Who saw all those Yanks chanting "USA"?
HardySpicer
such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
Hardy
deem...@aol.com
> Looked like a bunch of bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
> such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
>
<yawn>
Akins of that Ilk
> Looked like a bunch of bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
> such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
Mel Rowing
I am old enough to remember VE night!
A bonfire made from railway sleepers was lit in the street. The hole
that remained in the asphalt was there for years afterwards usually
full with water. We kids used to sail toy boats in it.
An effigy of the recently deceased Hitler, complete with painted paper
head was burned. A piano was brought out from one of the houses.
Bottles of beer appeared as if from nowhere and singing and dancing in
the light of the fire went on into the late hours. It's still
engrained in my memory some 66 years later.
Why should people not rejoice and celebrate the deaths of these vile
creatures? OBL has been responsible directly or indirectly with the
deaths of tens of thousands of people. Ironically most of them were
Muslim.
RH
You mean like Scotchland with the Fenians and Prods? RH
MCP
"RH" <anywh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:66c05255-350b-41e8...@r6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
Not half as much as the *nglish Empire killed wordwide....and are STILL
killing, Fatso!
MCP
Custos Custodum
d4e4f1...@r6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
No, he means like Fatboi gloating when an innocent woman died of food
poisoning.
electro cutie
something he had in common with GWBush...tho his inglis was probali
betta
Harry Merrick
It is *so* very easy to sneer isn't it. I just hope and wish that the
British people had a sufficient level of national pride to do the same as
the Americans should the occasion ever occur. Which I hope it won't, of
course! However, being Patriotic is a highly laudable complaint to most
reasonable people.
--
Harry Merrick.
Bryn Fraser
> In article
> <2ed08993-8e7f-40cd-b5da-395e7d450...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> writes>Looked like a bunch of bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
> >such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
>
> that "society", yes, I can.
>
> --
> Malcolm
Er? Is that proven?
Bryn
killwhang
It already has! Numerous IRA killers were locked up (but not killed of
course). The state doesn't kill
(in theory at least) with the one exception of the Gilbralter
shootings and when they killed that whistler blower
for the Iraq WMDs Dr Kelly.
Hardy
killwhang
Precisely! I did think you were entitled to a fair trial first.
Hardy
Mel Rowing
> It already has! Numerous IRA killers were locked up (but not killed of
> course). The state doesn't kill
> (in theory at least) with the one exception of the Gilbralter
> shootings and when they killed that whistler blower
> for the Iraq WMDs Dr Kelly.
Now we know he's potty!
BTW it's Gibraltar.
Bryn Fraser
That would call for forensic evidence.. Is there any?
Bryn
Bryn Fraser
Entering a man's home, blowing the side out of his head (while
resisting arrest), shooting several other people. Kidnapping..
Um?
Bryn
Bryn Fraser
SPELLING FLAME!
Not seen that in while...
Bryn
deem...@aol.com
Well, he did sorta brag about it......
deem...@aol.com
He declared war on the US a few years ago. That changes the rules
of the game.
deem...@aol.com
Killed resisting arrest. Happens all the time. Darn.
RH
> "RH" <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
But....but.... Auld Bob Simplemideders and all the fantasy Celts in
the ng keep saying the Empire was run by Scotchmen.... RH
> killing, Fatso!
>
> MCP
RH
> RH <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote in news:66c05255-350b-41e8-b0e5-
> d4e4f1cb9...@r6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On May 3, 1:49 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Looked like a bunch of bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
> >> such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
>
> >> Hardy
>
> > You mean like Scotchland with the Fenians and Prods? RH
>
> No, he means like Fatboi gloating when an innocent woman died of food
> poisoning.
Really? Doubtless you will be able to substantiate that lie by posting
the evidence here... RH
Custos Custodum
b37fd2...@y27g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
Message-ID: <kgHy8YO9...@anywhere.demon.co.uk>
Next!
Robert Peffers
"Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:94xoxxEC...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> In article
> <2ed08993-8e7f-40cd...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> writes
>>Looked like a bunch of bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
>>such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
>>
> that "society", yes, I can.
>
> --
> Malcolm
Well! As usual, there are two sides to every story, even this one.
I wonder if these were the same people who became so upset when the
treminally ill Lockerbie Bomber was being cheered on arrival by his home
crowd?
Ted
"HardySpicer" <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ed08993-8e7f-40cd...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Looked like a bunch of bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
> such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
The message that vile scum like this will always be tracked down was sent
loud and clear. Thats worth a celebration.
Ted
"Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d3e4e4d0-5bab-44de...@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 7:49 am, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looked like a bunch of bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
> such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmo64fcvKs0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-9JpRytCx0
There is a sort of racism at play here, apologists will make excuses for
them as if they can't really be expected to be any better. Yanks or Brits
aren't cut that sort of slack.
deem...@aol.com
> "Malcolm" <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:94xoxxEC...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <2ed08993-8e7f-40cd-b5da-395e7d450...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> writes
> >>Looked like a bunch of bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
> >>such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
>
> > As that "person" was responsible for the deaths of over 3000 people from
> > that "society", yes, I can.
