America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 37,974 comments
  • 1,481,755 views
BobK
Why single out Bush and Blair? By your logic, every leader of every nation that's ever fought a war (for whatever reason) should be on trial for murder.
Click to expand...
The war of Bush and Blair was a war of choice.

We support wars of necessity and self-defense, WWII being a good example.
 
BobK
Why single out Bush and Blair? By your logic, every leader of every nation that's ever fought a war (for whatever reason) should be on trial for murder.
Click to expand...

Dotini
The war of Bush and Blair was a war of choice.

We support wars of necessity and self-defense, WWII being a good example.
Click to expand...

This ^^^^BobK.
Every leader who ignores protocol and twists things to suit themselves IE: Makes the rules themselves so they can do what they want is a risk and when that risk leads to blood shed they should stand trial.
The Uk and the US have nuclear weapons and no one seems to care like they would if say Iraq had some in their arsenal.
In reality who has started more wars and fired more shots and has proven to be corrupt and dangerous than the UK and the US?
It's ok for Uk and US to have nukes? why? I trust The Cookie monster not to put weight on whilst holidaying at Mcvities more than I trust these two proven trouble makers.
 
Last edited:
justin credible
Not trying to grasp at straws at all. Innocent people died under an attack by forces who were under the rule of two war mongers. Accidental death is how you put it I bet the families of the bereaved don't see it that way. They like I believe they were murdered by armed forces.
It is manslaughter if someone kills someone and didn't mean to still a crime. Exactly the same as soldiers who were convicted of murder when they just shot dead innocent people and the witnesses had the balls to report it as the dead were doing nothing wrong but being an Iraqi. A crime and rightly so they were charged. What's the difference apart from how you word there crime innocent people were killed.
Click to expand...

Well... our criminal justice system pays a lot of attention to how and why people were killed to assess the crime. It's not really just semantics. Negligence resulting in death can be a crime, but it's not murder.

justin credible
Bush and Blair were the leaders they have to accept responsibility of innocents being killed in so called accidental deaths call it murder manslaughter what ever the people are still dead and no one is responsible as it's a war zone? no way some one needs to be responsible and each death should be looked in to what why and when and when the findings prove negligence by US or UK forces then the leaders should answer to that.
Click to expand...

Well no. If you want to charge Bush and Blair with war crimes, you'd need to demonstrate that they personally were negligent or show intent for the murder of innocents. You haven't (and I'm about 99.99% sure you can't) shown that.

justin credible
And we all know they would be found negligent.
Click to expand...

I don't... how do you know that?

justin credible
We have agreed on there was justification even if invasion was premature in my eyes.
Click to expand...

Good.

justin credible
Every casualty you wrote each one of those is someone's life being extinguished for what? Troops not doing there job correct and causing death to innocents is wrong and when things go wrong the buck stops with the gaffers Bush and Blair.
Click to expand...

No, the buck stops with the person responsible, which is not always the person farthest up the chain.

justin credible
This is the problem with war and arrogant leaders they view peoples deaths as casualties of war an accident and don't feel a shred of guilt because they were only Iraqis. Yet when troops are killed they get every sympathy going.
Join the army see the world murder people and risk getting murdered yourself and don't worry if you kill innocent people it can go down as casualties of war and you and your leader get off scott free.
Bush and Blair should stand trial on every innocent death they caused by invading Iraq just because it was war it doesn't mean they should be let off for their crimes.
Click to expand...

Well you'd have more success pinning deaths from the war on them if the war was not justified. Since it was, you have to pin unintended or casualty deaths on something they did.

justin credible
If leaders were held responsible for there wrong doings in war they might think twice before employing troops when a diplomatic solution is still possible.
And cutting down on wars is only a good thing.
Click to expand...

If leaders were held responsible for all wrong doings (not just their wrong doings, which is what you're actually advocating) countries would be unable to defend themselves.

justin credible
The Uk and the US have nuclear weapons and no one seems to care like they would if say Iraq had some in their arsenal.
Click to expand...

