The Border Terrier Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 A group of people sat down and planned to do these things, they worked out how many people were needed to go, organized the explosives, guns and bullets and then some of them left to do it and the others waited to hear news of what they had planned. I wonder what they are thinking tonight? Yep, George Bush Junior and Senior. Mission-accomplished.jpg They oversaw the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents. I wonder what they are thinking tonight? TBT. TBT - I'm not going to defend the planners of the various Middle Eastern wars of the last few years, but I will argue with those who see a simple moral equivalence between what they planned to do and what the people who went into these schools planned to do. If you can't see a difference between what they aspired to achieve then I honestly think you are blind. You can put Blair and Bush on trial and probably convict them of hubris, over-reach, arrogance, incompetence, cultural naivety, flouting international law, etc etc but they desired that as few people as possible died as a result of what they did. They oversaw militaries which took the minimization of civilian deaths as one of their central tenets (it isn't the only one - I admit). The Taliban in planning to attack this school have consciously and deliberately planned to maximize the number of children who died. The killing of children and civilian teachers was the objective of their mission. In a clear example of their morality they've released a statement that they made a mistake and had only planned to kill the children in the upper classes of the school - if there was ever an example of moral bankruptcy that is it. Fredrick Engels warned that "those who unleash controlled forces also unleash uncontrolled forces." Something Shakespeare put far more pithily - "Cry 'havoc', and let slip the dogs of war." Bush and Blair do have moral responsibility for that - and the burden they should carry is large - but in all moral theory there is always a tension between consequentalist and deontological ethics; the Taliban and their ilk have to not only account for the consequences of what they have done, but also for what they aspired to do. The idea that they have some justification to go an deliberately attack a school is abhorrent and of a whole different moral character. I feel that needs to be emphasized. Hmmm. the alternate viewpoint being is that Bush and Blair wished to 'do a Thatcher' (ref: The Falklands) to bolster their egos. Not ignoring the oil argument of course. I don't necessarily think it was a vote catcher, more a show of absolute power by two Super Alphas demanding their place in history. It makes a mockery of Blair's 'peace envoy' credentials. >"They oversaw militaries which took the minimization of civilian deaths as one of their central tenets" "central tenet"? I have to admire your conviction, but even you must accept that your view isn't exclusive. Could you accept they initially fought by missile to reduce allied casualties for fear of another Vietnam, where a rise in casualties has a corresponding reduction in political will? That anyone could ever conceive the unleashing of just one Tomahawk Cruise missile couldn't have civilian fatalities, let alone 800+ in 2 days at capital city Baghdad, is beyond sensible comprehension. Let's nip this in the bud, if you don't agree with the above line, we'll have to agree to disagree But yeh, 7/7 wasn't that terrible? All those casualties in 'our' capital city. Something needs to be done. 7/7 was 2005 and the photos below are 2003. Surely even you cannot be so blind as to the sequence. Colonel Tim Collins speech had the 1st line as:- "We go to Iraq to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them." A bit more humility and the genuine desire to negotiate wouldn't be unwelcome. TBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 A bit more humility and the genuine desire to negotiate wouldn't be unwelcome. TBT. You cannot negotiate with people whose aim is your total annihilation. That is craven appeasement of the highest order. What do you suggest? We agree to ban music, keep our women at home and pray to Mecca five times a day for a quiet life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 What really annoys me are those who say that ill treatment of prisoners to gain information on terrorism is wrong. That by shooting the Taliban when captured is wrong and that we become worse than them by doing such things! Well, they laugh at those ethics and they know our weakness, they capitalise on us being such human rights busybodies, If these people are caught, my feeling is that they should be publicly hung, drawn and quartered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 What really annoys me are those who say that ill treatment of prisoners to gain information on terrorism is wrong. That by shooting the Taliban when captured is wrong and that we become worse than them by doing such things! Well, they laugh at those ethics and they know our weakness, they capitalise on us being such human rights busybodies, If these people are caught, my feeling is that they should be publicly hung, drawn and quartered. Of course. It's the same mindset that is soft on criminals and it goes right to the top. They think they are so civilised don't you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 What really annoys me are those who say that ill treatment of prisoners to gain information on terrorism is wrong. That