>
> > --
> > Malcolm
>
> Well! As usual, there are two sides to every story, even this one.
> I wonder if these were the same people who became so upset when the
> treminally ill Lockerbie Bomber was being cheered on arrival by his home
> crowd?
Is he dead yet? (Just wondering)
Robert Peffers
"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:2ecd4ad5-8766-4117...@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 1:56 pm, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 8:49 am, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Looked like a bunch of bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
> > such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
I am old enough to remember VE night!
A bonfire made from railway sleepers was lit in the street. The hole
that remained in the asphalt was there for years afterwards usually
full with water. We kids used to sail toy boats in it.
An effigy of the recently deceased Hitler, complete with painted paper
head was burned. A piano was brought out from one of the houses.
Bottles of beer appeared as if from nowhere and singing and dancing in
the light of the fire went on into the late hours. It's still
engrained in my memory some 66 years later.
Why should people not rejoice and celebrate the deaths of these vile
creatures? OBL has been responsible directly or indirectly with the
deaths of tens of thousands of people. Ironically most of them were
Muslim.
How about the sinple fact that there is just a few little differences.
Like it is not a case of two nations at war and a war being over.
Like Hitler killed himself but if he had not he would have been tried and
then, if/when found guilty, executed for his crimes.
Like he, personally, did not kill anyone in the USA.
Like the fact that to him, you were the, what was it you called him, "vile
creatures? OBL has been responsible directly or indirectly with the
deaths of tens of thousands of people. So just what do you think the Muslim
religion thinks of Bush, Blair, and the whole batch of people who were,
directly or indirectly, respolsible for the deaths of tens of, hundreds if
thousands, of people, ironically too, most of them Muslims?
Then there is the fact that the, no doubt evil, man was not the head of a
nation the USA were at war with.
Hardly the same situation
Robert Peffers
"Harry Merrick" <home...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:92aqjl...@mid.individual.net...
Farmer Giles
"RH" <anywh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e9e01402-b98c-4010...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Yes, Robert, but that's when they're standing over here <---, now they're
standing over there ---->.
killwhang
> killwhang <gyansor...@gmail.com> writes
> responsibility for bringing down the Twin Towers. He could, of course,
> have given himself up long ago and asked for a fair trial.
>
> --
> Malcolm
It's debatable whether it was him on the video. For starters his beard
is no longer
white as it was on a previous video! So he dyed his beard?? Possible
but unlikely.
Even if he did admit it, a confession, he still needed to be taken to
court and sentenced.
Many people brag that they murdered people but end up being innocent!
I am pretty sure it was him though
in as much as he supplied the money and he is the "CEO" and hence
responsible. How would you feel if a relative of yours
said he killed somebody and the police just went and shot him, no
trial! Now you may think that for this case that it doesn't
matter or that the rules don't apply. If so then it makes us no better
than them, ordinary murderers.
Hardy
killwhang
> "Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:d3e4e4d0-5bab-44de...@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On May 3, 7:49 am, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Looked like a bunch of bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
> > such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmo64fcvKs0
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-9JpRytCx0
>
> There is a sort of racism at play here, apologists will make excuses for
> them as if they can't really be expected to be any better. Yanks or Brits
> aren't cut that sort of slack.
Like I said, what the other side do is up to them, if you want the
moral high ground then you cannot
behave in a similar ignorant fashion! it's because of this that the
USA is held in such disregard nowadays.
They have become no worse than the terrorists they condemn! They storm
into a sovereign and shoot dead
a whole load of people, no trial, no nothing. Information for this
attack was found from torture no less! Now correct me if I am wrong
but if a convicted felon confesses under torture and the court finds
out, the case is dismissed is it not?
Hardy
Robert Peffers
"Bryn Fraser" <brianlo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9597b88-ac22-4197...@f15g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Er? Is that proven?
Bryn
Nail! Head! Boing!
Robert Peffers
SPELLING FLAME!
Bryn
You just have not been paying attention.
Robert Peffers
Bryn
Actually, it would also require due process of law. Was there any?
Robert Peffers
>
> In article
> <8a404b57-eb2e-4888...@s16g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Bryn
> Fraser <brianlo...@gmail.com> writes
> the planes into the Twin Towers, but are you going to claim that in its
> absence they can't be guilty of what they did?
>
> And Bin Laden did it by proxy, having declared war on the USA and then
> bragging about bringing down the Twin Towers, claiming responsibility.
>
> --
> Malcolm
It makes no difference.
The state must not only assure that justice is done, but must also assure
that justice is seen to be done.
In this case the state executed an unarmed man without due process of law.
Are they thus any better than the suspected criminal they executed?
Robert Peffers
>
> In article
> <335f2528-613e-452f...@17g2000prr.googlegroups.com>,
> killwhang <gyans...@gmail.com> writes
>>On May 4, 6:31 am, Bryn Fraser <brianlovett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 3, 3:00 pm, Malcolm <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> > In article
>>> > <2ed08993-8e7f-40cd-b5da-395e7d450...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>>> > HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> writes>Looked like a bunch of
>>> > bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
>>> > >such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
>>>
>>> > As that "person" was responsible for the deaths of over 3000 people
>>> > from
>>> > that "society", yes, I can.
