Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?

[Pabmusic]

Beautifully put, Pabs :ela::ok: - Doombar, if that's ok with you :erm:

Now I've not tried Doombar. I look forward to it. :ale:

[MrGongGong]

But if you had read various posts on here over the years, you would have found that it is also accurate, because whatever crime is committed, whatever criminal is involved, somebody pops up with some excuse or some defence of the criminal. The only exception, so far, as far as I remember, has been Jimmy Savile.

I seem to remember some people defending the folk who murdered a man in Stockwell station ?

[DavidP]

Ah but you see the POLICE were involved. And they represent AUTHORITY. And authority, to the hard left and to anarchists, is by definition a bad thing and to be opposed.

Therefore, the police must have been in the wrong, because to these people they always are.

These are their rules:

1. If the police detain a criminal, they infringe his rights.
2. If the police kill a criminal, they are murderers.
3. If the police fail to catch a criminal, they are incompetent.

The over-riding rule is that the police cannot win, whatever they do.

Now, this may seem extreme. But if you had read various posts on here over the years, you would have found that it is also accurate, because whatever crime is committed, whatever criminal is involved, somebody pops up with some excuse or some defence of the criminal. The only exception, so far, as far as I remember, has been Jimmy Savile.

And someone else always pops up to offer the knee-jerk comment that anyone who raises an issue about the actions of those in authority is just a another anarchist or left-wing troublemaker seeking to "defend the criminal"! Or is it just a bit of a dull early afternoon in the Peak District today?

[scottycelt]

Beautifully put, Pabs :ela::ok: - Doombar, if that's ok with you :erm:

Pabs merely stated the obvious to which no sensible fair-minded person could possibly object.

This thread forked from discussing whether terrorism could ever be justified ... thankfully we appear to have unanimity over that ... to one questioning whether the police tactics in Boston and surrounding neighbourhoods was justified.

Whilst the end does not always justify the means, in this case the operation ended with a successful conclusion and no more civilian lives were lost.

Those here who oppose such police action should be asked whether they would have preferred gentler action possibly (probably?) resulting in more deaths and other having arms and legs blown off.

The authorities and the police on the ground have to make these awful decisions. Some times they get it horribly wrong. These cases have been well documented not least on this forum.

In Boston they clearly didn't get it wrong. By luck or design ... most likely a mixture of both ... they got it damn well right, and all sensible fair-minded people will congratulate them.

BTW, Doombar is an excellent beer and currently only £2.15 a pint in my local ...

[ahinton]

Doombar is an excellent beer and currently only £2.15 a pint in my local ...

As a devout beer avoider, I can only wish that my local - well, actually, no, as I don't really have one - any pub at all, anywhere within reasonably easy reach - would have Glendronach 18-y-o or Tanqueray 10 at £2.15 a pint...

[teamsaint]

As a devout beer avoider, I can only wish that my local - well, actually, no, as I don't really have one - any pub at all, anywhere within reasonably easy reach - would have Glendronach 18-y-o or Tanqueray 10 at £2.15 a pint...

I don't suppose a jug of Jagerbombs for a tenner at Wetherspoons would do the job, AH?...surely THAT would help the creative process ?!:smiley:

[ahinton]

I don't suppose a jug of Jagerbombs for a tenner at Wetherspoons would do the job, AH?...surely THAT would help the creative process ?!:smiley:

It wouldn't do any kind of worthwhile job for me, let alone stimulate the creative process, I fear.

[Serial_Apologist]

I don't suppose a jug of Jagerbombs for a tenner at Wetherspoons would do the job, AH?...surely THAT would help the creative process ?!:smiley:

http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink6891.html

:yikes:

You're trying to corrupt ahinton, TS!

[teamsaint]

http://www.drinksmixer.com/drink6891.html

:yikes:

You're trying to corrupt ahinton, TS!

as if........

ever tasted one? now they ARE a social danger....

[Serial_Apologist]

as if........

ever tasted one? now they ARE a social danger....

All other vices, TS... :winkeye:

[Simon]

At least you have refrained from any sweeping generalisations which might undermine your argument, Simes!

TS, you are right to assess as containing generalisations. But let's look at those generalisations and see whether or not they are largely justified. For I;m sure you'll agree that generalisations don't undermine arguments per se - they only do that if they are patently inacurate.

Here's what I stated (though I've broken it down into the main points and numbered them, for convenience of referral.

1 Authority, to the hard left and to anarchists, is by definition a bad thing and to be opposed.

2 The police must have been in the wrong, because to these people they always are, simply because they represent "authority".

3 The general ideology under which most anarchists operate are as follows:

a) If the police detain a criminal, they infringe his rights.
b) If the police kill a criminal, they are murderers.
c) If the police fail to catch a criminal, they are incompetent.


4 if you had read various posts on here over the years, you would have found that ... whatever crime is committed, whatever criminal is involved, somebody pops up with some excuse or some defence of the criminal.

5. The only exception, so far, as far as I remember, has been Jimmy Savile.

Now, I accept that point 3 was pushing it a bit and there may well be exceptions to that, but I think that most unbiased observers will hold the validity of the others, especially 1 and 2. 4 is certainly very clearly accurate.

I'm always, though, ready to be shown I'm in error, by properly reasoned argument!

[MrGongGong]

I'm always, though, ready to be shown I'm in error, by properly reasoned argument!

Of course
and i'm Louis IVth

[Simon]

Of course
and i'm Louis IVth

A rather typically unhelpful and inaccurate comment, if I may say so. I'm sure I''m not the only one to be fed up with these pointless and argumentative one-liners from you and a. n. other.

But here's a challenge for you that will squash it:

Show me one single occasion ever in the past where I have failed to heed and accept a properly reasoned, coherent and logical argument against one of my posts.

I'll give you lots of time...

[Pabmusic]

Pabs merely stated the obvious to which no sensible fair-minded person could possibly object...

Does this mean I have to return my pint of Doombar?

[scottycelt]

Does this mean I have to return my pint of Doombar?

:laugh:

Not at all. The "obvious" is not necessarily grasped or welcomed by everyone and therefore someone merely stating the "obvious" might be of some use to those who are blind or just prefer to close their eyes to it.. This can never be a bad thing, though, of course, its success can never be guaranteed.

So enjoy your pint of Doombar, Pab ... you deserve it ... slainte!