Bloody Sunday

[LeazesMag 0]

They believed he wasn't innocent though, and was a danger. You are just applying blind, idealistic hindsight. My question stands, if Bird had been shot before shooting or doing "anything suspicious", would you have complained an innocent man had been shot ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

 

What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"?

 

The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law.

 

no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt

 

Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks.

 

Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts.

 

So you think they are innocent civilians then

[LeazesMag 0]

Generally though, I wouldn't change my view. I'd shoot all the muslims involved in terrorism in the UK for example, and I don't really care what any do gooders say or smart arsed lawyers either.

 

I love how anyone who isn't to the right of the Third Reich is classed as a do gooder.

 

when you know they are involved, what more proof do you want ? I don't particularly like idiots who constantly find excuses for letting them roam around freely.

 

Until you or someone you know is in the firing line .........

[ewerk 31195]

well, if they didn't do it, who did ?

 

You sure you weren't an anti-terrorism officer in the seventies?

[Renton 21983]

They believed he wasn't innocent though, and was a danger. You are just applying blind, idealistic hindsight. My question stands, if Bird had been shot before shooting or doing "anything suspicious", would you have complained an innocent man had been shot ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

 

What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"?

 

The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law.

 

no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt

 

Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks.

 

Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts.

 

So you think they are innocent civilians then

 

Do you even believe in the British system of Law and Order Leazes, or is it just a case of book-reading, fancy-Dan, do-gooder lawyers getting in the way of natural justice in your opinion?

 

You seem to have a fundamental problem with the principals this country upholds to be honest.

[LeazesMag 0]

They believed he wasn't innocent though, and was a danger. You are just applying blind, idealistic hindsight. My question stands, if Bird had been shot before shooting or doing "anything suspicious", would you have complained an innocent man had been shot ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

 

What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"?

 

The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law.

 

no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt

 

Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks.

 

Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts.

 

So you think they are innocent civilians then

 

Do you even believe in the British system of Law and Order Leazes, or is it just a case of book-reading, fancy-Dan, do-gooder lawyers getting in the way of natural justice in your opinion?

 

You seem to have a fundamental problem with the principals this country upholds to be honest.

 

I don't see the problem with getting rid of those you know are terrorists. We don't need them and we are better off without them. Its people who defend them I have a problem with, in fact it would be a good idea to get rid of them too.

[ewerk 31195]

Leazes, now that you're on, perhaps you could have a go at answering this question. I'm guessing your answer will involve uniforms and battlefields.

 

I have a general question if anyone cares to have a go at answering it, what were the alternatives for Northern Irish catholics?

 

They were discriminated against for jobs and housing, they were disenfranchised and under represented in the Northern Ireland parliament, their attempts and peaceful protest were being ignored, they were being thrown in jail without trial, Thatcher was letting an MP die on hunger strike, they simply didn't have a voice.

 

I'm not defending terrorism but this wasn't just about getting a united Ireland, it was also about the institutional discrimination against a community that didn't have a voice. So violence aside, what could they have done?

[NJS 4411]

no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt

 

Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks.

 

The point is in most cases they don't know - as I said there were a spate of Muslims last year arrested in dawn raids who were completely cleared and compen paid - in your world they would have been shot.

 

As I said above, McGuinness was a front line "soldier" who has been convicted and I would have had no problem in the past with considering shooting him, Adams on the other hand is recognised as always having been political rather than military.

[Renton 21983]

They believed he wasn't innocent though, and was a danger. You are just applying blind, idealistic hindsight. My question stands, if Bird had been shot before shooting or doing "anything suspicious", would you have complained an innocent man had been shot ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

 

What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"?

 

The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law.

 

no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt

 

Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks.

 

Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts.

 

So you think they are innocent civilians then

 

Do you even believe in the British system of Law and Order Leazes, or is it just a case of book-reading, fancy-Dan, do-gooder lawyers getting in the way of natural justice in your opinion?

 

You seem to have a fundamental problem with the principals this country upholds to be honest.

 

I don't see the problem with getting rid of those you know are terrorists. We don't need them and we are better off without them. Its people who defend them I have a problem with, in fact it would be a good idea to get rid of them too.

 

So you do have a problem with the British concept of law and order then, such as the right to a fair trial, and the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Have you ever considered emigrating to somewhere that upholds a system closer to your own beliefs?

