the rape sentence made longer. Don't reduce the sentences of other criminal acts to make it 'fair'.
"The US army made a calculated decision to kill civillians in order to spare the lives of US soldiers. That much can not be denied."
Oh I get it - you think it is a *good idea* to have the US army to have as many casualities possible!
Why? Because that makes things more even? Because that way we don't have to feel as guilty?
Of course, unless you think it a smart thing to commit suicide as you kill civilians, which it seems you do, making the statement that we want to protect our soldiers amounts to genocicde doesn't wash.
Think: Why doesn't the US use gas? Why doesn't the US nuke them all? Please, if there is one question I ask that you answer, please answer this?
"When we bombed the shit out of fallujia we were not destroying a military asset, we were destroying a city so in that case there is ZERO differnce.
Why do you think they went into Fallujia the way they did?
Possible answers:
1. They went into Fellujia because they thought it would be a good idea to kill civilians - good for increasing the support for going into Iraq in the first place, good because killing civilians is the reason we went to war, good because it increases the support the need troops on the ground from civilians
2. They went into Fellujia because they were hunting down 'soldiers' who did not surrender and who decided to use civilians as human shields.
Maybe there are other reasons, but if you think that it might be reason #2, then these 'soldiers' are military assets. *That* is significant difference between an army and a nation following 'moral' rules of engagement and terrorists who don't.
"There is no differnce between a war pig like Osama Bin Laden, a war pig like Saddam Hussein and a war pig like George Bush. They all wage war to get what they want, they don't care how many people die to get what they want."
I'm not a fan of Bush, but to say that there is no difference between Laden & Hussain and Bush shows you have lost your grip of reality.
I heard the following stat on the Moral Maze programme on BBC 4:
12 suspicious Brazilians killed a week in Brazil. By Brazilian police.
Don't fucking talk to me about innocent Brazilians.
"We bombed the shit our of fallujia twice knowing full well that there were going to be non combatants killed"
There is a huge difference between a) destroying military assets as the primary target and having collaterol damage, and b) going out to kill civilians with no military assets in mind.
Your logic only leads us to one place: that terrorism is ok, because it not immoral. I suspect your enthuisiasm to protect terrorists' rights would vanish if you knew that a suicide bomber was sitting next to you on the train and about to blow you to kingdom come. Do you really think that you'd say to a police officer about to kill him: "oh, stop, don't shoot! this man has rights!"? I doubt it. You'd be squealing like a pig, praying that the suicide bomber wouldn't flick the switch. And the only reason he wouldn't is because the officer would get him...not because you protected his rights.
Shihar, I couldn't agree more with you.
"get some fucking perspective please"
I listened to an interview on public radio in the US today and heard a professor at UCLA describing how the British police are now responsible for the 'third wave of terror' due to the 'shoot to kill' policy.
Why are these left wing 'libertarians' SO much more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists than making sure we are doing everything we can to protect our freedom? Don't these libertarians realise that if the terrorists had their way, they would be one of he the firsts groups to have their lives extinguished?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't get it, why is this necessary?
I don't want to defend spammers.
You are.
Sentences should be related. If the rape sentence is too short, then get the rape sentence made longer. Don't reduce the sentences of other criminal acts to make it 'fair'.
"The US army made a calculated decision to kill civillians in order to spare the lives of US soldiers. That much can not be denied."
Oh I get it - you think it is a *good idea* to have the US army to have as many casualities possible!
Why? Because that makes things more even? Because that way we don't have to feel as guilty?
Of course, unless you think it a smart thing to commit suicide as you kill civilians, which it seems you do, making the statement that we want to protect our soldiers amounts to genocicde doesn't wash.
Think: Why doesn't the US use gas? Why doesn't the US nuke them all? Please, if there is one question I ask that you answer, please answer this?
Btw, I appreciate the dialogue.
Btw, your liberal mates at BBC now call terrorists 'terrorists'" http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1439288/p osts
"When we bombed the shit out of fallujia we were not destroying a military asset, we were destroying a city so in that case there is ZERO differnce.
Why do you think they went into Fallujia the way they did?
Possible answers:
1. They went into Fellujia because they thought it would be a good idea to kill civilians - good for increasing the support for going into Iraq in the first place, good because killing civilians is the reason we went to war, good because it increases the support the need troops on the ground from civilians
2. They went into Fellujia because they were hunting down 'soldiers' who did not surrender and who decided to use civilians as human shields.
Maybe there are other reasons, but if you think that it might be reason #2, then these 'soldiers' are military assets. *That* is significant difference between an army and a nation following 'moral' rules of engagement and terrorists who don't.
"There is no differnce between a war pig like Osama Bin Laden, a war pig like Saddam Hussein and a war pig like George Bush. They all wage war to get what they want, they don't care how many people die to get what they want."
I'm not a fan of Bush, but to say that there is no difference between Laden & Hussain and Bush shows you have lost your grip of reality.
I heard the following stat on the Moral Maze programme on BBC 4: 12 suspicious Brazilians killed a week in Brazil. By Brazilian police. Don't fucking talk to me about innocent Brazilians.
"We bombed the shit our of fallujia twice knowing full well that there were going to be non combatants killed"
There is a huge difference between a) destroying military assets as the primary target and having collaterol damage, and b) going out to kill civilians with no military assets in mind.
Your logic only leads us to one place: that terrorism is ok, because it not immoral. I suspect your enthuisiasm to protect terrorists' rights would vanish if you knew that a suicide bomber was sitting next to you on the train and about to blow you to kingdom come. Do you really think that you'd say to a police officer about to kill him: "oh, stop, don't shoot! this man has rights!"? I doubt it. You'd be squealing like a pig, praying that the suicide bomber wouldn't flick the switch. And the only reason he wouldn't is because the officer would get him...not because you protected his rights.
Wake up you muppet.
Shihar, I couldn't agree more with you. "get some fucking perspective please" I listened to an interview on public radio in the US today and heard a professor at UCLA describing how the British police are now responsible for the 'third wave of terror' due to the 'shoot to kill' policy. Why are these left wing 'libertarians' SO much more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists than making sure we are doing everything we can to protect our freedom? Don't these libertarians realise that if the terrorists had their way, they would be one of he the firsts groups to have their lives extinguished?