WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Saddam Hussein was killed by the Iraqi judicial system. Take it up with them. I have stated, just like Jeremy Corbyn has, that I have concerns at the failure of Bin Laden to have been brought before a court of law to answer for his terrorism. What is clear though is that he plainly was not a civilian. Which armed forces was bin Laden a member of, then? You've got concerns - grow some balls and back up your beliefs. Mealy-mouthed to the last - absolutely pathetic. "Iraqi justice system". Where are the smilies when you need them? Now, what about Uday? Qusay? What about Saddam's grandson, killed in the same attack - aged fourteen, and thus unlikely, one would have thought, to have developed his tyrant skills by much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menzel Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 WRK desperate to try and find something that sticks, it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Which armed forces was bin Laden a member of, then?You don't need to be an enlisted member of a recognised military actor to cease to be a civilian. Osama Bin Laden was the head of a global terrorist organisation. He was instructing attacks against civilian targets.You've got concerns - grow some balls and back up your beliefs. Mealy-mouthed to the last - absolutely pathetic.No it's called having a nuanced understanding of warfare involving terrorist organisations and how international and humanitarian law interacts with those situations."Iraqi justice system". Where are the smilies when you need them?You sought to blame Blair and Bush for Saddam's death. This was plainly inaccurate. All I did was point out that he was subjected to a trial, few of which dispute was, despite the fledgling nature of Iraqi courts, a fair one in which he was adequately able to defend against crimes he committed against Iraqi civilians.The only issue was the decision of the court to sentence him to death by hanging. Clearly I deplore that. That's not Blair or Bush's fault though. They didn't decide that penalty. Iraqis did. Now, what about Uday? Qusay? What about Saddam's grandson, killed in the same attack - aged fourteen, and thus unlikely, one would have thought, to have developed his tyrant skills by much?Uday and Qusay engaged in armed combat with gunfire in the events that led to their death in Mosul. They were not civilians. Mustapha was a civilian casualty in a war. Not all civilian casualties in war are crimes. Hugely regrettable, absolutely, but not crimes.ETA: actually further inspection suggests Mustafa wasn't even a civilian. He was armed and was shooting at US service personnel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 WRK desperate to try and find something that sticks, it seems. Not at all. Simply pointing out your wee mate's hypocrisy. Don't go feeling abandoned when he moves on to his next project, will you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Where does the name 'Wings over Scotland' come from? No idea but he was on here posting during the blue bigot sisters financial meltdown then popped up with his blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menzel Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Oh, my deepest apologies. Please enlighten more as to which groups of people are "allowed" to hold an opinion. You're not allowed an opinion on how somebody chooses to define their gender or sexuality. I've made this point clear from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Actually it's quite interesting to read about the Hussein Mosul siege. Guess who was the first to open fire? Oh, yes, that would be the Husseins and their bodyguard. According to, wait for it, not the US soldiers on the ground, but Hussein's neighbours. The owner of the property surrendered on demand without a shot being fired, before Uday and Qusay and their bodyguard started firing weapons at the street. What the f**k did you expect the US military to do? Stand there and take it? They were under fire! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menzel Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Not at all. Simply pointing out your wee mate's hypocrisy. Don't go feeling abandoned when he moves on to his next project, will you? Not at all, I just think it's interesting that you've now launched onto this angle, presumably because you've been completely shown up on the issue before and your prejudices made clear. You'll also note that this is the only time I've posted in this section of the forum, so it's unlikely that I will be in much of the same discussions as my "wee mate" (sic), unless he somehow decides to start supporting Aberdeen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Not at all, I just think it's interesting that you've now launched onto this angle, presumably because you've been completely shown up on the issue before and your prejudices made clear. You'll also note that this is the only time I've posted in this section of the forum, so it's unlikely that I will be in much of the same discussions as my "wee mate" (sic), unless he somehow decides to start supporting Aberdeen. If by "shown up" you mean trying to explain the problems that real life throws into adv emotive situation, then I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, every point I raised with greeted by your narrow screech of "transphobia", and a complete lack of consideration for anyone else's Human Rights - culminating in your apparently serious suggestion that I and others are "not allowed" to hold an opinion contrary to yours. I wish you and the bullying advocate well in your task of working out which humans have rights and which don't. Best wishes from the real, imperfect world, WRK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menzel Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 You could maybe have stopped being transphobic then. Of course you're not allowed an opinion on how someone else defines their gender - this has been explained to you several times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Actually it's quite interesting to read about the Hussein Mosul siege. Guess who was the first to open fire? Oh, yes, that would be the Husseins and their bodyguard. According to, wait for it, not the US soldiers on the ground, but Hussein's neighbours. The owner of the property surrendered on demand without a shot being fired, before Uday and Qusay and their bodyguard started firing weapons at the street. What the f**k did you expect the US military to do? Stand there and take it? They were under fire! And what war was this that the American soldiers were fighting? As I have previously stated your position on human rights is fluid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 You could maybe have stopped being transphobic then. Of course you're not allowed an opinion on how someone else defines their gender - this has been explained to you several times. How about you stop being so fucking stupid. People are allowed an opinion on absolutely everything and anything in this country. I could even deny the existence of the holocaust should I choose to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 How about you stop being so fucking stupid. People are allowed an opinion on absolutely everything and anything in this country. I could even deny the existence of the holocaust should I choose to do so. And you will be rightly ridiculed and verbally abused for doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Perverts all of over the country would be delighted that they can now just get their jollies by walking into a woman's changing room asking to be called Mildred. f**k the rights of the women who have to put up with that, right? What an incredibly narrow minded puerile view you have on transgender issues. You also do know that unisex toilets and changing rooms already exist? Nevertheless to address your point I don't know what the "rights" of the other women are that are being limited by having a "man" in the changing rooms. There is criminal law in place to stop anyone from going into a changing room and "getting their jollies". I can fully understand that may make people uncomfortable but if you had been good enough to quote the rest of my post then others may have been able to see that this will require a gradual change in culture and societal norms. In the same way that as a society we are less racist and homophobic than we once were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 And you will be rightly ridiculed and verbally abused for doing so. And? Fine to ridicule but I don't think that verbally abusing someone is acceptable TBH. You do know that people have human rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 And? Fine to ridicule but I don't think that verbally abusing someone is acceptable TBH. You do know that people have human rights. Yeah but to discriminate against folk isn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Yeah but to discriminate against folk isn't one of them. Having an opinion is not discriminating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 Having an opinion is not discriminating. He didn't say it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freudian Slap Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 This Menzel seems like a big Jessie to me, wouldn't be surprised if his frilly knickers were all twisted, balls hanging either side of the crotch. Of course everyone has the right to define their own gender, that's a given. But bullying others into accepting their opinion is tantamount to bullying transgender people into accepting the sex they were born into. Facile argument, we all know that people's gender is different from their sex, get over it you fuckin wet blanket, is it your period? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted October 31, 2015 Share Posted October 31, 2015 many appear to lose sight of the fact that Tara has already created a number of victims, acne could potentially create more. Should consideration not be taken of their human rights? This single comment is what your contribution to this thread comes down to, as it proves that you don't actually understand what the issue is here. What prison Tara Hudson serves her sentence in has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the rights of her victims. Whether she serves her sentence in a male prison or female prison is irrelevant to the rights of her victims: what matters in that regard is that she does serve a sentence. Serving her sentence in a male prison is, however, an infringement of her rights. The fact that she has infringed the rights of others and has therefore been sent to prison does not entitle the state to infringe her human rights. If you're still not grasping why that's the point, can you please explain how the rights of her victims are being infringed by her serving her sentence in a female prison rather than a male one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.