kill people in Ireland, if THEY deem it necessary

bonkey

Originally posted by Ailill
Anyone trying to harm the person of the POTUS on Irish soil should be shot.

I disagree.

Anyone trying to harm the person of the POTUS should be prevented from doing so.

There is a world of a difference in those two stances.

One approach shows a callousness for human life on par with the person threatening Bus.

The other shows that you do not share the very character trait that you caused the problem in the first place.

jc

MeatProduct

Originally posted by bonkey
I disagree.

Anyone trying to harm the person of the POTUS should be prevented from doing so.

There is a world of a difference in those two stances.

One approach shows a callousness for human life on par with the person threatening Bus.

The other shows that you do not share the very character trait that you caused the problem in the first place.

jc

Exactly. It's quite amazing that there is a mentality out there that thinks Bush is actually innocent of any kind of crime. That he did not bring this hatred that a lot of people have towards him.

Why would shooting someone who is trying to kill Bush help? Would it not be better to detain this individual and find out why they feel they had to go to such an extreme? Then they might start to find out what can be done to make people feel like they don't have to be so extreme to be heard.

Nick

bonkey

Originally posted by MeatProduct
Exactly. It's quite amazing that there is a mentality out there that thinks Bush is actually innocent of any kind of crime.

I was referring to the notion of criticisng someone for wanting to harm Bush because they disagree with him, whilst saying that they should be killed because you disagree with them.

Bush is actually innocent - in the legal sense - of any serious crime.

That he did not bring this hatred that a lot of people have towards him.

It is one thing to hate Bush. It is another to want to become a vigilante who would kill him because you feel the system hasn't provided you the outcome you would like.

My point was that this is no different to wanting the person who threatens Bush to be shot, without qualifying it to say "if there is no other realistic option".

Why would shooting someone who is trying to kill Bush help?

Well, I wasn't considering that angle at all, but you're bang on there. Another reason not to shoot them. I was simply taking the option that killing should be the last option. The person trying to kill Bush has decided that is not the case. The person advocating that any threat should be shot is also making the same decision.

jc

spanner

i think people are getting wound up over nothing. as much as everyone disagrees with george bush these guys are very well trained and are not about to cause an international incident for nothing. people seem to be portraying the secret service guys as cowboys and really to shoot anyone who looks at bush strange.

there has been no documented incident to date were a secret service agent shot a member of the public while protecting the american president. even with the increased threat on bush i cant see these bodyguards who are some of the best in the world shooting for nothing

monument

Originally posted by Turkey
Monument , we are not answerable for what happens outside the state

O, yes, our state is when our state takes part in what happens - in this case it is allowing an army which is at war to land in our state.

Originally posted by Turkey
and your old woman reference makes no sense at all.[perhaps you could explain it a bit better].

The old woman was used for effect as such; it could apply to any one.

You said "If you are scared that there will be an armed presence during the bush visit then you obviously have ill intent, maybe it would be better if you stayed away"

By that logic - someone who is scared to do any thing obviously has an ill intent, and maybe it would be better for them to stayed away or not to do what they want to do?

Turkey

Monument , what I ment is that bush'es bodyguards are only there to do harm, if necessary, to anyone who has ill intent to bush. They are of no harm to anyone else, they are humans, very much like normal people in this country, Is that clear?

Meat, someone who is going to do harm to other people regardless of wheather it is POTUS or the earlier mentioned Leeson street tart may be only prevented from doing so by killing them, it's is a sad reality but some of the time you cannot talk to a man with a gun, so you have to shoot to kill, and please do not tell me that there are effective non-leathal wepons out there in this context, there are not. Once firearms and certain other types of wepons come into play,[eg,-grenades] then all kinds of s**t can , and will break loose.

And one other minor point, you may have noticed that I am no fan of the current occupant of the white house, but in this state as well as many others you remain innocent until proven otherwise. you may not like it but bush is innocent of all crime at the moment, and no one in this case, apart from legally appointed members of the 'system' may take the law into their own hands.

monument

Originally posted by Turkey
Monument , what I ment is that bush'es bodyguards are only there to do harm, if necessary, to anyone who has ill intent to bush.... Is that clear?

Yes, that is clear now, but it was not what you first said.

Originally posted by Turkey
They are of no harm to anyone else, they are humans, very much like normal people in this country, Is that clear?

No, that that is not clear; the SS - like modern solders - are trained to kill, which makes the two groups very much so not like normal people....

As most humans are not naturally willing to kill another human (even when they want to) – if you don’t believe me have a look at the research into how many people actually shot to kill in the WWII – modern training has changed this (see The Truth About Killing).

Ailill

Originally posted by MeatProduct
It's quite amazing that there is a mentality out there that thinks Bush is actually innocent of any kind of crime. That he did not bring this hatred that a lot of people have towards him.

I don't believe Bush has committed any crime. Not that I'm aware of. I'm amazed at some people who run around shouting Bush=Hitler. Ridiculous, these kids really haven't a clue.

So tell me, what crime is President Bush supposed to have committed?? And don't start whining about "International Law". There is no such thing.

gandalf

Originally posted by Ailill
So tell me, what crime is President Bush supposed to have committed?? And don't start whining about "International Law". There is no such thing.

Well thanks to George Jr and the Axis of Diesel there no longer is international law. I suppose you haven't heard of the Geneva Convention either :rolleyes:

Gandalf.

MeatProduct

Originally posted by Ailill
I don't believe Bush has committed any crime. Not that I'm aware of. I'm amazed at some people who run around shouting Bush=Hitler. Ridiculous, these kids really haven't a clue.

So tell me, what crime is President Bush supposed to have committed?? And don't start whining about "International Law". There is no such thing.

I'd point you towards Afganastan and Iraq where there are many civilians dead as a result of the deeply wise actions of one Mr. Bush.

Of course killing innocent civilians obviously is not a crime anymore. Bush could have decided that there was no need to kill these people. He didn't. As the supreme commander of the US military he could have given the order for no attacks to happen.

Nick

PS: Going by yout logic Hitler committed no crime.

monument

Originally posted by Ailill
I don't believe Bush has committed any crime.

You can believe what you want.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Turkey

Monument, sorry about that misunderstanding over what I posted.

But, I have to strongly disagree with you about your assesment about soilders, modern or otherwise, I have met literally, hundreds, of sailors, soldiers, and airmen, who were involved in many modern wars and peace missions, apart from WW1, I was trained as an infantryman myself. Out of all of these, US, British, German, French, Oz, Canadian, Irish, ect, ect, I do not belive I have met even one who was gung-ho about the killing process, but while I take your point about the US presidential escort, I think that you will find that being trained to kill and actully doing it are quite far removed. But since I have never met anyone from this particular occupation, I cannot be 100% sure.
Oh, generally, while I do not fully support the actions of the george and tony temper tantrum, I think you will find that, technically,it will be very difficult to pin war crims on them.

monument

Originally posted by Turkey
I do not belive I have met even one who was gung-ho about the killing process

I'm not saying soldiers are totally like robots about killing, however unlike soldiers in WWII, most modern soldiers can shoot to kill, this makes them completely different then the average person in Ireland or else where.

Originally posted by Turkey
it will be very difficult to pin war crims on them.

I think they have made in very easy to do so... look at Cuba.