ISIS

[aintforever]

That is pretty scary if true, according to some bloke on the radio this morning the previous Russian incursions into Turkish airspace was purely to test NATO, looks like they might have pushed a bit far.

[bridge too far]

Interesting view point

 

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/mainstream-media-refuses-syrian-conflict-video/

[Lord Duckhunter]

You either believe in the death penalty or you don't . I wish the state had burst into Ian Huntley's gaff and put a dozen bullets in him. People critising Corbyn over this can't believe in the death penalty for some and not others , at least corbyns opinion is coherent

[buctootim]

What is it that you don't understand?

 

It is absolutely NOT a 'tragedy' that bin Laden didn't get a trial. It is regrettable, it was mistaken on the Americans' part, it was wrong. All of those and more, no doubt. But I repeat, since you seem to have read my post without taking in the meaning of it: to call it a 'tragedy' - and in so doing drawing an equivalence with the other REAL tragedies - is cultist weirdness at its bizarre worst.

 

Corbyn meant, as he has said, it was a tragedy for the world to not see him put on trial. I understand that argument. Its more powerful and sends a stronger message to imitators to bring to justice the killer of thousands of people than to kill him in secret and bury his body unseen. You may disagree, but that doesn't make you right.

[Jonnyboy]

We've kept innocent people in Guantanamo for 12 odd years because of what they might know. Surely Bin Laden was the prime candidate for interrogation. Or maybe... the West already knows all there is to know about Al qaeda.

[TwoPints]

We've kept innocent people in Guantanamo for 12 odd years because of what they might know. Surely Bin Laden was the prime candidate for interrogation. Or maybe... the West already knows all there is to know about Al qaeda.

I wonder if he's still alive and in the hands of the Americans?

[Coxford_lou]

Interesting view point

 

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/mainstream-media-refuses-syrian-conflict-video/

 

It's hard to read, never mind take seriously an article so loaded with hatred for the West, the USA, and the western media, and with so little empathy for the people of Syria.

[buctootim]

I wonder if he's still alive and in the hands of the Americans?

 

That comment is exactly why he should have put on trial and dealt with instead of killed. To a lot of people he is hero who escaped capture by the Americans and is hiding out somewhere.

[buctootim]

It's hard to read, never mind take seriously an article so loaded with hatred for the West, the USA, and the western media, and with so little empathy for the people of Syria.

 

The author Jay Syrmopoulos is a contributor to infowars one of crackiest of crackpot sites. The piece is a mishmash of inaccuracies and quotes from sites with an obvious line to peddle eg the part about how the Russians are being unfairly targeted comes from Russia Today.

[Coxford_lou]

The author Jay Syrmopoulos is a contributor to infowars one of crackiest of crackpot sites. The piece is a mishmash of inaccuracies and quotes from sites with an obvious line to peddle eg the part about how the Russians are being unfairly targeted comes from Russia Today.

 

Ah, that explains a lot. Thanks for the context, Tim.

[Verbal]

Corbyn meant, as he has said, it was a tragedy for the world to not see him put on trial. I understand that argument. Its more powerful and sends a stronger message to imitators to bring to justice the killer of thousands of people than to kill him in secret and bury his body unseen. You may disagree, but that doesn't make you right.

 

Arguing for what Corbyn 'meant' is not an excuse for you to come along and give a feeble excuse for his being a celebrant of terrorist violence. My point is he used the language of equivalence - specifically 'tragedy' - to equate the deaths of hundreds and thousands on the one hand and the fact that one man did not get a fair trial on the other. If Corbyn had wanted to argue for the 'meaning' that you claim, he would not have drawn that 'tragic' equivalence. As I say, there are plenty of others, including many 'mainstream' political figures, who've complained that bin Laden should have been prosecuted. Their 'meaning' is clear. So frankly, is Corbyn's.

 

I notice today that Corbyn is outed for yet more cosying up to terrorists with his oversight of magazine articles praising the Brighton bombings. There is a sickening argument advanced by Corbynistas that his long-standing demand for a united Ireland commands respect for 'consistency' and 'principles'. There are plenty of others who've long supported a united Ireland too, but on the back of a democratic mandate, not down the barrel of a gun. That Corbyn celebrates IRA commemorative days with an organisation that not only committed terrorist atrocities but also acted as chief gangster among the nationalist community, with 'kneecappings', 'punishment beatings' and violent extortion rackets, tells you everything about Corbyn's 'meaning'.

[buctootim]

Arguing for what Corbyn 'meant' is not an excuse for you to come along and give a feeble excuse for his being a celebrant of terrorist violence. My point is he used the language of equivalence - specifically 'tragedy' - to equate the deaths of hundreds and thousands on the one hand and the fact that one man did not get a fair trial on the other. If Corbyn had wanted to argue for the 'meaning' that you claim, he would not have drawn that 'tragic' equivalence. As I say, there are plenty of others, including many 'mainstream' political figures, who've complained that bin Laden should have been prosecuted. Their 'meaning' is clear. So frankly, is Corbyn's.

 

I notice today that Corbyn is outed for yet more cosying up to terrorists with his oversight of magazine articles praising the Brighton bombings. There is a sickening argument advanced by Corbynistas that his long-standing demand for a united Ireland commands respect for 'consistency' and 'principles'. There are plenty of others who've long supported a united Ireland too, but on the back of a democratic mandate, not down the barrel of a gun. That Corbyn celebrates IRA commemorative days with an organisation that not only committed terrorist atrocities but also acted as chief gangster among the nationalist community, with 'kneecappings', 'punishment beatings' and violent extortion rackets, tells you everything about Corbyn's 'meaning'.

 

Did the lynching of Gadaffi advance the case for intervention and justice in Libya or would a trial seen to be fair and hearing the evidence of his crimes been better? Should Saddam Hussein have been shot in his foxhole or did the parading of the slightly pathetic figure in court increase the authority of the Iraqi government? How about Nuremburg? good thing or bad? Pity Hitler got the easy way out, or not?

[Verbal]

Did the lynching of Gadaffi advance the case for intervention and justice in Libya or would a trial seen to be fair and hearing the evidence of his crimes been better? Should Saddam Hussein have been shot in his foxhole or did the parading of the slightly pathetic figure in court increase the authority of the Iraqi government? How about Nuremburg? good thing or bad? Pity Hitler got the easy way out, or not?

 

I don't know what point you're making - your post seems to make no sense, and then ends up invoking Godwin's Law. Always a bad sign.

 

But just to be on the safe side (you never know), let me say for the third time that bin Laden should have been brought to trial. It was not a 'tragedy' that he wasn't - a preemptive miscarriage of justice, a crime, a regret, a missed opportunity, or any other similarly appropriate descriptions of bin Laden's killing. But it was not a 'tragedy'.

 

To borrow from the vernacular of the Corbynistas themselves, you may want to be an apologist for a Trotsky-lite virus, but I don't.

[buctootim]

I don't know what point you're making - your post seems to make no sense, and then ends up invoking Godwin's Law. Always a bad sign.

 

But just to be on the safe side (you never know), let me say for the third time that bin Laden should have been brought to trial. It was not a 'tragedy' that he wasn't - a preemptive miscarriage of justice, a crime, a regret, a missed opportunity, or any other similarly appropriate descriptions of bin Laden's killing. But it was not a 'tragedy'.

 

To borrow from the vernacular of the Corbynistas themselves, you may want to be an apologist for a Trotsky-lite virus, but I don't.

 

You seem under par, tetchy, lacking rigour. Pity, you're capable of better.

 

So you agree it would have been better to bring him to court rather than enabling conspiracists to claim Bin Laden won and is still alive. You agree its preferable to have public due process instead of shadowy assassinations. What you're upset about is the adjective Corbyn used to describe that missed opportunity. I'm glad we're focussed on the big issues.

Edited 11 October, 2015 by buctootim

[whelk]

You seem under par, tetchy, lacking rigour. Pity, you're capable of better.

 

So you agree it would have been better to bring him to court rather than enabling conspiracists to claim Bin Laden won and is still alive. You agree its preferable to have public due process instead of shadowy assassinations. What you're upset about is the adjective Corbyn used to describe that missed opportunity. I'm glad we're focussed on the big issues.

 

Conspiracists? Does anyone think he is not dead other than a few nutters? And you certainly don't shape policy on account of them..

Killing is better than trial. They won't respect us either way and suspect not one Jihadi has been converted by sense of injustice towards bin Laden.

[buctootim]

Conspiracists? Does anyone think he is not dead other than a few nutters? And you certainly don't shape policy on account of them..

Killing is better than trial. They won't respect us either way and suspect not one Jihadi has been converted by sense of injustice towards bin Laden.

 

Who knows. The Taliban certainly asked for proof of his death. Either way in general I think its better to bring the Pol Pots, Milosovics, Ceausescus, Bin Ladens of this world to trial. Their subordinates, not so much.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/skeptics-wonder-wheres-proof-bin-ladens-dead/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33152315

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/11/opinions/bergen-bin-laden-story-a-lie/

[hutch]

Who knows. The Taliban certainly asked for proof of his death. Either way in general I think its better to bring the Pol Pots, Milosovics, Ceausescus, Bin Ladens of this world to trial. Their subordinates, not so much.

You forgot Mengistu. I'm sure that was just an oversight, and his present palatial lifestyle for 30 years under the personal protection of that pillar of human rights, Robert Mugabe, is entirely coincidental.

 

When does his trial start?