That's because Iraq is a signatory on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. In which they promise not to obtain a nuclear arsenal while the US is allowed to have one.

justin credible
In reality who has started more wars and fired more shots and has proven to be corrupt and dangerous than the UK and the US?
Click to expand...

Germany.

justin credible
It's ok for Uk and US to have nukes? why?
Click to expand...

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty
 
Stotty
WTF is going on in America at the moment? Seems hardly a day goes by without some new police shooting/someone shooting police...

http://news.sky.com/story/police-shoot-unarmed-man-with-his-hands-up-10507939
Click to expand...

The news media is in full report mode. You're getting everything happening in the country right now at the highest amplification. It's like the summer of shark attacks. If one were cynical one would think that the media is trying to fuel enough hatred that a riot will break out so that they can cover it, but they're not that organized. All they know is that this is massive ratings at the moment.
 
Stotty
WTF is going on in America at the moment? Seems hardly a day goes by without some new police shooting/someone shooting police...

http://news.sky.com/story/police-shoot-unarmed-man-with-his-hands-up-10507939
Click to expand...
At this point, we have no idea what all the facts are. It's reported that the original call is for an armed man threatening suicide and, as of yet, there is no video of the shooting. It's entirely possible the suicidal person reached for what might have appeared to be a weapon and the injured person was caught in the crossfire. Let's wait until the facts are in before we rush to judgment.
 
Johnnypenso
It's entirely possible the suicidal person reached for what might have appeared to be a weapon and the injured person was caught in the crossfire.
Click to expand...

Unlikely, but I guess its possible, that the therapist was not the intended person that the officer was trying to shoot.

But that still doesn't sound like a proper response to a call that "someone is threatening to shoot themselves"

Why shoot a person who is sitting on the ground and who is threatening to shoot himself?
 
There is video of the lead up and aftermath. The portion with the actual shooting hasn't been released yet. So far though, this looks 100% bad on the officers. I do not know what more the therapist could have done to try and avoid being shot.


And while America was arguing over whether or not a speech was plagiarized, this was going on.

U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria kill civilians, rights groups say

Reports are saying nearly a dozen children were killed on Tuesday.
 
Danoff
The news media is in full report mode. You're getting everything happening in the country right now at the highest amplification. It's like the summer of shark attacks. If one were cynical one would think that the media is trying to fuel enough hatred that a riot will break out so that they can cover it, but they're not that organized. All they know is that this is massive ratings at the moment.
Click to expand...

This. The news media is currently the most destructive force in America. More than terrorists, more than BLM, more than Trump.
 
FoolKiller
There is video of the lead up and aftermath. The portion with the actual shooting hasn't been released yet. So far though, this looks 100% bad on the officers. I do not know what more the therapist could have done to try and avoid being shot.


And while America was arguing over whether or not a speech was plagiarized, this was going on.

U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria kill civilians, rights groups say

Reports are saying nearly a dozen children were killed on Tuesday.
Click to expand...

Trump vs. Hillary gets more clicks than stuff that actually matters.
 
Stotty
Not judging, just looks to be a bit of a cultural problem on both sides.
Click to expand...

No more than it was prior, I mean sure their are moment here where it's different. But you seeing it on full scale because the media deems it is as @Danoff said, the only reason you see it as a massive issue. It's an issue, but it's always been an issue
 
Danoff
Trump vs. Hillary gets more clicks than stuff that actually matters.
Click to expand...
I can't wait until the debate where they argue over who will bomb the most people. That was my favorite in 2012.
 
GTsail290
Unlikely, but I guess its possible, that the therapist was not the intended person that the officer was trying to shoot.