>>>
>>> > --
>>> > Malcolm
>>>
>>> Er? Is that proven?
>>>
>>> Bryn
>>
>>Precisely! I did think you were entitled to a fair trial first.
>>
> responsibility for bringing down the Twin Towers. He could, of course,
> have given himself up long ago and asked for a fair trial.
>
> --
> Malcolm
There are nutters who, "claim responsibility", to every crime in the book.
They don't get executed without trial though.
Civilised people do not execute anyone without trial.
When they do they become no better than the suspected criminal they execute.
Robert Peffers
"Ted" <T...@Micronet.com> wrote in message
news:4dc06700$0$2522$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Did you mean the untried suspected, "Scum like this"?
Good grief we gave the NAZI war criminals a trial after WWII.
When a country puts itself above the law, even its own law, that means that
country has lost its moral backbone and is no better than those it kills
without trial.
What if YOU were next on their list.
Would you accept that your trial was not needed for your country to just
decide to blow your head off?
>
William Black
> There are nutters who, "claim responsibility", to every crime in the book.
>
Do you believe that Osama bin Ladin was innocent of every crime he was
accused of?
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...
William Black
> "Ted"<T...@Micronet.com> wrote in message
> news:4dc06700$0$2522$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>> "HardySpicer"<gyans...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:2ed08993-8e7f-40cd...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>> Looked like a bunch of bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
>>> such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
>>
>>
>>
>> The message that vile scum like this will always be tracked down was sent
>> loud and clear. Thats worth a celebration.
>
>
> Did you mean the untried suspected, "Scum like this"?
> Good grief we gave the NAZI war criminals a trial after WWII.
Well, some of them.
Many were just shot out of hand...
killwhang
Irrelevant. You have to stand trial, innocent until proven guilty is
the rule of law.
Hardy
killwhang
wrote:
> "Malcolm" <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:PPZU8LOh...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <8a404b57-eb2e-4888-98a9-0b529caeb...@s16g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Bryn
> > Fraser <brianlovett...@gmail.com> writes
Absolutely not, I totally agree.
Hardy
William Black
> On May 4, 11:03 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03/05/11 23:17, Robert Peffers wrote:
>>
>>> There are nutters who, "claim responsibility", to every crime in the book.
>>
>> Do you believe that Osama bin Ladin was innocent of every crime he was
>> accused of?
>
> Irrelevant. You have to stand trial, innocent until proven guilty is
> the rule of law.
>
The current story is that the man who shot bin Ladin claims he felt
threatened.
Do you have a problem with that?
Akins of that Ilk
But not the rule of war.
Charles Ellson
<deem...@aol.com> wrote:
>On May 3, 3:04 pm, Bryn Fraser <brianlovett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 3, 7:37 pm, killwhang <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On May 4, 6:31 am, Bryn Fraser <brianlovett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 3, 3:00 pm, Malcolm <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > > In article
>> > > > <2ed08993-8e7f-40cd-b5da-395e7d450...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > > HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> writes>Looked like a bunch of bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
>> > > > >such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
>>
>> > > > As that "person" was responsible for the deaths of over 3000 people from
>> > > > that "society", yes, I can.
>>
>> > > > --
>> > > > Malcolm
>>
>> > > Er? Is that proven?
>>
>> > > Bryn
>>
>> > Precisely! I did think you were entitled to a fair trial first.
>>
>> > Hardy-
>>
>> Entering a man's home, blowing the side out of his head (while
>> resisting arrest), shooting several other people. Kidnapping..
>>
>> Um?
>
> He declared war on the US a few years ago. That changes the rules
>of the game.
>
It wasn't a home fixture.
deem...@aol.com
> On Tue, 3 May 2011 12:28:08 -0700 (PDT), "deemsb...@aol.com"
I must've missed something?
Gitmo Intelligence @islamabad.com Bush's GITMO Interrogations Killed Bin Laden
"Bryn Fraser" <brianlo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9597b88-ac22-4197...@f15g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On May 3, 3:00 pm, Malcolm <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article
>> <2ed08993-8e7f-40cd-b5da-395e7d450...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> writes>Looked like a bunch of bleeding
>> football hooligans! Can you fathom
>> >such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
>>
>> As that "person" was responsible for the deaths of over 3000 people from
>> that "society", yes, I can.
>>
>> --
>> Malcolm
>
> Er? Is that proven?
>
> Bryn
===================
Hitler didn't personally fly those bombers that destroyed Coventry either,
but I bet you Brits cheered the day Hitler was dead.
deem...@aol.com
Well, that sure settles everything. BAD BAD AMERICA!!!!!! (Again)
Robert Peffers
"William Black" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ipq1kr$17f$2...@dont-email.me...
> On 03/05/11 23:17, Robert Peffers wrote:
>
>> There are nutters who, "claim responsibility", to every crime in the
>> book.
>>
>
> Do you believe that Osama bin Ladin was innocent of every crime he was
> accused of?
