Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Qaeda Decapitate The Wrong Man
74 Answers
http://
Are these the monsters we have decided to support in their fight against the Syrian government?
These are the type of people who our own soldiers have been forced to face in Afghanistan, and yet we convict one of our soldiers of murder for killing someone who would not have thought twice of committing such a barbarous act upon him as was carried out here.
Are these the monsters we have decided to support in their fight against the Syrian government?
These are the type of people who our own soldiers have been forced to face in Afghanistan, and yet we convict one of our soldiers of murder for killing someone who would not have thought twice of committing such a barbarous act upon him as was carried out here.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Personally, I have a small circle of friends and nobody I know has been hanged or burnt at the stake recently; steve may be in the same position. But neither do I know anyone who has shot and killed someone who was defenceless. But I am sure it has happened more than once, even in the 21st Century.
I expect someone has been convicted of murder, having faked the victim's suicide, by hanging, and within living memory, if not in the last 13 years.
Burning at the stake and hanging have both been lawful and 'judicial' as punishments. Taking a man due to be hanged and on his way to the gallows and hanging him yourself, would have been murder. This case was extra-judicial killing.
I expect someone has been convicted of murder, having faked the victim's suicide, by hanging, and within living memory, if not in the last 13 years.
Burning at the stake and hanging have both been lawful and 'judicial' as punishments. Taking a man due to be hanged and on his way to the gallows and hanging him yourself, would have been murder. This case was extra-judicial killing.
The soldier was convicted of murder. We have rules of engagement, and we are signatories to the Geneva convention.He contravened those, on camera, admitting on camera that this was what he was doing. Executing the enemy is not part of that. You cannot on the one hand deride those who would fight for the Taliban as savages,unless you are willing to accept this principle - that our own people are held to a higher ethical standard, and that acts of barbarism by one side do not justify the retaliatory use of barbarism in return, just to satisfy simplistic needs for vengeance.
As for who we are supporting in the Syrian revolution - well, that has all gone very quiet in the media, hasn't it? And the Taliban and islamic radicals only formed a part of the opposition to Bashir within Syria.
What do you believe that we in the West should do about Syria, AoG? Just ignore the situation and hope it will go away? Be like Russia, and support Bashir?
As for who we are supporting in the Syrian revolution - well, that has all gone very quiet in the media, hasn't it? And the Taliban and islamic radicals only formed a part of the opposition to Bashir within Syria.
What do you believe that we in the West should do about Syria, AoG? Just ignore the situation and hope it will go away? Be like Russia, and support Bashir?
Blimey have I inadvertently got on to Al-Queda's web site, I ask this because they seem to be getting an awful amount of support here.
It would seem that it is not only sp1814 who doesn't understand my term 'one hand tied behind their backs'.
So to those of you who are not accustomed to that phrase I will now explain, it simply refers to the Army's 'Rules of Engagement", I have also provided an independent news report for those of you who do not even understand what those are.
http://
It would seem that it is not only sp1814 who doesn't understand my term 'one hand tied behind their backs'.
So to those of you who are not accustomed to that phrase I will now explain, it simply refers to the Army's 'Rules of Engagement", I have also provided an independent news report for those of you who do not even understand what those are.
http://
-- answer removed --
/It would seem that it is not only sp1814 who doesn't understand my term 'one hand tied behind their backs'./
aog
Rudeness is no defence for your inadequacies in debating
It is a ploy you frequently use and I'm sorry to say it just underlines your own foolishness
You should be able to understand that the 'meaning' of anything is different for different people in different contexts.
It is perfectly acceptable in a debate for someone to ask what you mean by a particular phrase in a particular context. Otherwise people can only assume that your meaning is always the same as theirs which is clearly stupid.
Perhaps, as has already been suggested, your annoyance is due to you actually having to work out what it is you do mean by some of these clichés you throw about with gay abandon
aog
Rudeness is no defence for your inadequacies in debating
It is a ploy you frequently use and I'm sorry to say it just underlines your own foolishness
You should be able to understand that the 'meaning' of anything is different for different people in different contexts.
It is perfectly acceptable in a debate for someone to ask what you mean by a particular phrase in a particular context. Otherwise people can only assume that your meaning is always the same as theirs which is clearly stupid.
Perhaps, as has already been suggested, your annoyance is due to you actually having to work out what it is you do mean by some of these clichés you throw about with gay abandon
LazyGun
/// What do you believe that we in the West should do about Syria,
AoG? ///
Leave them to work things out for themselves, we wouldn't care for another nation to come here and take sides, if any such actions to take power should happen in our country.
/// Just ignore the situation and hope it will go away? ///
Yes.
/// Be like Russia, and support Bashir? ///
I don't know enough about the conflict to take sides, only from what we are told by our own media, but judging by some of the scenes, I don't think anyone is better than the other.
The only thing going for Bashir is the fact that he is at least defending his country from rebel factors.
/// What do you believe that we in the West should do about Syria,
AoG? ///
Leave them to work things out for themselves, we wouldn't care for another nation to come here and take sides, if any such actions to take power should happen in our country.
/// Just ignore the situation and hope it will go away? ///
Yes.
/// Be like Russia, and support Bashir? ///
I don't know enough about the conflict to take sides, only from what we are told by our own media, but judging by some of the scenes, I don't think anyone is better than the other.
The only thing going for Bashir is the fact that he is at least defending his country from rebel factors.
