Other Side Of The Coin - Would A Bush/Cheyney Killing/Assassination/Murder Be Justified/Legal?

maybe if someone did them in 9/11 evidence could be brought up in the trial and the sheeple might actually see some of it. but thats just wishful thinking. maybe if they were kidnapped they could be taught how humane water boarding is.

Originally posted by acrux
reply to post by meathed

 

I understood what you meant & know you told the truth of your feeling.

It was just the way you phrased it by putting the word "DID" in the sentence makes it sound like you would kill your friends. [i would murder anyone i DID like.)

(i would murder anyone i DID'NT like). Makes it sound like you would murder anyone who crossed you.

Its just a simple typing error of one critical word can totally change a sentence's entire definition.

Please don't take it don't take it to heart, it just sounded funny, that's all.

edit on 12-5-2011 by acrux because: (no reason given)

I wont take it to heart.
I am drunk and typing, so i made a mistake ( i should have added the NT to DID to make DIDNT, Im a meathed
Hypotectically i would kill my friends if i was like america and i needed a scape goat. So my typo had alot of meaning in it too.
America have murdered before for its so called freedom and will do it again.
Just don't piss me off or your next is their mentality.
So if i had to fight fire with fire, well....... i would create laws in my country to give me that same right to murder anyone i saw fit. As i will do anything to protect those that i love and hold dear to my heart and i mean anything. As they dont call me meathed for nothing.
So i stand by my statement, if you word your laws in a certain way, any political murder can be justified.
I dont agree with murder, but hypotectically it is justified in this case.

Peace mate.
Meathed

reply to post by meathed
Cheers meathed

reply to post by Aggie Man


What is your definition of terrorist? What about the Mujahadeen in late '79 when the US funded the same group who bombed Russian targets, later becoming Al Qaeda, to provoke the Soviets into Afghanistan, giving the USSR 'it's Vietnam' (Quote: Robert Gates) effectively ending the Cold War? They were 'freedom fighters' back then. Now terrorists?

Should Russia have considered President Carter a terrorist in this case? Should any president who funds 'rebels' 'terrorists' or 'freedom fighters' be held accountable in the way Bin Laden was for his funding and support of equal acts?

By your standards, would it be OK for Gaddafi and allies to place a 'hit' on Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy for their funding of what could equally be seen as terrorists in Libya? Or is the right to selectively decide who may or may not be classified a 'terrorist' reserved by the West alone?

reply to post by Pr0t0
The old saying rings true. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

Seems to be just time & place can reverse the roles.