Killings of off-duty Military personel.

DiscoDancer said:
What is it about some posters, they only see what they want to see?
Or do they intentionally try to twist others' comments?
The bits about "perception" and "not reality" should have been sufficient clues. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Bloody hell, Joe. Pots and kettles come to mind!
 
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
JBR said:
DiscoDancer said:
What is it about some posters, they only see what they want to see?
Or do they intentionally try to twist others' comments?
The bits about "perception" and "not reality" should have been sufficient clues. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Bloody hell, Joe. Pots and kettles come to mind!
Click to expand...

For instance?

I like to think that when I make a claim that I support it with examples, external reference, sound argument, or whatever, depending on the circumstance.

I accept that your comment might have been aimed at Joe, but I'm not Joe.
Prove it (he won't) :LOL:
 
Briefly moving away from the usual and inevitable squabble that tends to emerge in such long threads..if we could return to the op:
DiscoDancer said:
Can somebody explain the difference between the Lee Rigby killing and the many drone killings of so called terrorists in their family homes, cars or social gatherings?.
Click to expand...

Later in the op you make reference to "government". Surely this is the key - acts of aggression can only really be "acceptable" if they are part of a strategy to remove threats and/or impose pressure on legitimised power bases (governments, political groups etc) in order to lead to a negotiated settlement which stands some chance of a prolonged period of peace.

The use of agreed "acceptable" methods such as those mentioned by JBR (the Geneva Convention) should at least limit the concept of long term grievances which would fester if one side or the other used methods that just isn't cricket. Adherence to the rules of engagement increases the change of waging agreed peace.

So, to answer your question, the case of using drones satisfies the conditions of being approved by a legitimised government (UK, US or other), whereas the use of psychopathic and disturbed lunatics with whom nobody can negotiate, nor their being a legitimate hierarchal body involved who could control them, doesn't.
 
DiscoDancer said:
JBR said:
DiscoDancer said:
What is it about some posters, they only see what they want to see?
Or do they intentionally try to twist others' comments?
The bits about "perception" and "not reality" should have been sufficient clues. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Bloody hell, Joe. Pots and kettles come to mind!
Click to expand...

For instance?

I like to think that when I make a claim that I support it with examples, external reference, sound argument, or whatever, depending on the circumstance.

I accept that your comment might have been aimed at Joe, but I'm not Joe.
Prove it (he won't) :LOL:
Click to expand...

Joe? Who's Joe?
 
Sorry Dex, I did do a rather lengthy response. I was nearly finished when I was 'exited' against my wishes and I couldn't regain my response. It's not the first time but before I've taken the trouble to re-type everything.

I ain't gonna do it all again this time. Suffice, for now, to say that most of your points I've already covered in this thread. Sorry for the rather brief reply.

I appreciate that I'll be accused of all sorts of infamous and nefarious actions.

When/if I can be bothered I'll re-type my response in a more reliable media and them copy & paste.

Does anyone know if DIYnot has automatic time-out?
 
Thanks Disco - I had started to read the thread reasonably carefully before inevitable degrading into increasingly scant skimming. I'll work through it slowly and get back to you if there's are any points of clarification or contention ;)
 
Dextraneous said:
Disco may well have been on here at least once before - can't place him/her.
Click to expand...

Why does one assume I've been here before? Because I have a good handle on the syntax? The syntax, as is the search facility, etc, is very nealy identical to other sites, with which I am familiar.

Or if I have been here before, maybe I've been here in several guises?

I just happen to find the GD forum a little more stimulating and a little less heiniously censored than other forums. I would agree that there are more contentious, even the bizarre and ridiculous, claims on here, but I'm more than ready to discuss them, if they interest me.

Plus, I just happen to have a little time on my hands, at the mo' except that now I've got "man flue", I don't feel up to long winded discussions, just the quick-fire responses. (Yes, in my world this is a quickie!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top