by shooting the Taliban when captured is wrong and that we become worse than them by doing such things! Well, they laugh at those ethics and they know our weakness, they capitalise on us being such human rights busybodies, If these people are caught, my feeling is that they should be publicly hung, drawn and quartered. >If these people are caught, my feeling is that they should be publicly hung, drawn and quartered. So drop the Geneva Conventions in their entirety, or just certain aspects? TBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 What really annoys me are those who say that ill treatment of prisoners to gain information on terrorism is wrong. That by shooting the Taliban when captured is wrong and that we become worse than them by doing such things! Well, they laugh at those ethics and they know our weakness, they capitalise on us being such human rights busybodies, If these people are caught, my feeling is that they should be publicly hung, drawn and quartered. >If these people are caught, my feeling is that they should be publicly hung, drawn and quartered. So drop the Geneva Conventions in their entirety, or just certain aspects? TBT. That's just my thinking but the Geneva Convention was written by civilised people for civilised people. These are nothing like civilised life forms. As long as we keep assuming that they are civilised, they will continue to kill innocent people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 >A group of people sat down and planned to do these things, they worked out how many people were needed to go, organized the explosives, guns and bullets and then some of them left to do it and the others waited to hear news of what they had planned. I wonder what they are thinking tonight? Yep, George Bush Junior and Senior. They oversaw the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents. I wonder what they are thinking tonight? TBT. George Bush Senior made Saddam Hussein invade Kuwait? Well I never.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 it was hundreds of thousands pk... being the reactionary type politician you seem to be i just hope you never get charge of the islands not inconsiderable stony mountain nuclear arsenal.. Taliban seem pretty stupid to me ....not for the first time just as western misdeeds are revealed they go fuck up any seeming advantage in our perception of them my committing a truly horrendous "act"... its almost as if they want to swing our public opinion round to "lets kill all these inhuman vermin scum" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreidel Dreidelsohn Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 F**** Islam. It is a religion of death, hatred, slavery, and evil. Its founder was a murderer, thief, rapist and paedophile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 F**** Islam. It is a religion of death, hatred, slavery, and evil. Its founder was a murderer, thief, rapist and paedophile. That will be that religion intolerance I was talking about on the hospital thread. I firmly believe that the world would be better off without religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 If the heads of the Islamic religion were to publicly disown and condemn the Taliban and Al Queda then perhaps we could take a more sympathetic view. They seem to be unable to do this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreidel Dreidelsohn Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 F**** Islam. It is a religion of death, hatred, slavery, and evil. Its founder was a murderer, thief, rapist and paedophile. That will be that religion intolerance I was talking about on the hospital thread. I firmly believe that the world would be better off without religion. The world would be better off without Islam. But religion? No, we saw what a world without religion looked like when the atheist commisars of communist nations did away with it and murdered tens of millions of their own people. When you throw out religion, you throw out morality and a sense of right and wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the stinking enigma Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 have they publicly stated its a good thing max ? can we not send Beth Espey round to get there view unequivically once and for all ... driedel/tj you an intelligent guy but that last statement a crock of shit ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 It's the Foxdale Taliban you really have to watch...just the other night approaching midnight I heard one of them in the bar saying: 'Allah Allah Allah have anosher pint pleash landkeep'. Scummers. ..either we invade and wipe this scum out...or periodically bomb them back into the Stone Age when they get out of hand but keep our distance and not let them live here. There is no compromise with these people, they are fully infected with an incurable virus/meme. It will ultimately lead to several major European cities being uninhabitable...localised nukes are next in this fight...it's inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 The world would be better off without Islam. But religion? No, we saw what a world without religion looked like when the atheist commisars of communist nations did away with it and murdered tens of millions of their own people. When you throw out religion, you throw out morality and a sense of right and wrong. I know plenty of moral and just people that are in no way religious. You don't need religion to be moral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.