AOG, what is your answer to this question: "Do you think that this soldier should have been convicted of murder, or not?"
I asked it a while ago, but in rather fuller form. You did not answer. You have, however, while not apparently noticing it, taken time to tell us about Rules of Engagement. Would you be so kind as to find time to answer it now?
I asked it a while ago, but in rather fuller form. You did not answer. You have, however, while not apparently noticing it, taken time to tell us about Rules of Engagement. Would you be so kind as to find time to answer it now?
/he is at least defending his country from rebel factors./
That doesn't make sense aog
To be a 'Rebel' one would have to be Syrian - otherwise you are not rebelling
As far as I know, apart from the odd shell, none of the fighting has taken place outside Syria.
So Bashir is shelling his own people inside his own country
Obviously he is defending his Regime, not his country
That doesn't make sense aog
To be a 'Rebel' one would have to be Syrian - otherwise you are not rebelling
As far as I know, apart from the odd shell, none of the fighting has taken place outside Syria.
So Bashir is shelling his own people inside his own country
Obviously he is defending his Regime, not his country
AOG
I'm disappointed that you have decided to answer my perfectly simple question with a rude answer.
I asked about 'one hand tied behind their back' because you may have been referring to the Geneva convention, or British interests in the Gulf, or the way the way that coalition forces are portrayed in the Middle East.
Try not to get personal, or derisive in your responses, as it just leads to the same petty squabbling.
If I can refrain, I'm sure you can.
I'm disappointed that you have decided to answer my perfectly simple question with a rude answer.
I asked about 'one hand tied behind their back' because you may have been referring to the Geneva convention, or British interests in the Gulf, or the way the way that coalition forces are portrayed in the Middle East.
Try not to get personal, or derisive in your responses, as it just leads to the same petty squabbling.
If I can refrain, I'm sure you can.
Nice hyberbole, AOG, but how are we supporting al-Qaeda,and have made this like the al-Qaeda website, by reciting the law of England and a Convention to which the UK was a willing signatory? Those bind us all.
And what is the answer to my question about this soldier's conviction for murder (above, in my earlier post) ?
And what is the answer to my question about this soldier's conviction for murder (above, in my earlier post) ?
AOG
I'm sure you must understand how tricky it can be working out on which thread you said what. Almost as difficult as looking up a Conservative Party press release from 2008.
Could you at least provide a link to the earlier post. Or to make it easier, could you tell us whether it was one you raised or one by someone else?
Also, what did you mean when you said 'one hand tied behind their backs'?
I'm sure you must understand how tricky it can be working out on which thread you said what. Almost as difficult as looking up a Conservative Party press release from 2008.
Could you at least provide a link to the earlier post. Or to make it easier, could you tell us whether it was one you raised or one by someone else?
Also, what did you mean when you said 'one hand tied behind their backs'?
sp1814
/// I'm disappointed that you have decided to answer my perfectly simple question with a rude answer. ///
I apologise if you were offended by my answer but I do get rather fed up with having to answer simple points over and over again.
Also the fact that I regularly receive rudeness from a variety of AnswerBankers, but I never seem to get any apologies from them, thus it has made me become just like them I'm afraid so consequently I treat others in the way they treat me, once again I apologise for you taking the brunt of my scorn.
/// I asked about 'one hand tied behind their back' because you may have been referring to the Geneva convention, or British interests in the Gulf, or the way the way that coalition forces are portrayed in the Middle East. ///
No that is not what you asked, what you did ask however was "Please define: "all with one hand tied behind their backs".
The term 'with one hand tied behind their back' is a widely used phrase and should be easily interpreted by most.
And no 'with one hand tied behind their back' is not referring to the Geneva Convention it is something added above and beyond the Geneva Convention set of rules, added by our own military powers.
/// I'm disappointed that you have decided to answer my perfectly simple question with a rude answer. ///
I apologise if you were offended by my answer but I do get rather fed up with having to answer simple points over and over again.
Also the fact that I regularly receive rudeness from a variety of AnswerBankers, but I never seem to get any apologies from them, thus it has made me become just like them I'm afraid so consequently I treat others in the way they treat me, once again I apologise for you taking the brunt of my scorn.
/// I asked about 'one hand tied behind their back' because you may have been referring to the Geneva convention, or British interests in the Gulf, or the way the way that coalition forces are portrayed in the Middle East. ///
No that is not what you asked, what you did ask however was "Please define: "all with one hand tied behind their backs".
The term 'with one hand tied behind their back' is a widely used phrase and should be easily interpreted by most.
And no 'with one hand tied behind their back' is not referring to the Geneva Convention it is something added above and beyond the Geneva Convention set of rules, added by our own military powers.
/And no 'with one hand tied behind their back' is not referring to the Geneva Convention it is something added above and beyond the Geneva Convention set of rules, added by our own military powers.//
Ahaa!
So what you specifically meant in this instance DID need explaining
/something added above and beyond the Geneva Convention set of rules, added by our own military powers./
what 'something'
can you be more specific aog or is it a bizarre guessing game?
Ahaa!
So what you specifically meant in this instance DID need explaining
/something added above and beyond the Geneva Convention set of rules, added by our own military powers./
what 'something'
can you be more specific aog or is it a bizarre guessing game?
Latest Posts
Travel4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Why Starmer Moved Thatcher Painting
News7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.