Edited June 16, 2010 by Renton

[NJS 4411]

They were discriminated against for jobs and housing, they were disenfranchised and under represented in the Northern Ireland parliament, their attempts and peaceful protest were being ignored, they were being thrown in jail without trial, Thatcher was letting an MP die on hunger strike, they simply didn't have a voice.

 

I'm not defending terrorism but this wasn't just about getting a united Ireland, it was also about the institutional discrimination against a community that didn't have a voice. So violence aside, what could they have done?

 

Not exactly the ideal answer and I accept the discrimination was wrong but I think they should have considered emmigration to the South and beyond.

 

I know you could say they should stay and fight for a united Ireland but if things were that bad on a day to day basis with not much hope of unification (as there still isn't now) I'd say they could have left.

[Renton 21983]

They were discriminated against for jobs and housing, they were disenfranchised and under represented in the Northern Ireland parliament, their attempts and peaceful protest were being ignored, they were being thrown in jail without trial, Thatcher was letting an MP die on hunger strike, they simply didn't have a voice.

 

I'm not defending terrorism but this wasn't just about getting a united Ireland, it was also about the institutional discrimination against a community that didn't have a voice. So violence aside, what could they have done?

 

Not exactly the ideal answer and I accept the discrimination was wrong but I think they should have considered emmigration to the South and beyond.

 

I know you could say they should stay and fight for a united Ireland but if things were that bad on a day to day basis with not much hope of unification (as there still isn't now) I'd say they could have left.

 

That's nonsense though. It would be completely unfeasible for the entire Catholic population to have emigrated to Eire or anywhere else for that matter. And why should they have had to leave their homes in any case? It sounds like a passive form of ethnic cleansing. Is that the answer to all countries with similar problems?

[ewerk 31195]

They were discriminated against for jobs and housing, they were disenfranchised and under represented in the Northern Ireland parliament, their attempts and peaceful protest were being ignored, they were being thrown in jail without trial, Thatcher was letting an MP die on hunger strike, they simply didn't have a voice.

 

I'm not defending terrorism but this wasn't just about getting a united Ireland, it was also about the institutional discrimination against a community that didn't have a voice. So violence aside, what could they have done?

 

Not exactly the ideal answer and I accept the discrimination was wrong but I think they should have considered emmigration to the South and beyond.

 

I know you could say they should stay and fight for a united Ireland but if things were that bad on a day to day basis with not much hope of unification (as there still isn't now) I'd say they could have left.

 

As I said, a united Ireland wasn't the catalyst for a lot of people joining the IRA, it was the discrimination and the feeling of wrongdoing and being ignored by the British government.

 

And I know that while you're not being as harsh as saying 'if they didn't like it then they should've fucked off' but you can't ask half the country to emmigrate.

[NJS 4411]

That's nonsense though. It would be completely unfeasible for the entire Catholic population to have emigrated to Eire or anywhere else for that matter. And why should they have had to leave their homes in any case? It sounds like a passive form of ethnic cleansing. Is that the answer to all countries with similar problems?

 

I admit its extremely harsh but think it was a realistic answer at least in theory.

 

Millions emmigrated in the aftermath of the famine because staying was worse so a mass migration isn't without precedent.

 

I'm a great believer in the concept of taking down borders and allowing human migration in general - whether that's away from opression or just towards something better.

[tooner 243]

They believed he wasn't innocent though, and was a danger. You are just applying blind, idealistic hindsight. My question stands, if Bird had been shot before shooting or doing "anything suspicious", would you have complained an innocent man had been shot ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

 

What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"?

 

The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law.

 

no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt

 

Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks.

 

Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts.

 

So you think they are innocent civilians then

 

Do you even believe in the British system of Law and Order Leazes, or is it just a case of book-reading, fancy-Dan, do-gooder lawyers getting in the way of natural justice in your opinion?

 

You seem to have a fundamental problem with the principals this country upholds to be honest.

 

I don't see the problem with getting rid of those you know are terrorists. We don't need them and we are better off without them. Its people who defend them I have a problem with, in fact it would be a good idea to get rid of them too.

 

define knowing though, you'd have everyone of color shipped off. fact is there is a a system in place (the legal system) that takes those accused of terrorism and applies the laws of the land to them. to suggest that an expidited version of the legal system where anyone that is suspected of terrorism is got rid of (i believe the term you used was shoot the cunts) makes you no better than a terrorist yourself.

