Originally posted by amateur51
View Post
Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Simon View PostBut 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.
Comment
-
-
DavidP
Originally posted by Simon View PostAh 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.
Comment
-
scottycelt
Originally posted by amateur51 View PostBeautifully put, Pabs :ela::ok: - Doombar, if that's ok with you :erm:
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 ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by scottycelt View PostDoombar is an excellent beer and currently only £2.15 a pint in my local ...
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ahinton View PostAs 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 will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
I am not a number, I am a free man.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by teamsaint View PostI 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:
:yikes:
You're trying to corrupt ahinton, TS!
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post
ever tasted one? now they ARE a social danger....I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
I am not a number, I am a free man.
Comment
-
-
Simon
Originally posted by teamsaint View PostAt least you have refrained from any sweeping generalisations which might undermine your argument, Simes!
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!
Comment
-
Simon
Originally posted by MrGongGong View PostOf course
and i'm Louis IVth
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...
Comment
-
scottycelt
Originally posted by Pabmusic View PostDoes this mean I have to return my pint of Doombar?
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!
Comment
Comment