What an utterly stupid question - but then you are good at utterly stupid
questions.
What I believe, or the rest of the World, believes about the innocence or
guilt of anyone charged with any criminal offence has nothing whatsoever to
do with it.
The point is that justice has to be done but justice has also to be seen to
be done.
That means, no matter what the crime, that the suspect remains a suspect
until charged, tried and found guilty, (or innocent), by due process of the
law.
So just how does the POTUS ordering a suspect, (innocent until proven
guilty), is to be executed without even being charged under USA law, seem to
you?
Turns out the troops shot the guy in the head, once just to assure he was
indeed dead, even although he was unarmed and thus could have been captured.
So now we have the POTUS just as much a suspect of conspiracy to commit
murder as the suspected terrorist victim on his orders.
Not exactly in accordance with USA due process that everyone is innocent
until tried and found guilty.
So awa an bark up the right tree for once.
Gitmo Intelligence @islamabad.com Bush's GITMO Interrogations Killed Bin Laden
"Bryn Fraser" <brianlo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8bd1403f-b959-44e7...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On May 3, 7:37 pm, killwhang <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 4, 6:31 am, Bryn Fraser <brianlovett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 3, 3:00 pm, Malcolm <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > In article
>> > > <2ed08993-8e7f-40cd-b5da-395e7d450...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> writes>Looked like a bunch of
>> > > bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
>> > > >such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
>>
>> > > As that "person" was responsible for the deaths of over 3000 people
>> > > from
>> > > that "society", yes, I can.
>>
>> > > --
>> > > Malcolm
>>
>> > Er? Is that proven?
>>
>> > Bryn
>>
>> Precisely! I did think you were entitled to a fair trial first.
>>
>> Hardy-
>
> Entering a man's home, blowing the side out of his head (while
> resisting arrest), shooting several other people. Kidnapping..
>
> Um?
>
> Bryn
=========================
Why I seems like only yesterday when Obama was campaigning in Europe , doing
speeches and having Obamatrons in England swoon and faint at the mere
sight of the Holy One .
Hell you even have a dedicated group of Brits campaigning For Obama .Is
the honeymoon over all ready? Did you find out he gave you crabs and he's
not that holy after all?
Robert Peffers
> On 04/05/11 00:25, killwhang wrote:
>> On May 4, 11:03 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 03/05/11 23:17, Robert Peffers wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are nutters who, "claim responsibility", to every crime in the
>>>> book.
>>>
>>> Do you believe that Osama bin Ladin was innocent of every crime he was
>>> accused of?
> .
>>
>> Irrelevant. You have to stand trial, innocent until proven guilty is
>> the rule of law.
>>
>
> The current story is that the man who shot bin Ladin claims he felt
> threatened.
>
> Do you have a problem with that?
Yes. bin Laden was unarmed and the guy who, "felt threatend", was obviously
armed and probably had his regulation issue body armour on.
Where is there not a problem?
Does being a USA soldier exemt the man from USA law?
William Black
> "William Black"<black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ipq3sq$6nd$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 04/05/11 00:25, killwhang wrote:
>>> On May 4, 11:03 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 03/05/11 23:17, Robert Peffers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are nutters who, "claim responsibility", to every crime in the
>>>>> book.
>>>>
>>>> Do you believe that Osama bin Ladin was innocent of every crime he was
>>>> accused of?
>> .
>>>
>>> Irrelevant. You have to stand trial, innocent until proven guilty is
>>> the rule of law.
>>>
>>
>> The current story is that the man who shot bin Ladin claims he felt
>> threatened.
>>
>> Do you have a problem with that?
>
> Yes. bin Laden was unarmed and the guy who, "felt threatend", was obviously
> armed and probably had his regulation issue body armour on.
> Where is there not a problem?
The most dangerous man in the world is coming for you, what do you do?
> Does being a USA soldier exemt the man from USA law?
No.
Think you'd get a jury to convict?
Gitmo Intelligence @islamabad.com Bush's GITMO Interrogations Killed Bin Laden
"Robert Peffers" <peff...@btinbternet.com> wrote in message
news:oMSdnfzH5eCrAF3Q...@bt.com...
>
> "William Black" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ipq1kr$17f$2...@dont-email.me...
>> On 03/05/11 23:17, Robert Peffers wrote:
>>
>>> There are nutters who, "claim responsibility", to every crime in the
>>> book.
>>>
>>
>> Do you believe that Osama bin Ladin was innocent of every crime he was
>> accused of?
>
> What an utterly stupid question - but then you are good at utterly stupid
> questions.
>
> What I believe, or the rest of the World, believes about the innocence or
> guilt of anyone charged with any criminal offence has nothing whatsoever
> to do with it.
> The point is that justice has to be done but justice has also to be seen
> to be done.
> That means, no matter what the crime, that the suspect remains a suspect
> until charged, tried and found guilty, (or innocent), by due process of
> the law.
>
> So just how does the POTUS ordering a suspect, (innocent until proven
> guilty), is to be executed without even being charged under USA law, seem
> to you?
Habeus Corpus only applies to US Citizens. Not foreign national terrorists
who have declared war on the US.
killwhang
> On 04/05/11 00:25, killwhang wrote:
>
> > On May 4, 11:03 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 03/05/11 23:17, Robert Peffers wrote:
>
> >>> There are nutters who, "claim responsibility", to every crime in the book.
>
> >> Do you believe that Osama bin Ladin was innocent of every crime he was
> >> accused of?
> .
>
> > Irrelevant. You have to stand trial, innocent until proven guilty is
> > the rule of law.
>
> The current story is that the man who shot bin Ladin claims he felt
> threatened.
>
You are standing with a machine gun in front of an un-armed child and
a man. Pull the other one!
Hardy
killwhang
wrote:
I was unaware that the US was at war with Pakistan...I stand
corrected.
Hardy
killwhang
<Bush's Gitmo Intelligence @islamabad.com> wrote:
> "Bryn Fraser" <brianlovett...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Hitler raged a war on the whole of Europe. There was no doubt that he
gave the orders.
However, Hitler killed himself. His comrades were captured alive for
the most part and stood trial.
Big difference. Even to this day the Jews who hunt Nazis try and
capture them and make them stand trial.
See the difference?
Hardy
killwhang
You said it,,
Gitmo Intelligence @islamabad.com Bush's GITMO Interrogations Killed Bin Laden
"killwhang" <gyans...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e726eb20-558e-4ad3...@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
================
There were thousands of Nazi's, some gave orders, some followed them and
others never actually committed any war crimes. Having trials with
witnesses would be important to determine those factors.
Bin Laden has been documented by foreign countries to be the financial
backer & planner , conspirator of many terrorism attacks worldwide, not just
against the US.' Not to mention the video of himself admitting his
involvement.
HardySpicer
> On May 3, 3:04 pm, Bryn Fraser <brianlovett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 7:37 pm, killwhang <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 4, 6:31 am, Bryn Fraser <brianlovett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <2ed08993-8e7f-40cd-b5da-395e7d450...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> writes>Looked like a bunch of bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
> > > > > >such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
>
> > > > > As that "person" was responsible for the deaths of over 3000 people from
> > > > > that "society", yes, I can.
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Malcolm
>
> > > > Er? Is that proven?
>
> > > > Bryn
>
>
>
> > Entering a man's home, blowing the side out of his head (while
> > resisting arrest), shooting several other people. Kidnapping..
>
> > Um?
>
> of the game.
No it doesn't! There are rules of war, you don't shoot an un-armed
civilian. (or soldier)
You take them prisoner.
Hardy
HardySpicer
> "RH" <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e9e01402-b98c-4010...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 3, 3:43 pm, "MCP" <gf010w5...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "RH" <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:66c05255-350b-41e8...@r6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 3, 1:49 pm, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Looked like a bunch of bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
> > > such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
>
>
> > You mean like Scotchland with the Fenians and Prods? RH
>
> > Not half as much as the *nglish Empire killed wordwide....and are STILL
>
> But....but.... Auld Bob Simplemideders and all the fantasy Celts in
> the ng keep saying the Empire was run by Scotchmen.... RH
>
> Yes, Robert, but that's when they're standing over here <---, now they're
> standing over there ---->.
Can you feed him his medication Giles whilst we grown-ups have a
discussion?
These bloomin kids in the background are a distraction.
Hardy
HardySpicer
wrote:
> "William Black" <blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ipq3sq$6nd$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
> > On 04/05/11 00:25, killwhang wrote:
> >> On May 4, 11:03 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 03/05/11 23:17, Robert Peffers wrote:
>
> >>>> There are nutters who, "claim responsibility", to every crime in the
> >>>> book.
>
> >>> Do you believe that Osama bin Ladin was innocent of every crime he was
> >>> accused of?
> > .
>
> >> Irrelevant. You have to stand trial, innocent until proven guilty is
> >> the rule of law.
>
> > The current story is that the man who shot bin Ladin claims he felt
> > threatened.
>
> > Do you have a problem with that?
>
> Yes. bin Laden was unarmed and the guy who, "felt threatend", was obviously
> armed and probably had his regulation issue body armour on.
> Where is there not a problem?
> Does being a USA soldier exemt the man from USA law?
>
>
Hardy
HardySpicer
The video is suspicious. See earlier post I made.
Hardy
deem...@aol.com
BAD! BAD!
Charles Ellson
Bin Laden" <Bush's Gitmo Intelligence @islamabad.com> wrote:
Habeus corpus ? You don't know the meaning of that either.
DVH
The US was at war with Osama, and vice versa.
DVH
> news:ipq1kr$17f$2...@dont-email.me...
>> On 03/05/11 23:17, Robert Peffers wrote:
>>
>>> There are nutters who, "claim responsibility", to every crime in the
>>> book.
>>>
>>
>> Do you believe that Osama bin Ladin was innocent of every crime he was
>> accused of?
>
> What an utterly stupid question - but then you are good at utterly stupid
> questions.
