Cameron does a Blair
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
| Hoof Hearted 10 Sep 15 9.59am | |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 10 Sep 2015 9.49am
Quote npn at 10 Sep 2015 8.51am
Quote dannyh at 10 Sep 2015 7.47am
Finally Meanwhile erstwhile hand ringer Corbyn wants people to be able to "opt out" of paying taxes for the military. What a prize cund. Edited by dannyh (10 Sep 2015 7.48am)
I think that's called voting conservative...
Those working are mostly employed in the public sector like the passport office, local government, MOD etc.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Red-Blue-Yellow  Surrey 11 Sep 15 12.14am |
  |
|---|---|
|
I also enjoy posting on: Love Everton Forum, the Acceptable Face of Scouse Football. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
Attachment: | matt_himself Matataland 11 Sep 15 6.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
The use of drones appears justified.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 11 Sep 15 6.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Sep 2015 10.16am
Quote sickboy at 08 Sep 2015 5.29pm
This is not Bush/Blair and Iraq. This is about national security and if it prevents ANY terror atrocities anywhere in the world then long may it continue. If you want to gun down defenceless people sitting on a beach, or hack to death a young man like Lee Rigby in the most horrific way imaginable, or indeed subscribe to those views, in my book you deserve all that is coming your way and stuff the niceties or legality of it. Yes, but if you don't stick to the legality of it, you pretty much end up becoming the people bombing innocent people at a wedding or the wrong guy (because he has the same name). As far as I'm concerned taking out the enemy is legitimate use of force, but when you're operating in areas of 'questionable' actions, you need oversight and independent evaluation to keep you from drift. Look at the Israeli response to Black September. They went from killing those directly involved and responsible, to ending up killing people who were entirely innocent or teniously linked to terrorism, because of 'mission creep'.
I am sure there is a convenient manner I which you justify views, saying one is a just and the other unjust, but it appears inconsistent at best. Edited by matt_himself (11 Sep 2015 7.13am)
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Sep 15 9.55am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 11 Sep 2015 6.50am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Sep 2015 10.16am
Quote sickboy at 08 Sep 2015 5.29pm
This is not Bush/Blair and Iraq. This is about national security and if it prevents ANY terror atrocities anywhere in the world then long may it continue. If you want to gun down defenceless people sitting on a beach, or hack to death a young man like Lee Rigby in the most horrific way imaginable, or indeed subscribe to those views, in my book you deserve all that is coming your way and stuff the niceties or legality of it. Yes, but if you don't stick to the legality of it, you pretty much end up becoming the people bombing innocent people at a wedding or the wrong guy (because he has the same name). As far as I'm concerned taking out the enemy is legitimate use of force, but when you're operating in areas of 'questionable' actions, you need oversight and independent evaluation to keep you from drift. Look at the Israeli response to Black September. They went from killing those directly involved and responsible, to ending up killing people who were entirely innocent or teniously linked to terrorism, because of 'mission creep'.
I am sure there is a convenient manner I which you justify views, saying one is a just and the other unjust, but it appears inconsistent at best. Edited by matt_himself (11 Sep 2015 7.13am) Not at all what I'm saying, what I am saying is that you cannot just assume that the statements of a government are true and justified, and that a government that goes against the will of a parliamentary vote requires adjudication of the veracity of their claims.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Sep 15 9.57am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 11 Sep 2015 6.50am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Sep 2015 10.16am
Quote sickboy at 08 Sep 2015 5.29pm
This is not Bush/Blair and Iraq. This is about national security and if it prevents ANY terror atrocities anywhere in the world then long may it continue. If you want to gun down defenceless people sitting on a beach, or hack to death a young man like Lee Rigby in the most horrific way imaginable, or indeed subscribe to those views, in my book you deserve all that is coming your way and stuff the niceties or legality of it. Yes, but if you don't stick to the legality of it, you pretty much end up becoming the people bombing innocent people at a wedding or the wrong guy (because he has the same name). As far as I'm concerned taking out the enemy is legitimate use of force, but when you're operating in areas of 'questionable' actions, you need oversight and independent evaluation to keep you from drift. Look at the Israeli response to Black September. They went from killing those directly involved and responsible, to ending up killing people who were entirely innocent or teniously linked to terrorism, because of 'mission creep'.
