I don't know that I would call clan stupid as much I would just figure that deep down he prefers an authoritarian form of government and is just conflicted about it. That would explain why he works so hard to rationalize things like this. Deep down, he probably is willing to accept the occasional shooting of an innocent person if it removes barriers from the government's power to kill the bad guys.
Not that he's Einstein or anything, though.
Oh for the love of God.better to sacrifice one person... if they had been right and tried to put in place all the procedures and red tape you terrorist lovers want, then a terrorist may have entered the train and killed 100s..
THEY WEREN'T RIGHT.
That's the point.
Yep... clan came right and said what I figured he believes while I was writing that.
clan's just an authoritarian. That political philosophy has a long tradition this hemisphere among countries that aren't called "USA" or "Canada."
But You Can't Take The Chance!
what is the latest 9/11 bull that has come out? a military intelligence group wanted the fbi to arrest one the 9/11 bombers a year before the incident. red tape wouldn't allow it.. hence 3,000 people are dead...
this london shooting was an accident... but i'll take the death of 1 person over 100s anyday...
clan's point is that he'd rather the government have fewer barriers against its use of violent coercive power even if that means some innocent people die.
While this philosophy clearly goes against the entire basis of our system of government, it nevertheless is quite common in countries not influenced by the British system like ours is.
Simple-minded nonsense.
Listen, goober. My point is - if you're going to say "wait for the final report" now, say it all the time. If not, you're a hypocrite.
But You Can't Take The Chance!
Who can't take the chance? The victim?
I'm not arguing procedure, I'm arguing fault. It baffles me that you can claim this was the victim's fault.
Huh?
Sure, if that guy is some Brazilian dude . . . who cares if he dies in the name of security, right Clan?
It’s mind-boggling how you go at such great lengths to justify this whole situation.
Terrorist lovers?? You sound like those racist mofo's back in the 1950's "niger lovers"!! you ignorant dumbass
yeah well, lets just hope the next person to be shot is someone who thinks exactly like you
What I'm disputing is the assertion that the victim was shot because he resisted arrest. That's wrong. He was shot because of bad intelligence.clan's point is that he'd rather the government have fewer barriers against its use of violent coercive power even if that means some innocent people die.
I have no problem with the police procedure, given their intel. But now that the intel has proven to be wrong, somebody on the intel side needs to be held accountable.
Did it bother you that Iraq had been firing missiles at our aircraft for over 10 years? A simpled YES or NO will do.
What Clan fails to see, and it's not his fault, really. It's his perspective.
See, on a really ty day at work for Clan, somebody slips on the stained floor which he couldn't get clean.
On a really ty day at work for those British police, an innocent man died.
Yes.
Does it bother you that you're a hypocrite? A "simpled" YES or NO will do.
you crazy er
No, I've been called worse by people closer to me!
ofcourse you wereNo, I've been called worse by people closer to me!
It's not just about one person. This could happen, and will happen many more times. 3000 isn't really all that many dead to turn the world upside down.
Pearl Harbor a little over 2000 dead.
Completely different set of cir stances.
you said 3,000 deaths wasn't a reason to turn the world upside down... ask the japoneses if their world was turned upside down...
you really think the WHOLE US involvement in WW2 was entirely due to Pearl Harbor?? HAHAHA laughable
Pearl Harbor didn't happen in a vacuum, but it certainly was the military attack on U.S. territory that started the war. The cir stances also garnered overwhelming popular support for the war, and young people climbed over one another to enlist.
The Japanese attacked Hawaii because the U.S. was threatening an oil embargo against Japan, and Japan figured their best bet was to catch the U.S. off guard with an attack and make them sue for peace quickly. They grossly underestimated the will of the American people to defend their homeland.
The U.S. was threatening an oil embargo against Japan because of Japan's insistence upon maintaing its aggressive expansionist foreign policy, i.e. conquering other countries along the Pacific Rim in order to colonize them. The U.S. negotiated with the Japanese for a long time before taking the step toward the oil embargo.
i never said the whole...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