>
> What I believe, or the rest of the World, believes about the innocence or
> guilt of anyone charged with any criminal offence has nothing whatsoever
> to do with it.
> The point is that justice has to be done but justice has also to be seen
> to be done.
> That means, no matter what the crime, that the suspect remains a suspect
> until charged, tried and found guilty, (or innocent), by due process of
> the law.
You may be confusing due process with justice.
Mel Rowing
> How about the sinple fact that there is just a few little differences.
> Like it is not a case of two nations at war and a war being over.
> Like Hitler killed himself but if he had not he would have been tried and
> then, if/when found guilty, executed for his crimes.
> Like he, personally, did not kill anyone in the USA.
> Like the fact that to him, you were the, what was it you called him, "vile
> creatures? OBL has been responsible directly or indirectly with the
> deaths of tens of thousands of people. So just what do you think the Muslim
> religion thinks of Bush, Blair, and the whole batch of people who were,
> directly or indirectly, respolsible for the deaths of tens of, hundreds if
> thousands, of people, ironically too, most of them Muslims?
> Then there is the fact that the, no doubt evil, man was not the head of a
> nation the USA were at war with.
> Hardly the same situation
There are always differences between situations The overall principle
however has always dogged warfare. What do you do with your vanquished
enemy? Do you keep him indefinitely and run the risk of mischief or
imitation by his supporters and followers or do you draw an
unambiguous line through him? Tidier by far in fact if he dies on the
field of battle.
Historically, in general though not invariably, he was put to the
sword. Cromwell chose to imprison rather than execute Charles I in the
first instance and look what happened!
These people were vile men Hitler killed millions. BL perhaps a
100000. A trial serves no useful purpose at all. They know their
number is up because the crimes they have committed are so large in
scale and so well known that the legal process is ill equipped to deal
with them. You talk of differences. These crimes are different because
they are no ordinary crimes. The compilation of any defence to them is
impossible. The defendants therefore don't try relying instead on
tactics such as refusal to recognise the court, disruption of
proceedings wrangles over procedure or any other obfuscation that
comes their may come along. What other alternative do they have? A
verdict of "not guilty" is out of the question.
Hussein treated his trial with contempt as did Milosovisc, the process
dragged on and on wearing judges resigned and/or became ill. The whole
lot became farcical and absolutely nothing was achieved by the
exercise.
Bush and Blair have nothing whatsoever to do this. You have a penchant
for red herrings. One of these was head of a democratically elected
government. It was this government who took the country to war under
the principle of collective cabinet responsibility incidentally
endorsed by a democratically elected HoC. The other was a
democratically head of state. He took the US to war with the full
endorsement of a democratically elected Congress. Had they not wanted
to go along, they could have refused funding.
In any case, if by any mischance Hussein, the Taliban had Al Queada
got their hands on either or both what do you think their expectation
of life would have been? They'd probably have been executed on TV as
were innocent hostages who had the misfortune to fall into their
hands.
You don't waste tears on such as these any more than you leave the
glowing embers of a house fire alone to see if they re-ignite. You put
them out of harm's way and move on.
Robert Peffers
"Bush's GITMO Interrogations Killed Bin Laden" <Bush's Gitmo Intelligence
The Geneva Conventio, International Court of Human Rights and several others
apply, though.
BTW: these things are two way deals - if someone decides to take our any USA
citizen anywhere in the World the USA cannot expect to have action taken
against the killers as USA Habus Corpus will not apply.
You better also remember that there are people kidnapped by the government
and imprisoned without trial.
(Including USA citizens), and it is a simple step for that government to
just start shooting unarmed citizens in the street they claim are
Criminals - Oh! Wait a moment, arn't they doing that already?
I seem to remember quite a few cases of Police shooting suspects in the
street.
Oh! Dear! What about Habus Corpus now?
Robert Peffers
"Bush's GITMO Interrogations Killed Bin Laden" <Bush's Gitmo Intelligence
of people in foreign lands?
What of Rumsfeld, and the rest of that administration?
Is it only foreign people that get killed without trial or can it be applied
to home grown murderers?
Robert Peffers
"Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tSxM7VTA...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
> In article
> <5bd2bf26-5294-4416...@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> HardySpicer <gyans...@gmail.com> writes
> enormous experience of Bin Laden, the way he looks and the way he talks,
> have decided that the "video is suspicious".
>
> Or perhaps you're a conspiracy theorist after all.
>
> --
> Malcolm
Get real. There are softwares for free on the net that allow anyone to fake
any video and digital footage can be timecode doctored.
Unsupported video footage is not reliable evidence of anything.
Robert Peffers
"Charles Ellson" <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kfj1s6dj4948qjc8s...@4ax.com...
The point is that an administration that can kill a suspected terrorist will
have no qualms about killing anyone they see as a threat to themselves.
So, who are the USA government going to assassinate next?
Remember that there are police shootings every year in the USA and few, if
any, are ever properly investigated and the police person put on trial.
