Sources: U.S. kills Cole suspect

True, but we didn't sign it and neither are we part of it.

Yes, it seems that your government doesn't like signing agreements or taking part in anything that might require them to act responsibly towards the rest of us. Kyoto.
 
The Kyoto Treaty was ill written and deserved to be tossed out. If it applies to one... it should apply to all.
 
Aunty Em said:
LastLegionary said:
Thats time consuming, and they'd be alive, and we'd have half of Europe yelling at us for arresting poor innocent people...

What happened to the presumption that someone is innocent until convicted on the evidence in a court of law? ?(

Be a bit embarrassing if it were to turn out that the identification was wrong and they bombed the wrong people, on no hang on didn't they already did that in afganistan? Doesn't seem to have done any good.

Aunty Em. Just one question. Are you, yourself, perfect? Be honest. Have you ever made a mistake? We can check, double-check, triple-check, etcetera ad nauseum, but there will always be some dumb SOB who doesn't get the message.
 
Aunty Em, i'm very anti-USA (so they say), and this time i agree with them, if the guys had surrender and still got killed things would be different, however they didn't do it.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Aunty Em said:
LastLegionary said:
Thats time consuming, and they'd be alive, and we'd have half of Europe yelling at us for arresting poor innocent people...

What happened to the presumption that someone is innocent until convicted on the evidence in a court of law? ?(

Be a bit embarrassing if it were to turn out that the identification was wrong and they bombed the wrong people, on no hang on didn't they already did that in afganistan? Doesn't seem to have done any good.

Aunty Em. Just one question. Are you, yourself, perfect? Be honest. Have you ever made a mistake? We can check, double-check, triple-check, etcetera ad nauseum, but there will always be some dumb SOB who doesn't get the message.

No I'm not perfect but British Law is founded on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and I happen to believe in the right of the indiviual to defend himself in a court of law - no matter what he has been accused of doing.
 
HeXp£Øi± said:
not a great loss, but!

couldn't they've just stopped the car and arrest them and THEN bring them to justice?

In Yemen?
Remember Somolia?

touché.

i was just wondering btw :) it's not like i'll mourn for them or anything. not at all.
 
Maybe, just maybe the reason they didn't have the constables pull them over & issue them a speeding ticket is because they had a car full of explosives. Oh, ans the fact that Yemen said they didn't want to be involved because it's a poitical hot potato.

Innocent until proven guilty does not apply to war criminals.
 
Aunty Em said:
Gato_Solo said:
Aunty Em said:
LastLegionary said:
Thats time consuming, and they'd be alive, and we'd have half of Europe yelling at us for arresting poor innocent people...

What happened to the presumption that someone is innocent until convicted on the evidence in a court of law? ?(

Be a bit embarrassing if it were to turn out that the identification was wrong and they bombed the wrong people, on no hang on didn't they already did that in afganistan? Doesn't seem to have done any good.

Aunty Em. Just one question. Are you, yourself, perfect? Be honest. Have you ever made a mistake? We can check, double-check, triple-check, etcetera ad nauseum, but there will always be some dumb SOB who doesn't get the message.

No I'm not perfect but British Law is founded on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and I happen to believe in the right of the indiviual to defend himself in a court of law - no matter what he has been accused of doing.

Okay. So now you've put yourself in a position of trying to apprehend someone claiming to be a soldier in the midst of a war. Good luck with that...I'd like to see you try it. ;)
 
Gato_Solo said:
Okay. So now you've put yourself in a position of trying to apprehend someone claiming to be a soldier in the midst of a war. Good luck with that...I'd like to see you try it. ;)

My thought preciselly, this are the options that you give to enemies "surrender or get shot". The warning was given back in 2001, when this thing started.
 
Thank you, Luis. Perhaps I'll vote for you for El Presidente de Mexico some day... ;)

Once you refuse to surrender, then you tacitly agree to get shot.
 
Luis G said:
Aunty Em, i'm very anti-USA (so they say), and this time i agree with them, if the guys had surrender and still got killed things would be different, however they didn't do it.

From what I read they weren't given the opportunity on this occassion.
 
Neither were 4,000 people given the chance to surrender over a year ago. It's time we started dealing with these fuckers this way.
 
Aunty Em said:
Luis G said:
Aunty Em, i'm very anti-USA (so they say), and this time i agree with them, if the guys had surrender and still got killed things would be different, however they didn't do it.

From what I read they weren't given the opportunity.

Better check your history, Aunty Em. President Bush gave them that opportunity on September 12, 2001. It's still there. All they have to do is wave a white flag, and walk into a police station.
 
PuterTutor said:
Neither were 4,000 people given the chance to surrender over a year ago. It's time we started dealing with these fuckers this way.

You think it's acceptable to behave in the same way as the terrorists, doesn't that make us worse than them since we are supposed to be doing this in the name of "justice"? It sounds more like revenge to me.
 
why risk MORE innocent lives to arrest terrorists? you read what happened the last time they were tried to be taken in.

i missed that the first time though.
 
I think it's time to destroy these guys. Revenge? Sure, if that's what you want to call it. I call it ridding the world of the menace that is terrorism.
 
Back
Top