Ji - except only British-citizen Falkland residents were given the vote... assuming you mean the recent vote??

The first thing Bin Laden would have said would have been about how he and George Bush were best friends and how his family have ties to the Bin Ladens going back many years.

Google it.

Al Qaeda's recruitment video's, (we are going back previous to the recent Iraq war and stuff here) contained Palestinian suffering and Chechen Suffering. These are the video's they show to try and get recruits, if that isn't proof of it being a cause what is?
-----------------
You're missing the point

Bin Laden was a cold blooded murderer first and foremost. That's the point.

I get your general point.

I would say it is usually preferable to sentence and imprison rather than kill your enemies.

Killing people can create martyrs..

Not in the slightest, and nowhere have you seen me glorify the death of another.

Poor form.
-------------------------

Yes I suppose you haven't. But if you were going to resort to gross exaggeration then I saw no reason for me not to...

Anyway, I still think you've got the mind set of some cold war relic - Believing 'negotiations' must be made at the trigger end of a gun.

Both sides can claim the other has been brainwashed. People just have their views and will stick to them unless they maybe research and delve into it a little more to see the arguments of the other side

What I can do is state some facts;

2,996 civilians died in the World Trade Centre
Around 140,000 civilians have died since 2001, as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Who is being made accountable for the war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or can America do what they like on foreign soil?

Ji - except only British-citizen Falkland residents were given the vote... assuming you mean the recent vote??
------------------------

Really?? Didn't know about that at all! Have to read up on that when I get the chance

Who is being made accountable for the war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or can America do what they like on foreign soil?
---------------------------------------

Exactly - Both sides deserve to be put on trial for the huge amount of murder and vitriol they have spread.

"Fair enough, he was a very good speaker from what I've read about him. But I could see it going the way Nick Griffin did on QT, or Breivik has on trial in Norway - His views would get aired publicly, and then inhilated in such a way that they couldn't really recover."

Breivik and Griffin don't have either the volume of followers or potential for widescale disruption that Bin Laden did though, it could have created a massive escalation which they were very nervous about doing, no need to martyr him more in his followers eyes than he already was.

Would have been good to see the trial though, I agree. Not much need for it seeing as he admitted to everything they needed anyway though!

You're missing the point

Bin Laden was a cold blooded murderer first and foremost. That's the point.
....................................

What Bin Laden is or isn't doesn't really matter. He isn't in charge of a professional military and joining Al Qaeda isn't a career option.

Al Qaeda need to convince people to strap themselves with bombs and blow themselves up. You do not convince people to do that by explaining that you don't like them and that you would not be upset if they died...

If you are arguing just Osama's reasons for Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks then it is to a point unknowable if we aren't going to believe his own words but Bin Laden himself made many complaints about Israel.

It is probably the biggest cause of US hatred in the middle east (one or two countries where they have been recently possibly excluded)

Breivik and Griffin don't have either the volume of followers or potential for widescale disruption that Bin Laden did though, it could have created a massive escalation which they were very nervous about doing, no need to martyr him more in his followers eyes than he already was.

Would have been good to see the trial though, I agree. Not much need for it seeing as he admitted to everything they needed anyway though!
-----------------------------------------------

Yeah, can see how that makes sense, but by killing him (he was unarmed wasn't he?) like they did they lose the moral high ground, they lose the ability to claim they are 'democratic' in my eyes.

Not that they, or we, need help doing that

comment by Nemanja's body count (U17355) posted 11 minutes ago
Macca - I totally see what's wrong with that. I agree with you, only warped people would actively celebrate someone's death IMO. It just seems like some people on here were using that as if to say 'you can't criticise Thatcher, she was an old woman' - which is wird because we all get old whether we're good people or not

---------------
Misunderstaning then

I was just referring to her being frail and old as a fact that she can;t hurt anyone now, so why does it matter that she dies as soon as possible so people can party?

sick

Who is being made accountable for the war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or can America do what they like on foreign soil?
-------------------------------

Are there war crimes being commited though (at least to the scale of some of the terrorist attacks on the US and other western countries)? I don't agree they should be there but it was the result of a UN resolution, even it it was a bunch of BS. It's not like the US military are targetting civilans.

Ji - Yeah, I read something about it on Twitter (I know lol) and did some reading on it. See this Guardian article for more:

http://tinyurl.com/cn7y6x6

Lot of rubbish being talked now. For a start (and I'm not talking about US forces now) does anyone actually know the role UK forces are playing in Afghanistan now?

Because this talk of War crimes in Afghanistan is laughable!

