Our troops should not be harassed by the MOD and government appointed lawyers

[ban-all-sheds]

Oh well done, another logical fallacy.

No, just one more statement which you are unable to comprehend.

At least you had the intelligence to high light the incorrect word.

There was no incorrect word. But there's no point asking you why you think there is - you live in a weird Humpty-Dumpty parallel universe.

Is it ok for a driver of a car to go up over the pavement and murder a pedestrian?

No.

 

[donrkebab]

BAS thinks its right terrorists should get away with murder, but UK soldiers should be put on trial decades later.

Stop lying, you revolting dribble of rancid pus.

FFS - What is wrong with you?

He's as mad as a box of frogs

 

[Notch7]

There was no incorrect word. But there's no point asking you why you think there is - you live in a weird Humpty-Dumpty parallel universe.

I will help you: the incorrect word is murder.

Any chance of you explaining a context in which it would be OK for troops to murder people?

Do you not understand the lack of logic in that sentence?

How does it further the discussion?

 

[Mfatic]

If people twist others' comments into total opposite from what was stated, and invent completely fictional allegations about them, I would have thought it is perfectly acceptable to describe them in words that illustrate one's opinion of them.

 

[Mfatic]

Do you not understand the lack of logic in that sentence?

Is this an example of your irony, given your total denial of the utterly obvious in the other discussion?

 

[donrkebab]

Is this an example of your irony, given your total denial of the utterly obvious in the other discussion?

You are very good at saying nothing, some would call you vacuous.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

He's as mad as a box of frogs

So you keep saying.

In increasingly desparate, pathetic, loser attempts to bury truthful observations about what a disgusting liar you are.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I will help you: the incorrect word is murder.

Since you seem to delight in giving people reasons to laugh at you, you can do it again.

In the sentence "Any chance of you explaining a context in which it would be OK for troops to murder people?" what makes the word "murder" incorrect?

Do you not understand the lack of logic in that sentence?

And what makes it illogical?

How does it further the discussion?

Try answering it and you'll find out.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

You are very good at saying nothing, some would call you vacuous.

Some would.

In increasingly desparate, pathetic, loser attempts to dismiss posts which they cannot rebut in any intelligent truthful way.

 

[donrkebab]

BAS your desire to be nasty overcomes all others senses.

I started this thread - Our troops should not be harassed by the MOD and government appointed lawyers - and was going to add my explanation and reasons. But then decided not to, but to wait and see what happens, and you have not disappointed. Go back and you will see I've said nothing about the subject, just been batting away at your pointless comments

 

[Mfatic]

and was going to add my explanation and reasons. But then decided not to,

Was one of your reasons anything to do with anyone supposedly wearing a badge, by any chance?
You never did get any further than the second reason.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS your desire to be nasty overcomes all others senses.

Nasty?

People tell lies about me supporting terrorism, they lie about what I have written, and I'm the one who is nasty?

I started this thread - Our troops should not be harassed by the MOD and government appointed lawyers - and was going to add my explanation and reasons.

Go on then - add them.

Because all we've got so far from you is

Then of course we have the travesty of Northern Ireland, it was just yesterday that the government announced setting up a NEW enquiry into our troops at an initial cost of £150,000,000.

and a steadfast refusal to explain what is a "travesty", and you agreeing with Vinty in him excusing the murder of civilians on the grounds that they were in an area were they should not have been.

Go back and you will see I've said nothing about the subject, just been batting away at your pointless comments

You started the subject. This is your thread.

Our troops should not be harassed by the MOD and government appointed lawyers.

What do you mean by "harassed"?

 

[Notch7]

Since you seem to delight in giving people reasons to laugh at you, you can do it again.

In the sentence "Any chance of you explaining a context in which it would be OK for troops to murder people?" what makes the word "murder" incorrect

Im sorry you are right, its just the one word, your whole sentence is wrong.

Why?

Simples, this story is about legal aid being used to put soldiers on trial.

They have not been proven guilty of murder, so they cant be called murderers.

Your deliberately smug question has nothing to do with this discussion, you just thinks its clever to ask a question that has only one legally correct answer.

If you want to persist in dishonest debating techniques, please carry on. Its your loss, I will just have to keep bringing them to your attention.

Perhaps you might learn something.

 

[Notch7]

the murder of civilians on the grounds that they were in an area were they should not have been

That is a lie.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Simples, this story is about legal aid being used to put soldiers on trial.

Do you think that either aspect of that is wrong?

Are you in agreement with them being put on trial, or them getting legal aid, or both, or neither?

They have not been proven guilty of murder, so they cant be called murderers.

Your deliberately smug question has nothing to do with this discussion, you just thinks its clever to ask a question that has only one legally correct answer.

I'm glad you agree that it does (not everybody agrees). And it's a very important one, because it leads on to ones which are relevant.

If you don't think that troops should be allowed to get away with murder, do you think that allegations of what could be murder should be investigated?

If the results of the investigation show that there is evidence that it was murder, do you think the perpetrators should be prosecuted?

Do you think it legally impossible for troops to commit murder?

Do you think it reasonable to say that those who say that troops should never face prosecution over anything they do want them to get away with killing anybody they want to, whenever and wherever it is, no matter what the circumstances, no matter how unjustified?