But that still doesn't sound like a proper response to a call that "someone is threatening to shoot themselves"

Why shoot a person who is sitting on the ground and who is threatening to shoot himself?
Click to expand...
As I said earlier, we don't know what happened yet. The question, "why shoot a person sitting on the ground" presumes he was the intended target. You're assuming the suicidal person was only threatening to shoot himself. The call was for a man with a gun, threatening to kill himself. You show up and find two men right beside each other, and they are going to assume that one of them has a weapon. There are many possibilities one of which is an entirely reasonable possibility that the person who supposedly had a gun, raised their hand and pointed it towards the officers or the other person and the other person got hit in the crossfire. In other words, accidentally.
 
Zenith
This. The news media is currently the most destructive force in America. More than terrorists, more than BLM, more than Trump.
Click to expand...

FOX News especially.

759ede76fd26b6121e75e76dabf43766.jpg
 
No, not at all. FOX news is a haven for uneducated white trash who'll believe anything they're told. MSNBC panders to liberals but they don't make squit up like FOX News.
 
Formula1269
FOX News especially.

759ede76fd26b6121e75e76dabf43766.jpg
Click to expand...

Formula1269
No, not at all. FOX news is a haven for uneducated white trash who'll believe anything they're told. MSNBC panders to liberals but they don't make squit up like FOX News.
Click to expand...

It's ironic because the exact trend we're talking about would not be a popular story for the Fox narrative. It's the narrative for the liberal outlets like CNN or MSNBC.
 
Zenith
More like justin hasnevertakenahistorycourse ;)
Click to expand...

This is true I hated history as a school kid. I openly admit I did all I could to be excluded from the dire brain numbing lessons. But please remember the only history done when I was at school was the battle of Hastings, Christopher Columbus accidently crashing in to america and some garbage about henry the ninth and his 20 wives. Never was the middle east or anything political ever mentioned apart from jesus was born in Jerusalem that was it.
Just because I don't know must history it doesn't stop me asking questions and having opinions.

So this nuclear non-proliferation treaty which I have never heard of, Who decides who has nukes and who doesn't?
Please don't tell me the US and the UK and the rest of the so called billy big balls of the world or I will laugh my ass off.
What a statement that would be the countries in the treaty can have nukes and the ones not in there cannot, Why?
Because the ones who can have nukes were the ones who come up with the treaty and stamped it good to go. Oh Really well that makes a lot of sense doesn't it. No but that's the way it is.
So what happens if a country decides it wants nukes to defend itself the same as the countries who are allowed nukes?
who votes on it? Is North Korea one of these who has them but isn't on the list?

And at the end of the day unless some country invades another country then it is up to the invaded country to sort it out what the hecks it got to do with other countries to get involved. this is what I don't understand. Keep your noses out of other peoples business would be my say so if I ruled the world? All nukes should be scrapped and war should only be declared by a country if another country invades your land. If this was the case I am sure the world would be a more restful place.
 
Tornado
Saves him the trouble.
Click to expand...
Is that comment really needed? The patient is Autistic and was holding a toy truck. That's all that needs to be said about his state of mind.
The cop hit 🤬 mode and shot his therapist. Local news even had some of his co-workers on confirming the situation.

And none of y'all will ever see the actual shooting, y'all should know that by now...

As scary acting as the officer was y'all should be glad he was there to save him. He'd probably be dead if he wasn't.

I know y'all think I'm stupid and a arse. But some of y'all really are sick people.
 
Last edited:
Johnnypenso
At this point, we have no idea what all the facts are. It's reported that the original call is for an armed man threatening suicide and, as of yet, there is no video of the shooting. It's entirely possible the suicidal person reached for what might have appeared to be a weapon and the injured person was caught in the crossfire. Let's wait until the facts are in before we rush to judgment.
Click to expand...

Nope. At that range with rifles, they would have shot center mass. You could easily shoot someone in the head if you tried. Everything about this incident suggests it was an accidental discharge. Doesn't excuse it though. They could have killed that poor guy.
 
ryzno
As scary acting as the officer was y'all should be glad he was there to save him. He'd probably be dead if he wasn't.
Click to expand...

Who would be dead if the officer was not there?

The therapist?
The autistic patient?
 

Latest Posts

Back