[LeazesMag 0]

They believed he wasn't innocent though, and was a danger. You are just applying blind, idealistic hindsight. My question stands, if Bird had been shot before shooting or doing "anything suspicious", would you have complained an innocent man had been shot ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

 

What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"?

 

The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law.

 

no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt

 

Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks.

 

Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts.

 

So you think they are innocent civilians then

 

Do you even believe in the British system of Law and Order Leazes, or is it just a case of book-reading, fancy-Dan, do-gooder lawyers getting in the way of natural justice in your opinion?

 

You seem to have a fundamental problem with the principals this country upholds to be honest.

 

I don't see the problem with getting rid of those you know are terrorists. We don't need them and we are better off without them. Its people who defend them I have a problem with, in fact it would be a good idea to get rid of them too.

 

So you do have a problem with the British concept of law and order then, such as the right to a fair trial, and the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Have you ever considered emigrating to somewhere that upholds a system closer to your own beliefs?

 

No, I don't have a problem with the concept of law and order at all. You don't know anything about my beliefs. I don't particularly sit easy with terrorists and anti - British muslims and others especially those who are here illegally walking freely around the streets of Britain. Perhaps you ought to encourage those who are happy with this sort of thing, and those who are happy to give a home to such extremists and those who they are hiding behind to go and live somewhere else closer to their own beliefs ?

 

After all, nobody asked them to come and tell us what we can and can't do, or say, in our own country.

 

Why do you think we owe them a "fair trial" anyway ? We don't owe them anything.

[Renton 21983]

They believed he wasn't innocent though, and was a danger. You are just applying blind, idealistic hindsight. My question stands, if Bird had been shot before shooting or doing "anything suspicious", would you have complained an innocent man had been shot ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

 

What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"?

 

The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law.

 

no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt

 

Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks.

 

Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts.

 

So you think they are innocent civilians then

 

Do you even believe in the British system of Law and Order Leazes, or is it just a case of book-reading, fancy-Dan, do-gooder lawyers getting in the way of natural justice in your opinion?

 

You seem to have a fundamental problem with the principals this country upholds to be honest.

 

I don't see the problem with getting rid of those you know are terrorists. We don't need them and we are better off without them. Its people who defend them I have a problem with, in fact it would be a good idea to get rid of them too.

 

So you do have a problem with the British concept of law and order then, such as the right to a fair trial, and the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Have you ever considered emigrating to somewhere that upholds a system closer to your own beliefs?

 

No, I don't have a problem with the concept of law and order at all. You don't know anything about my beliefs. I don't particularly sit easy with terrorists and anti - British muslims and others especially those who are here illegally walking freely around the streets of Britain. Perhaps you ought to encourage those who are happy with this sort of thing, and those who are happy to give a home to such extremists and those who they are hiding behind to go and live somewhere else closer to their own beliefs ?

 

After all, nobody asked them to come and tell us what we can and can't do, or say, in our own country.

 

Why do you think we owe them a "fair trial" anyway ? We don't owe them anything.

 

I've been arguing with you for years, how would I not know your beliefs, on a basic level at least, by now? Unless you have been lying all this time, quite possible I suppose.

 

Your last sentence demonstrates you don't understand the concept of British justice - arguably the greatest in the World - at all. You can't be selective to who you give a fair trial to. It's highly ironic that your version of justice seems much more akin to the countries whose inhabitants you seem to hold in so much disdain.

[LeazesMag 0]

They believed he wasn't innocent though, and was a danger. You are just applying blind, idealistic hindsight. My question stands, if Bird had been shot before shooting or doing "anything suspicious", would you have complained an innocent man had been shot ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

 

What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"?

 

The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law.

 

no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt

 

Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks.

 

Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts.

 

So you think they are innocent civilians then

 

Do you even believe in the British system of Law and Order Leazes, or is it just a case of book-reading, fancy-Dan, do-gooder lawyers getting in the way of natural justice in your opinion?

 

You seem to have a fundamental problem with the principals this country upholds to be honest.

 

I don't see the problem with getting rid of those you know are terrorists. We don't need them and we are better off without them. Its people who defend them I have a problem with, in fact it would be a good idea to get rid of them too.