Yeah VC, that's original, isn't it, you calling someone else an idiot? Doesn't betray your deep-rooted insecurities whatsoever, rest assured.

The military junta in charge of Argentina at the time and Thatcher would have had mutual friends in the US at the time given the shared ideology of all 3 countries. So it's not entirely inconceivable that this low-scale and ultimately pointless war might have been agreed upon beforehand. Just a theory though.

But hey wait, only an idiot would put forth a theory right? Only a smart man like yourself would take the media's spin on things at face value? Right?

Arab

Ji

I guess it's because I'm so sceptical of America due to all the bullshît they come out with.

The body was never actually seen.

And I'm somebody that is anti conspiracy theory.

"It's amazing to see just how many people on here only see things from one side."

----------------------------------------------

Ooh the irony.

I don't care one way or the other about the irrelevancy that Ms Thatcher was. Just another spokesperson/mouthpeice for other people's bad ideas. The same way that ALL elected representatives are.

However, on a psycholological level, Ms thatcher was a bigoted, mentally ill person with a drink dependency problem. Exactly the kind of person, in deed, that was ONLY able to see things in one way. In her case it was the way she was told to see them.

Not a nice person on an individual level. And worse still symbolically represented ideas that hadn't worked for the vast majority of people the first time round (at the height of liberalism in the 18th/9th century) and failed, unsurprisingly, to make things any better for us now.

As for her being the first woman PM, entirely irrelevant. The party she represented refused to allow her to make any executive decisions. Partly because she was a woman in a male dominated environment, but, more importantly because - for a long long time now - national leaders have been unable to make genuinely important executive decisions because they are bound by other influences. Not least being privately owned mainstream media empires, private corporations, banking/financial institutions and arms dealers. They are the real decision makers.

We are going to be flooded with a lot of errant nonsense (and many lies) about the alledged influence of Ms Thatcher over the next 7 days (for good or bad) but the historical truth is she was an irrelevancy.

"Yeah, can see how that makes sense, but by killing him (he was unarmed wasn't he?) like they did they lose the moral high ground, they lose the ability to claim they are 'democratic' in my eyes."

I get where you are coming from, but they really didn't need to be democratic in that instance given the situation. I've got the book on the seige but haven't read it yet, I can't remember if he was unarmed or not. I can completely understand the shoot on sight command in that instance though, it would have been very very dangerous to keep him alive.

Are there war crimes being commited though (at least to the scale of some of the terrorist attacks on the US and other western countries)?
-------------------------------------

Not sure if it's a fair argument though - Terrorist attacks, by their very nature, have to be big and brash to garner attention and to be 'efficient' with the limited supplies and opportunities they get.

comment by 7_The_Arab (U5768)
posted 1 minute ago
It is not unheard of for leaders to talk up foreign problems to distract from domestic ones, does seem a little far fetched that they would pre arrange such a conflict

....................

I remember hearing the phone call:


Galtieri

I think out two countries shold have a little shindig to improve our popularity.

Mrs T

What do you have in mind?

Galtieri

I know, I will send a few thousand conscripts over to the Falkland Islands and sieze it from you Brits.

Mrs T

Oh I see, then I can send a Flotilla down South with our superior forces on it to reclaim the Islands.

Galtieri

Yes, brillant idea Maggie. And during the eight weeks it takes to get down there, our lads will dig in, have little rations, and will get freezing cold and demorilized, and will easilly surrender.

Mrs T

But won't that make you unpopular at home Leo?

Galtieri

Not at all, what will they do, put me to death?

Ji - Yeah, I read something about it on Twitter (I know lol) and did some reading on it. See this Guardian article for more:
----------------------

Cheers NBC Gotta admit I really did only skim over the stuff I saw about it, had a lot on at the time but I will go back and read that article



And I'm somebody that is anti conspiracy theory.
--------------------

Darren - Or... Are you?

comment by AHB - Better Call Sol (U13431)
posted 1 minute ago
Yeah VC, that's original, isn't it, you calling someone else an idiot?

...............

I was only working on the evidence you put in front of me.

What I was delighted about was the Falklands residents being given a referendum on staying tied to Britian or moving to Argentina. Democracy produced a bloodless result.
-------------------
Don't think Argentina are remotely bothered about the results of that

Not sure if it's a fair argument though - Terrorist attacks, by their very nature, have to be big and brash to garner attention and to be 'efficient' with the limited supplies and opportunities they get.

------------

Sounds awfully like an argument in support of large-scale terrorist attacks as a necessity. Do Special Branch know about you (if not i'm gonna send my friend an email )