This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Hrolf The Ganger 07 Dec 17 12.31pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
What I find odd, is how this is so unacceptable - We kind of declared war on IS, and spent the last couple of years throwing missiles and bombs at them, including their leadership. Yet, when people allied to them target our Prime Minister (rather than civilians say at a concert) its a special kind of wrong. Seems like fair game in a war. Good lord man. Who's side are you on? Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (07 Dec 2017 12.31pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Dec 17 12.35pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Sadly we killed loads of the 'Wrong people' during WW2 and other conflicts for the greater good. Protecting the innocent ain't always pretty. We didn't have a choice, the scale of the conflict and the necessity of facing an existential threat, in a full scale conflict, meant we had no choice. And in truth, very few of those, if any, were British Citizens. Which would be the case here. If they're in a war zone, fighting with IS, sure - I think it pretty reasonable for them to be killed as part of the conflict. But that's not the same thing as conducting assassination of British Citizens, based on suspicion, without trial or due process. It should be a last resort. States should be very cautious about conducting assassinations, especially of their own citizens. Response should be proportional to the threat. We should consider offering an 'amnesty' for IS fighters of UK origin before that, where in we offer them 'prisoner of war status' with a mandatory sentence (with possibility of parole) to UK citizens who surrender themselves to UK authorities.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Dec 17 12.37pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Good lord man. Who's side are you on? Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (07 Dec 2017 12.31pm) Don't be daft, targeting the Manchester Arena was a war crime, the prime minister is a legitimate military target. Doesn't mean I support it, but she's the head of state, in a country engaged in a war. Of course she's a target.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 07 Dec 17 12.41pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
We didn't have a choice, the scale of the conflict and the necessity of facing an existential threat, in a full scale conflict, meant we had no choice. And in truth, very few of those, if any, were British Citizens. Which would be the case here. If they're in a war zone, fighting with IS, sure - I think it pretty reasonable for them to be killed as part of the conflict. But that's not the same thing as conducting assassination of British Citizens, based on suspicion, without trial or due process. It should be a last resort. States should be very cautious about conducting assassinations, especially of their own citizens. Response should be proportional to the threat. We should consider offering an 'amnesty' for IS fighters of UK origin before that, where in we offer them 'prisoner of war status' with a mandatory sentence (with possibility of parole) to UK citizens who surrender themselves to UK authorities. I'm sorry but fighting for the 'other side' goes beyond simple lawbreaking. They can have no complaints about being killed as enemy combatants where ever they end up. They made their bed. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (07 Dec 2017 12.41pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 07 Dec 17 12.44pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Don't be daft, targeting the Manchester Arena was a war crime, the prime minister is a legitimate military target. Doesn't mean I support it, but she's the head of state, in a country engaged in a war. Of course she's a target. Are you giving equivalence to a band of murdering religious nutcases?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
chris123 hove actually 07 Dec 17 12.47pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Don't be daft, targeting the Manchester Arena was a war crime, the prime minister is a legitimate military target. Doesn't mean I support it, but she's the head of state, in a country engaged in a war. Of course she's a target. Wow - I can't believe what I'm reading.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Dec 17 12.53pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
The advocacy of identity politics, political correctness, the instinctive over protection of minorities over majorities, third wave feminism, anti capitalism, the pursuit of equality over meritocracy, open borders, internationalism over nationalism.......the idea that people are just social constructs to be molded rather than biologically determined beings to significant degrees...Implicit and explicit misandry...an over blaming of masculinity for being 'toxic'...Essentially cultural Marxism mixed in with an over attachment to the impractical elements of egalitarianism.Something like that. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Nov 2017 11.34pm) So basically Liberalism is progressivism. The idea that all citizens of a country have the same legal rights, and can expect the same kind of treatment by other citizens is somehow objectionable? I don't see that as remotely unreasonable. Do I think minorities should have special protections - Yes, where necessary, where threat exists due to targeting by groups who'd consider themselves the majority (who aren't, I doubt the majority would consider gay bashing more acceptable than gay rights). Captialism, I'm torn on that, I'm kind of anti-capitalist, but I think that its really the only option to a scarcity society. Now I get that some progressives are f**ktards and in fact embrace an anti-progressive stance, in which they'd deny the same rights to others - But hint, these people aren't actually progressives in the same way that a pro-fascist voting UKIP doesn't represent them either. Male Masculinity, if your female, can be very toxic. The experience of being a woman in society is very different, to being male, especially in regards to the sense of threat and danger. Now it is unfair to target all men with that, that's wrong. I think you invest too much into the idea of biological determinism, because it suits the argument - and in doing so, demean the notion of agency and responsibility. I think we're not defined by our biological capacity, but limited to its restrictions. I don't think a man (or woman) can help checking out someone they find attractive, but they can avoid assaulting that person.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
nickgusset Shizzlehurst 07 Dec 17 1.08pm | |
---|---|
Is the war on terror not a war?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Mr Fenandes 07 Dec 17 1.10pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Don't be daft, targeting the Manchester Arena was a war crime, the prime minister is a legitimate military target. Doesn't mean I support it, but she's the head of state, in a country engaged in a war. Of course she's a target. Agreed, you aren't advocating it, but she IS a military target, she is basically our commander in chief. And she has f***loads of security and I'm not being funny I reckon every day they have to deal with numerous threats, be it terrorists/"nutters" (delete as appropriate depending on skin colour or irish accent) Edited by Mr Fenandes (07 Dec 2017 1.11pm)
Check out our Croydon-based football comedy series 'Road to F.A. Cup'! |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 07 Dec 17 1.18pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Is the war on terror not a war? No.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Ray in Houston Houston 07 Dec 17 2.51pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Sadly we killed loads of the 'Wrong people' during WW2 and other conflicts for the greater good. Protecting the innocent ain't always pretty. So you protect the innocent by killing other innocents?
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 07 Dec 17 2.58pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
So you protect the innocent by killing other innocents? Conflict is a bit like that.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.