 

So you do have a problem with the British concept of law and order then, such as the right to a fair trial, and the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Have you ever considered emigrating to somewhere that upholds a system closer to your own beliefs?

 

No, I don't have a problem with the concept of law and order at all. You don't know anything about my beliefs. I don't particularly sit easy with terrorists and anti - British muslims and others especially those who are here illegally walking freely around the streets of Britain. Perhaps you ought to encourage those who are happy with this sort of thing, and those who are happy to give a home to such extremists and those who they are hiding behind to go and live somewhere else closer to their own beliefs ?

 

After all, nobody asked them to come and tell us what we can and can't do, or say, in our own country.

 

Why do you think we owe them a "fair trial" anyway ? We don't owe them anything.

 

I've been arguing with you for years, how would I not know your beliefs, on a basic level at least, by now? Unless you have been lying all this time, quite possible I suppose.

 

Your last sentence demonstrates you don't understand the concept of British justice - arguably the greatest in the World - at all. You can't be selective to who you give a fair trial to. It's highly ironic that your version of justice seems much more akin to the countries whose inhabitants you seem to hold in so much disdain.

 

 

you're wrong. If they are anti-British, or illegally here, we owe them nothing, except a bullet if they are planning to murder British citizens.

 

If you are happy with terrorists ie especially nowadays muslim terrorists walking around, then you should go and live in a muslim country where their beliefs and loyalities lie.

[Renton 21983]

They believed he wasn't innocent though, and was a danger. You are just applying blind, idealistic hindsight. My question stands, if Bird had been shot before shooting or doing "anything suspicious", would you have complained an innocent man had been shot ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

 

What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"?

 

The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law.

 

no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt

 

Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks.

 

Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts.

 

So you think they are innocent civilians then

 

Do you even believe in the British system of Law and Order Leazes, or is it just a case of book-reading, fancy-Dan, do-gooder lawyers getting in the way of natural justice in your opinion?

 

You seem to have a fundamental problem with the principals this country upholds to be honest.

 

I don't see the problem with getting rid of those you know are terrorists. We don't need them and we are better off without them. Its people who defend them I have a problem with, in fact it would be a good idea to get rid of them too.

 

So you do have a problem with the British concept of law and order then, such as the right to a fair trial, and the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Have you ever considered emigrating to somewhere that upholds a system closer to your own beliefs?

 

No, I don't have a problem with the concept of law and order at all. You don't know anything about my beliefs. I don't particularly sit easy with terrorists and anti - British muslims and others especially those who are here illegally walking freely around the streets of Britain. Perhaps you ought to encourage those who are happy with this sort of thing, and those who are happy to give a home to such extremists and those who they are hiding behind to go and live somewhere else closer to their own beliefs ?

 

After all, nobody asked them to come and tell us what we can and can't do, or say, in our own country.

 

Why do you think we owe them a "fair trial" anyway ? We don't owe them anything.

 

I've been arguing with you for years, how would I not know your beliefs, on a basic level at least, by now? Unless you have been lying all this time, quite possible I suppose.

 

Your last sentence demonstrates you don't understand the concept of British justice - arguably the greatest in the World - at all. You can't be selective to who you give a fair trial to. It's highly ironic that your version of justice seems much more akin to the countries whose inhabitants you seem to hold in so much disdain.

 

 

you're wrong. If they are anti-British, or illegally here, we owe them nothing, except a bullet if they are planning to murder British citizens.

 

If you are happy with terrorists ie especially nowadays muslim terrorists walking around, then you should go and live in a muslim country where their beliefs and loyalities lie.

 

How do you know what they're planning without a fair trial though?

 

Are you some kind of psychic? You'd think so judging by your bizarre comments on Derrick Bird.

 

Either you don't grasp the basic concepts of British law and justice (innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a fair trial), or you don't accept it. If it's the latter, why don't you pack your bags and go somewhere where the burden of proof is the other way round? I suggest Saudi, they like floggings and executions too.

[NJS 4411]

you're wrong. If they are anti-British, or illegally here, we owe them nothing, except a bullet if they are planning to murder British citizens.

 

If you are happy with terrorists ie especially nowadays muslim terrorists walking around, then you should go and live in a muslim country where their beliefs and loyalities lie.

 

What's your definition of "anti-british" though? One million people protested the Iraq war - I assume you'd classify them as anti-British as well.