Edited by matt_himself (11 Sep 2015 7.13am) On the basis that the evidence seems to demonstrate that the illegality of drugs generates more greater problems and suffering than the actual substance itself, even to people not involved; in exactly the same way that the prohibition of alcohol did in the US in the 20s and 30s.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Sep 15 9.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 11 Sep 2015 6.45am
The use of drones appears justified. If that was the target. Of course there never has been a problem with claims by a government that a country is producing and has stock piles of weapons of mass destruction, and that claim being utterly false.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| oldcodger 11 Sep 15 1.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I have no issue with these guys being wiped out. I do worry though that this constant talk of using drones to exact justice will increase the likelihood of them being used at home in the UK, and not by the good guys.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 11 Sep 15 6.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Sep 2015 9.57am
Quote matt_himself at 11 Sep 2015 6.50am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Sep 2015 10.16am
Quote sickboy at 08 Sep 2015 5.29pm
This is not Bush/Blair and Iraq. This is about national security and if it prevents ANY terror atrocities anywhere in the world then long may it continue. If you want to gun down defenceless people sitting on a beach, or hack to death a young man like Lee Rigby in the most horrific way imaginable, or indeed subscribe to those views, in my book you deserve all that is coming your way and stuff the niceties or legality of it. Yes, but if you don't stick to the legality of it, you pretty much end up becoming the people bombing innocent people at a wedding or the wrong guy (because he has the same name). As far as I'm concerned taking out the enemy is legitimate use of force, but when you're operating in areas of 'questionable' actions, you need oversight and independent evaluation to keep you from drift. Look at the Israeli response to Black September. They went from killing those directly involved and responsible, to ending up killing people who were entirely innocent or teniously linked to terrorism, because of 'mission creep'.
Edited by matt_himself (11 Sep 2015 7.13am) On the basis that the evidence seems to demonstrate that the illegality of drugs generates more greater problems and suffering than the actual substance itself, even to people not involved; in exactly the same way that the prohibition of alcohol did in the US in the 20s and 30s.
Typical liberal self denial.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 11 Sep 15 6.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Sep 2015 9.59am
Quote matt_himself at 11 Sep 2015 6.45am
The use of drones appears justified. If that was the target. Of course there never has been a problem with claims by a government that a country is producing and has stock piles of weapons of mass destruction, and that claim being utterly false. So you are saying that the aid agencies treating those who have chemical injuries are lying in order to perpetuate a neo-con conspiracy?
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| matt_himself Matataland 11 Sep 15 6.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Sep 2015 9.55am
Quote matt_himself at 11 Sep 2015 6.50am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Sep 2015 10.16am
Quote sickboy at 08 Sep 2015 5.29pm
This is not Bush/Blair and Iraq. This is about national security and if it prevents ANY terror atrocities anywhere in the world then long may it continue. If you want to gun down defenceless people sitting on a beach, or hack to death a young man like Lee Rigby in the most horrific way imaginable, or indeed subscribe to those views, in my book you deserve all that is coming your way and stuff the niceties or legality of it. Yes, but if you don't stick to the legality of it, you pretty much end up becoming the people bombing innocent people at a wedding or the wrong guy (because he has the same name). As far as I'm concerned taking out the enemy is legitimate use of force, but when you're operating in areas of 'questionable' actions, you need oversight and independent evaluation to keep you from drift. Look at the Israeli response to Black September. They went from killing those directly involved and responsible, to ending up killing people who were entirely innocent or teniously linked to terrorism, because of 'mission creep'.
I am sure there is a convenient manner I which you justify views, saying one is a just and the other unjust, but it appears inconsistent at bes Edited by matt_himself (11 Sep 2015 7.13am) Not at all what I'm saying, what I am saying is that you cannot just assume that the statements of a government are true and justified, and that a government that goes against the will of a parliamentary vote requires adjudication of the veracity of their claims.
Not everything is a conspiracy.
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| oldcodger 11 Sep 15 6.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote matt_himself at 11 Sep 2015 6.46pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Sep 2015 9.57am
Quote matt_himself at 11 Sep 2015 6.50am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Sep 2015 10.16am
Quote sickboy at 08 Sep 2015 5.29pm
This is not Bush/Blair and Iraq. This is about national security and if it prevents ANY terror atrocities anywhere in the world then long may it continue. If you want to gun down defenceless people sitting on a beach, or hack to death a young man like Lee Rigby in the most horrific way imaginable, or indeed subscribe to those views, in my book you deserve all that is coming your way and stuff the niceties or legality of it. Yes, but if you don't stick to the legality of it, you pretty much end up becoming the people bombing innocent people at a wedding or the wrong guy (because he has the same name). As far as I'm concerned taking out the enemy is legitimate use of force, but when you're operating in areas of 'questionable' actions, you need oversight and independent evaluation to keep you from drift. Look at the Israeli response to Black September. They went from killing those directly involved and responsible, to ending up killing people who were entirely innocent or teniously linked to terrorism, because of 'mission creep'.
Edited by matt_himself (11 Sep 2015 7.13am) On the basis that the evidence seems to demonstrate that the illegality of drugs generates more greater problems and suffering than the actual substance itself, even to people not involved; in exactly the same way that the prohibition of alcohol did in the US in the 20s and 30s.
Typical liberal self denial. A mate of mine hasn't touched a drop of alcohol in his adult life as a result of what it did to his old man. I totally understand his perspective but at the same time it's skewed, not representative and his views are understandably more emotional than logical. Also, though I've never taken ecstasy for instance, I find it quite disgusting when families are wheeled out to talk about what it did to their children, when in fact it didn't do anything to them. Its illegality did. It's a more nuanced situation than is painted by both sides.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.