Robert Peffers
>
> In article
> <0ebc4794-bfe2-43eb...@d26g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> killwhang <gyans...@gmail.com> writes
>
> The war was declared by Osama against the West and Israel back in 1998. He
> signed it personally, and it contains these words:
> "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and
> military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any
> country in which it is possible to do it," and "We -- with God's help --
> call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to
> comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money
> wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders,
> youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the
> devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind
> them so that they may learn a lesson."
>
> I am not aware that he had lifted this fatwa, and therefore when
> confronted by the US soldiers he was a legitimate target under the terms
> of the war that he declared.
>
> --
> Malcolm
Since when can individuals legally declare war?
bin Laden is not the leader of a sovereign state.
Now who is being deliberatly obtuse?
Mel Rowing
> On 03/05/11 23:25, Robert Peffers wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ted"<T...@Micronet.com> wrote in message
> >news:4dc06700$0$2522$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> >> "HardySpicer"<gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:2ed08993-8e7f-40cd...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> >>> Looked like a bunch of bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
> >>> such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
>
> >> loud and clear. Thats worth a celebration.
>
> > Did you mean the untried suspected, "Scum like this"?
> > Good grief we gave the NAZI war criminals a trial after WWII.
>
> Well, some of them.
>
> Many were just shot out of hand...
In fact Churchill only went along with the notion of war crime trials.
His instinct was to "shoot the lot!"
The crimes that these people had committed were so heinous that new
offences with which to charge them had to be invented
retrospectively.
Is that justice?
Robert Peffers
"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote in message
news:%x6wp.5851$%u.3...@newsfe11.ams2...
bin Laden is not the leader of a sovereign nation - he is the nominal head
of an international terrorist organization.
They are international criminals. Thus the situation is not that of nations
at war.
You are blethering utter rubbish. Not too long ago Vince Cable, Government
Minister, (UK Business Secteratr), stated on TV that he had, "Declared War
upon Rupert Murdoch", are you seriously claiming that if either of these two
people killed the other it was a legally justified killing? I can just see
it now - your next door neighbour shoots you down in your own bedroom after
smashing his way into your home. He is put on trial and pleads not guilty on
the grounds he had declared war on you first. As we say in Scotland, "Awa an
bile yer heid ya balloon".
DVH
It was not claimed that nations are at war, merely that the US was at war
with Osama.
> You are blethering utter rubbish. Not too long ago Vince Cable, Government
> Minister, (UK Business Secteratr), stated on TV that he had, "Declared War
> upon Rupert Murdoch", are you seriously claiming that if either of these
> two people killed the other it was a legally justified killing?
You're too fond of your straw men.
Your mind is all over the place.
DVH
Who cares if it was legal or not.
The state of war existed even if you think it wasn't properly done.
HardySpicer
> killwhang <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >It's debatable whether it was him on the video. For starters his beard
> >is no longer
> >white as it was on a previous video! So he dyed his beard?? Possible
> >but unlikely.
>
> It's only debatable by idiots. Oh, I forgot who I was dealing with
> for a moment. Never mind....
>
>
>
> >Even if he did admit it, a confession, he still needed to be taken to
> >court and sentenced.
>
> And if he picks up an automatic weapon and doesn't surrender, well, we
> just needed to ask him more nicely....
>
>
>
> >Many people brag that they murdered people but end up being innocent!
> >I am pretty sure it was him though
> >in as much as he supplied the money and he is the "CEO" and hence
> >responsible.
>
> Murder for hire is the crime. A few thousand counts of that adds up
> rather quickly.
>
>
>
> >How would you feel if a relative of yours
> >said he killed somebody and the police just went and shot him, no
> >trial!
>
> I'd feel like it was suicide by cop, since he shouldn't brag about
> committing crimes and then resist arrest if he doesn't want to get
> shot.
>
>
>
> >Now you may think that for this case that it doesn't
> >matter or that the rules don't apply. If so then it makes us no better
> >than them, ordinary murderers.
>
> And if he elects not to come along quietly, why, we should have just
> left him there until he decided to turn himself in!
>
> --
You cuff him and drag him out. jesus, man, use your pea brain!
Hardy
HardySpicer
> killwhang <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Akins of that Ilk" <the_akins_of_ak...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:d3e4e4d0-5bab-44de...@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> >> On May 3, 7:49 am, HardySpicer <gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Looked like a bunch of bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
> >> > such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
>
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-9JpRytCx0
>
> >> There is a sort of racism at play here, apologists will make excuses for
> >> them as if they can't really be expected to be any better. Yanks or Brits
> >> aren't cut that sort of slack.
>
> >Like I said, what the other side do is up to them, if you want the
> >moral high ground then you cannot
> >behave in a similar ignorant fashion! it's because of this that the
> >USA is held in such disregard nowadays.
> >They have become no worse than the terrorists they condemn! They storm
> >into a sovereign and shoot dead
> >a whole load of people, no trial, no nothing. Information for this
> >attack was found from torture no less! Now correct me if I am wrong
> >but if a convicted felon confesses under torture and the court finds
> >out, the case is dismissed is it not?
>
> Bin Laden didn't confess under torture.
>
Phew - do keep up. he was given away by another who was tortured. He
wasn't tortured cos they shot him!