 

As I've said before I despise the monarchy and would never swear an oath to it - I also don't give a shit about "war" casualties - I guess that means I should be shot.

 

 

As Renton and I keep saying your attitude to justice would ironically be perfectly suited to living in Saudi or Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

[Acid 0]

They believed he wasn't innocent though, and was a danger. You are just applying blind, idealistic hindsight. My question stands, if Bird had been shot before shooting or doing "anything suspicious", would you have complained an innocent man had been shot ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

 

What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"?

 

The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law.

 

no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt

 

Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks.

 

Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts.

 

So you think they are innocent civilians then

 

Do you even believe in the British system of Law and Order Leazes, or is it just a case of book-reading, fancy-Dan, do-gooder lawyers getting in the way of natural justice in your opinion?

 

You seem to have a fundamental problem with the principals this country upholds to be honest.

 

I don't see the problem with getting rid of those you know are terrorists. We don't need them and we are better off without them. Its people who defend them I have a problem with, in fact it would be a good idea to get rid of them too.

 

So you do have a problem with the British concept of law and order then, such as the right to a fair trial, and the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Have you ever considered emigrating to somewhere that upholds a system closer to your own beliefs?

 

No, I don't have a problem with the concept of law and order at all. You don't know anything about my beliefs. I don't particularly sit easy with terrorists and anti - British muslims and others especially those who are here illegally walking freely around the streets of Britain. Perhaps you ought to encourage those who are happy with this sort of thing, and those who are happy to give a home to such extremists and those who they are hiding behind to go and live somewhere else closer to their own beliefs ?

 

After all, nobody asked them to come and tell us what we can and can't do, or say, in our own country.

 

Why do you think we owe them a "fair trial" anyway ? We don't owe them anything.

 

I've been arguing with you for years, how would I not know your beliefs, on a basic level at least, by now? Unless you have been lying all this time, quite possible I suppose.

 

Your last sentence demonstrates you don't understand the concept of British justice - arguably the greatest in the World - at all. You can't be selective to who you give a fair trial to. It's highly ironic that your version of justice seems much more akin to the countries whose inhabitants you seem to hold in so much disdain.

 

you're wrong. If they are anti-British, or illegally here, we owe them nothing, except a bullet if they are planning to murder British citizens.

 

If you are happy with terrorists ie especially nowadays muslim terrorists walking around, then you should go and live in a muslim country where their beliefs and loyalities lie.

 

How do you determine if these people are anti-British or planning to murder, in a sense that you don't actually know them or their motives. Wouldn't it be a case for a trial? In which then you can base it on evidence collected, seems rather cynical to kill them on the spot.

 

I haven't read any of the above posts, so forgive me if I missed the point.

[LeazesMag 0]

They believed he wasn't innocent though, and was a danger. You are just applying blind, idealistic hindsight. My question stands, if Bird had been shot before shooting or doing "anything suspicious", would you have complained an innocent man had been shot ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

 

What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"?

 

The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law.

 

no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt

 

Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks.

 

Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts.

 

So you think they are innocent civilians then

 

Do you even believe in the British system of Law and Order Leazes, or is it just a case of book-reading, fancy-Dan, do-gooder lawyers getting in the way of natural justice in your opinion?

 

You seem to have a fundamental problem with the principals this country upholds to be honest.

 

I don't see the problem with getting rid of those you know are terrorists. We don't need them and we are better off without them. Its people who defend them I have a problem with, in fact it would be a good idea to get rid of them too.

 

So you do have a problem with the British concept of law and order then, such as the right to a fair trial, and the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Have you ever considered emigrating to somewhere that upholds a system closer to your own beliefs?

 

No, I don't have a problem with the concept of law and order at all. You don't know anything about my beliefs. I don't particularly sit easy with terrorists and anti - British muslims and others especially those who are here illegally walking freely around the streets of Britain. Perhaps you ought to encourage those who are happy with this sort of thing, and those who are happy to give a home to such extremists and those who they are hiding behind to go and live somewhere else closer to their own beliefs ?

 

After all, nobody asked them to come and tell us what we can and can't do, or say, in our own country.

 

Why do you think we owe them a "fair trial" anyway ? We don't owe them anything.

