Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

TONIGHT With Vincent Browne

Options
1…277278280282283…358

Comments

  • Options
    #8372
    Lapin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,184 ✭✭✭✭Lapin


    Lot of bleedin hearts here tonight too by the looks of it.


  • Options
    #8373
    Havermeyer
    Registered Users Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭Havermeyer


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    What they did was illegal.

    Which part was that.......exactly?


  • Options
    #8374
    Sanjuro
    Registered Users Posts: 4,236 ✭✭✭Sanjuro


    SkidMark wrote: »
    Godwin's law doesn't apply when the subject is someone (Bin Laden) who has actually acted as a Nazi.

    Bollocks. Because World War 2 was a justifiable war, doesn't give everyone the right to cite it just to push across an emotional point. Every time somebody brings up World War 2 to justify modern conflicts, their point should automatically be ignored.


  • Options
    #8375
    ascanbe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭ascanbe


    nummnutts wrote: »
    The whole bleeding heart ****e coming from Wallace and Browne tonight is nonsense.

    "I know the killing of 3,000 people on 9 11 was aweful, but......."

    Give me a break.

    Their whole view of the debacle is skewed, and it's evidenced by Browne's attempts to silence the only person on the panel who could possibly defend what the American's did - from a warfare and legal point of view.

    Wallace is talking some nonsense; that's besides the point regarding the killing of Bin Laden.
    The guy you say could defend it from a legal point of view had a chance and did no such thing; how could he?
    The nearest he or others came to a defense was saying something like, 'Oh well, Bin Laden is an especially 'evil' man, so the normal rules of law shouldn't apply to him. I agree with the rule of law/trials normally, but it can be forgotten when dealing with some people'.
    Who gets to judge what level of 'evil' is required to abandon the rule of law? That's the kind of logic that anti-democratic/authoritarian regimes are based upon.


  • Options
    #8376
    gerocks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 184 ✭✭gerocks


    450k to a fairly wealthy person. Crazy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8377
    Lapin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,184 ✭✭✭✭Lapin


    Tom Dunne is for the parachute high jump !


  • Options
    #8378
    baldbear
    Registered Users Posts: 5,564 ✭✭✭baldbear


    I'd say she will give it to charity. She did the other times she sued.


  • Options
    #8379
    Skid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,873 ✭✭✭Skid


    Sanjuro wrote: »
    Every time somebody brings up World War 2 to justify modern conflicts, their point should automatically be ignored.


    Eh, no.

    That makes no logical sense whatsoever.

    WW2 didn't happen in alternative universe.

    It happened in living memory, and comparisons to modern events are perfectly valid.


  • Options
    #8380
    ascanbe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭ascanbe


    Lapin wrote: »
    Lot of bleedin hearts here tonight too by the looks of it.

    My heart isn't bleeding at all; couldn't give a ****e about Bin Laden.
    I do care about the rule of law applying to all people, though.


  • Options
    #8381
    Headshot
    Registered Users Posts: 54,341 ✭✭✭✭Headshot


    This thing about illegal is strange imo

    CIA agents are allowed in Pakistan so the americans changed the operation to the CIA and hey presto it was legal. That's what iv read and listened too


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8382
    ricardo1
    Registered Users Posts: 82 ✭✭ricardo1


    That witch Harney getting 450.000 ontop of the golden handshake her pension and the country's reputation destroyed
    Distasteful is the word!!!!!
    How many Drs nurses would this money employ for a year
    How many beds made available!!!!
    This country would drive anyone to drink!!!!


  • Options
    #8383
    Krusader
    Registered Users Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭Krusader


    gerocks wrote: »
    450k to a fairly wealthy person. Crazy.
    she's not looking to be re-elected from now on though


  • Options
    #8384
    gerocks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 184 ✭✭gerocks


    450k to a fairly wealthy person. Crazy.


  • Options
    #8385
    Lapin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,184 ✭✭✭✭Lapin


    ascanbe wrote: »
    My heart isn't bleeding at all; couldn't give a ****e about Bin Laden.
    I do care about the rule of law applying to all people, though.

    Bin Laden didn't give a ****e about the rule of law.

    Fúck him.


  • Options
    #8386
    fatherbuzcagney
    Registered Users Posts: 373 ✭✭fatherbuzcagney


    gerocks wrote: »
    450k to a fairly wealthy person. Crazy.

    she'll have it drank in no time:pac:


  • Options
    #8387
    gerocks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 184 ✭✭gerocks


    Double post! Sorry. Using mobile (badly).


  • Options
    #8388
    Havermeyer
    Registered Users Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭Havermeyer


    ascanbe wrote: »
    Wallace is talking some nonsense; that's besides the point regarding the killing of Bin Laden.
    The guy you say could defend it from a legal point of view had a chance and did no such thing; how could he?
    The nearest he or others came to a defense was saying something like, 'Oh well, Bin Laden is an especially 'evil' man, so the normal rules of law shouldn't apply to him. I agree with the rule of law/trials normally, but it can be forgotten when dealing with some people'.
    Who gets to judge what level of 'evil' is required to abandon the rule of law? That's the kind of logic that anti-democratic/authoritarian regimes are based upon.

    No. He said, under rules of warfare, which is what Bin Laden and his merry band of men (and women) declared on America following the events of 911, the American's broke no rules by entering Pakistan - which was Vincent's main gripe, it seems.

    As regards to the actual shooting of Bin Laden, a shoot to kill policy may seem harsh to the faint hearted, but when it comes down to "our men coming home alive" or "their men going home alive", it is fully understandable.