Hardy
Robert Peffers
of law means", now why am I not surprised you are ignorant?
Robert Peffers
"Mel Rowing" <mel.r...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:4eda8cbd-5cb7-4347...@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On May 3, 9:45 pm, "Robert Peffers" <peffer...@btinbternet.com> wrote:
> How about the sinple fact that there is just a few little differences.
> Like it is not a case of two nations at war and a war being over.
> Like Hitler killed himself but if he had not he would have been tried and
> then, if/when found guilty, executed for his crimes.
> Like he, personally, did not kill anyone in the USA.
> Like the fact that to him, you were the, what was it you called him, "vile
> creatures? OBL has been responsible directly or indirectly with the
> deaths of tens of thousands of people. So just what do you think the
> Muslim
> religion thinks of Bush, Blair, and the whole batch of people who were,
> directly or indirectly, respolsible for the deaths of tens of, hundreds if
> thousands, of people, ironically too, most of them Muslims?
> Then there is the fact that the, no doubt evil, man was not the head of a
> nation the USA were at war with.
> Hardly the same situation
There are always differences between situations The overall principle
however has always dogged warfare.
Snip:
The trouble is Osama is nominal leader of an international Terrorist
Organization and thus is not the leader of a sovereign state nor of a
breakaway faction within a sovereign state.
So there is no declared war and thus he is only a criminal - and a criminal
wanted by a number of sovereign states who could all claim extradidion for
him to face their courts. Obviously the USA would have the first claim to
charge him, try him and, if found guilty, punish him within the limits of
their legal system.
All this talk of war is rubbish. terrorism is not a war it is criminal
activity.
Robert Peffers
The fact that you need to ask says it all.
Robert Peffers
>
> In article <oOydnZXId4vmi1zQ...@bt.com>, Robert Peffers
> <peff...@btinbternet.com> writes
> statements like the above.
>
>snipped rubbish.
The uninformed and silly statements are all yours.
William Black
> On May 4, 11:42 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 04/05/11 00:25, killwhang wrote:
>>
>>> On May 4, 11:03 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 03/05/11 23:17, Robert Peffers wrote:
>>
>>>>> There are nutters who, "claim responsibility", to every crime in the book.
>>
>>>> Do you believe that Osama bin Ladin was innocent of every crime he was
>>>> accused of?
>>
>>> Irrelevant. You have to stand trial, innocent until proven guilty is
>>> the rule of law.
>>
>> threatened.
>>
>
> You are standing with a machine gun in front of an un-armed child and
> a man. Pull the other one!
The most dangerous man in the world and a know mass murderer is coming
towards you and showing no signs of wanting to surrender.
I'd shoot.
So would you.
William Black
> On May 4, 12:04 am, William Black<blackuse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03/05/11 23:25, Robert Peffers wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Ted"<T...@Micronet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4dc06700$0$2522$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>>> "HardySpicer"<gyansor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2ed08993-8e7f-40cd...@d19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Looked like a bunch of bleeding football hooligans! Can you fathom
>>>>> such a society who rejoices in another persons death?
>>
>>>> The message that vile scum like this will always be tracked down was sent
>>>> loud and clear. Thats worth a celebration.
>>
>>> Did you mean the untried suspected, "Scum like this"?
>>> Good grief we gave the NAZI war criminals a trial after WWII.
>>
>> Well, some of them.
>>
>> Many were just shot out of hand...
>
> In fact Churchill only went along with the notion of war crime trials.
>
> His instinct was to "shoot the lot!"
But that was mainly because he thought the Soviet show trials were
sickening and he wanted no part of anything like that.
> The crimes that these people had committed were so heinous that new
> offences with which to charge them had to be invented
> retrospectively.
>
> Is that justice?
I have said for many year that the War Crimes Trials may well come to
haunt us, and it seems they now are.
The insane situation where Israeli politicians are unable to visit the
UK because Muslim lawyers take out warrants against them is just one
aspect of this. Another is the loony tunes who keep trying to take out
warrants against Tony Blair and GW Bush.
William Black
> "Robert Peffers"<peff...@btinbternet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Did you mean the untried suspected, "Scum like this"?
>> Good grief we gave the NAZI war criminals a trial after WWII.
>>
>
>
A fair few of those got shot dead.
Robert Peffers
And you're a bloody idiot who opens his mouth and lets foul gas out.
People, particularly those who lived through WWII mostly do care. They saw
how the NAZI party went about its business that ended in WWII. This
monologue was by Martin Niemöller, a German theologian in Germany. He was
anti-Communist and, at first, supported Hitler. Niemöller, though, got
disillusiond and opposed Hitler. He was arrested in 1937 and imprisoned in
the Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps. He was charged with, "not
being enthusiastic enough about the Nazi movement." On being released in
1945, (by Allied troops), This monologue was his warning describing the
dangers of political apathy.
-------------------------------
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
----------------------------------
So first they assasinated the terrorist leaders ... ... ... ... ...
Get the point now?
Robert Peffers
DVH
<snipped shite>
Oh, nothing left.
DVH
Do you think justice is the same as due process?