 

I've been arguing with you for years, how would I not know your beliefs, on a basic level at least, by now? Unless you have been lying all this time, quite possible I suppose.

 

Your last sentence demonstrates you don't understand the concept of British justice - arguably the greatest in the World - at all. You can't be selective to who you give a fair trial to. It's highly ironic that your version of justice seems much more akin to the countries whose inhabitants you seem to hold in so much disdain.

 

you're wrong. If they are anti-British, or illegally here, we owe them nothing, except a bullet if they are planning to murder British citizens.

 

If you are happy with terrorists ie especially nowadays muslim terrorists walking around, then you should go and live in a muslim country where their beliefs and loyalities lie.

 

How do you determine if these people are anti-British or planning to murder, in a sense that you don't actually know them or their motives. Wouldn't it be a case for a trial? In which then you can base it on evidence collected, seems rather cynical to kill them on the spot.

 

I haven't read any of the above posts, so forgive me if I missed the point.

 

I see your point, but you can't put all of them on trial. Why do we keep them in our jails ? Fact is, a lot of them are known, but haven't been to trial either. So what do you do ? People on here say we can't deport them. If you can't do that, or put them on trial, what do you do ? Wait for them to blow people up ?

[Renton 21983]

They believed he wasn't innocent though, and was a danger. You are just applying blind, idealistic hindsight. My question stands, if Bird had been shot before shooting or doing "anything suspicious", would you have complained an innocent man had been shot ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

 

What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"?

 

The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law.

 

no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt

 

Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks.

 

Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts.

 

So you think they are innocent civilians then

 

Do you even believe in the British system of Law and Order Leazes, or is it just a case of book-reading, fancy-Dan, do-gooder lawyers getting in the way of natural justice in your opinion?

 

You seem to have a fundamental problem with the principals this country upholds to be honest.

 

I don't see the problem with getting rid of those you know are terrorists. We don't need them and we are better off without them. Its people who defend them I have a problem with, in fact it would be a good idea to get rid of them too.

 

So you do have a problem with the British concept of law and order then, such as the right to a fair trial, and the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Have you ever considered emigrating to somewhere that upholds a system closer to your own beliefs?

 

No, I don't have a problem with the concept of law and order at all. You don't know anything about my beliefs. I don't particularly sit easy with terrorists and anti - British muslims and others especially those who are here illegally walking freely around the streets of Britain. Perhaps you ought to encourage those who are happy with this sort of thing, and those who are happy to give a home to such extremists and those who they are hiding behind to go and live somewhere else closer to their own beliefs ?

 

After all, nobody asked them to come and tell us what we can and can't do, or say, in our own country.

 

Why do you think we owe them a "fair trial" anyway ? We don't owe them anything.

 

I've been arguing with you for years, how would I not know your beliefs, on a basic level at least, by now? Unless you have been lying all this time, quite possible I suppose.

 

Your last sentence demonstrates you don't understand the concept of British justice - arguably the greatest in the World - at all. You can't be selective to who you give a fair trial to. It's highly ironic that your version of justice seems much more akin to the countries whose inhabitants you seem to hold in so much disdain.

 

you're wrong. If they are anti-British, or illegally here, we owe them nothing, except a bullet if they are planning to murder British citizens.

 

If you are happy with terrorists ie especially nowadays muslim terrorists walking around, then you should go and live in a muslim country where their beliefs and loyalities lie.

 

How do you determine if these people are anti-British or planning to murder, in a sense that you don't actually know them or their motives. Wouldn't it be a case for a trial? In which then you can base it on evidence collected, seems rather cynical to kill them on the spot.

 

I haven't read any of the above posts, so forgive me if I missed the point.

 

I see your point, but you can't put all of them on trial. Why do we keep them in our jails ? Fact is, a lot of them are known, but haven't been to trial either. So what do you do ? People on here say we can't deport them. If you can't do that, or put them on trial, what do you do ? Wait for them to blow people up ?

 

Erm, you monitor them until you have sufficient evidence to prosecute? I believe that's usually how it works.

[PaddockLad 17643]

Ok....so we assasinate all suspected terrorists....who decides who gets the bullet and who carries the deed out?

 

lets hear your policy Mr Leazes...the floor is yours

[LeazesMag 0]

They believed he wasn't innocent though, and was a danger. You are just applying blind, idealistic hindsight. My question stands, if Bird had been shot before shooting or doing "anything suspicious", would you have complained an innocent man had been shot ?

 

He would at least have had to have a gun and been threatening to get to that stage surely? If he'd emailed a mate and said "fuck this I'm going on a spree" should that have been grounds for execution? If so how many people do you think the police would have to shoot every day?

 

Turning the question around do you think the police should have the right to shoot anyone just based on so called intelligence which has been proven on many occasions to be shit?

 

Does this include all the Irish/Muslim "terrorists" who have been completely exonerated over the years - should we have shot them "just in case"?

 

 

names ?

 

Because, in actual fact, yes I think if we can get to them and they are proven terrorists, then get rid of them. That particularly includes Adams and McGuiness, and don't bother preaching about others stepping into their shoes, because it doesn't wash. Terrorism should not pay or be seen to pay in any shape or form whatsoever.

 

Before you reply, remember that being unable to prove something doesn't mean they aren't as guilty as fuck.

 

 

What's the point of replying with the names if you're just going to to say "he was guilty anyway"?

 

The way you talk you want to completely suspend the rule of law. Ironically you mentioned Bird and an extension of his actions is exactly what you seem to want - suspect your neighbour is a terrorist but have no proof - why not just shoot him yourself and save the effort in using the law.

 

no, what I'm saying is if you know they are a terrorist get close or on the inside and shoot the cunt

 

Are you saying McGuiness and Adams are innocent because it's never been proven ? What bollocks.

 

Aye, who needs proof, just execute the cunts.

 

So you think they are innocent civilians then

 

Do you even believe in the British system of Law and Order Leazes, or is it just a case of book-reading, fancy-Dan, do-gooder lawyers getting in the way of natural justice in your opinion?

 

You seem to have a fundamental problem with the principals this country upholds to be honest.

 

I don't see the problem with getting rid of those you know are terrorists. We don't need them and we are better off without them. Its people who defend them I have a problem with, in fact it would be a good idea to get rid of them too.

 

So you do have a problem with the British concept of law and order then, such as the right to a fair trial, and the assumption of innocence until guilt is proven. Have you ever considered emigrating to somewhere that upholds a system closer to your own beliefs?

 

No, I don't have a problem with the concept of law and order at all. You don't know anything about my beliefs. I don't particularly sit easy with terrorists and anti - British muslims and others especially those who are here illegally walking freely around the streets of Britain. Perhaps you ought to encourage those who are happy with this sort of thing, and those who are happy to give a home to such extremists and those who they are hiding behind to go and live somewhere else closer to their own beliefs ?

 

After all, nobody asked them to come and tell us what we can and can't do, or say, in our own country.

 

Why do you think we owe them a "fair trial" anyway ? We don't owe them anything.

 

I've been arguing with you for years, how would I not know your beliefs, on a basic level at least, by now? Unless you have been lying all this time, quite possible I suppose.

 

Your last sentence demonstrates you don't understand the concept of British justice - arguably the greatest in the World - at all. You can't be selective to who you give a fair trial to. It's highly ironic that your version of justice seems much more akin to the countries whose inhabitants you seem to hold in so much disdain.

 

you're wrong. If they are anti-British, or illegally here, we owe them nothing, except a bullet if they are planning to murder British citizens.

 

If you are happy with terrorists ie especially nowadays muslim terrorists walking around, then you should go and live in a muslim country where their beliefs and loyalities lie.

 

How do you determine if these people are anti-British or planning to murder, in a sense that you don't actually know them or their motives. Wouldn't it be a case for a trial? In which then you can base it on evidence collected, seems rather cynical to kill them on the spot.

 

I haven't read any of the above posts, so forgive me if I missed the point.

 

I see your point, but you can't put all of them on trial. Why do we keep them in our jails ? Fact is, a lot of them are known, but haven't been to trial either. So what do you do ? People on here say we can't deport them. If you can't do that, or put them on trial, what do you do ? Wait for them to blow people up ?

 

Erm, you monitor them until you have sufficient evidence to prosecute? I believe that's usually how it works.

 

and in the cases of Adams and McGuiness ?

[Renton 21983]

and in the cases of Adams and McGuiness ?

 

The same.

[Kevin 1]

Innocent until proven guilty. Sadly in this world it's guilty until proven innocent. McGuinness + Adams 4 lyf.