  • Options
    #8389
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    ascanbe wrote: »
    My heart isn't bleeding at all; couldn't give a ****e about Bin Laden.
    I do care about the rule of law applying to all people, though.


    I'm just dismayed there are so many people on here who don't question this type of action by powerful nations.

    It is not a 'bleeding heart' that prods and probes and questions but it most certainly is a weak mind that uncritically goes along with what is presented to them without question.


  • Options
    #8390
    JonathanAnon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,718 ✭✭✭✭JonathanAnon


    gerocks wrote: »
    450k to a fairly wealthy person. Crazy.

    She's given any monies won from previous cases to charity, so I would assume that she will do the same with this.. She's got a HUGE pension so why would she need it anyway...

    Could Newstalk not sue Nelly McCafferty.. Surely Newstalk must make the contributors to their shows sign some sort of legal agreement pre show saying that they wont defame/slander any person or company...


  • Options
    #8391
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    baldbear wrote: »
    I'd say she will give it to charity. She did the other times she sued.


    Hopefully she does.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8392
    ascanbe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭ascanbe


    Lapin wrote: »
    Bin Laden didn't give a ****e about the rule of law.

    Fúck him.

    Exactly, he didn't give a ****e about the rule of law; that's why 'we' are supposedly against him.
    Why do you want 'us' to act like him?
    Do 'we' defeat what he stood for/his likes stand for by abandoning the rule of law/playing by his/their rules?
    That makes 'us' no different than 'them' and, in fact, means 'they' win.


  • Options
    #8393
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    ricardo1 wrote: »
    That witch Harney getting 450.000 ontop of the golden handshake her pension and the country's reputation destroyed
    Distasteful is the word!!!!!
    How many Drs nurses would this money employ for a year
    How many beds made available!!!!
    This country would drive anyone to drink!!!!


    Half of one?


  • Options
    #8394
    steelcityblues
    Registered Users Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭steelcityblues


    gambiaman wrote: »
    I'm just dismayed there are so many people on here who don't question this type of action by powerful nations.

    It is not a 'bleeding heart' that prods and probes and questions but it most certainly is a weak mind that uncritically goes along with what is presented to them without question.

    The most disturbing part of recent days is that a lot of Americans think the extremists could not possibly strike again!


  • Options
    #8395
    baldbear
    Registered Users Posts: 5,564 ✭✭✭baldbear


    Ha ha buried respectfully! She's having a laugh. He was thrown in the sea like a rat.


  • Options
    #8396
    ascanbe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭ascanbe


    nummnutts wrote: »
    No. He said, under rules of warfare, which is what Bin Laden and his merry band of men (and women) when declared on America following the events of 911, the American's broke no rules by entering Pakistan - which was Vincent's main gripe, it seems.

    As regards to the actual shooting of Bin Laden, a shoot to kill may policy may seem harsh to the faint hearted, but when it comes down to "our men coming home alive" or "their men going home alive", it is fully understandable.

    Where is the 'rule of war' that says you can/should execute unarmed combatants?
    Apart from the possible illegality of America conducting this mission on foreign soil, i would understand those soldiers shooting him if they were under threat; that's entirely different than higher ups sending them out under orders to execute rather than arrest him.


  • Options
    #8397
    jayteecork
    Site Banned Posts: 5,676 ✭✭✭jayteecork


    Vincent laughing about the FCA killing bin Laden - hahahaha.


  • Options
    #8398
    hb75
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭hb75


    Not justifying the wars they have started but the anti american sentiment by Browne and Wallace is palpable.

    As was asked would their solution have had been. Aks him politley to come out with his hands up.


  • Options
    #8399
    pragmatic1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,573 ✭✭✭pragmatic1


    nummnutts wrote: »
    No. He said, under rules of warfare, which is what Bin Laden and his merry band of men (and women) declared on America following the events of 911, the American's broke no rules by entering Pakistan - which was Vincent's main gripe, it seems.

    As regards to the actual shooting of Bin Laden, a shoot to kill policy may seem harsh to the faint hearted, but when it comes down to "our men coming home alive" or "their men going home alive", it is fully understandable.
    Understandable, yes. Good idea, no. They've just made a martyr out of him.


  • Options
    #8400
    Havermeyer
    Registered Users Posts: 3,041 ✭✭✭Havermeyer


    ascanbe wrote: »
    Where is the 'rule of war' that says you can/should execute unarmed combatants?
    Apart from the possible illegality of America conducting this mission on foreign soil, i would understand those soldiers shooting him if they were under threat; that's entirely different than higher ups sending them out under orders to execute rather than arrest him.

    I take it you have it on good word that they were sent in for an assassination mission. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8401
    Lapin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,184 ✭✭✭✭Lapin


    ascanbe wrote: »
    Exactly, he didn't give a ****e about the rule of law; that's why 'we' are supposedly against him.
    Why do you want 'us' to act like him?
    Do 'we' defeat what he stood for/his likes stand for by abandoning the rule of law/playing by his/their rules?
    That makes 'us' no different than 'them' and, in fact, means 'they' win.


    I agree that the rule of law should be applied in most instances but in this case any action taken to eliminate those responsible the terrorist attacks of 911, the railways of Madrid, the nightclubs of Bali, the streets of London and elsewhere is totally justifiable.

    The rule of law has its place but we're not talking about someone nicking a Mars Bar from the local Spar here.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement