Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[beninho]

First topic message reminder :

It does seem that this cat video is pretty old. But, also oeople seem more upset about it then say, Chelsea having a player who killed someone when he was drink driving.

We are a nation of animal lovers, my mum was all in on Romanian rescue dogs, not so keen on Romanian people.
,

[Duty281]

I see America has gone mental again. Its absolutely fricken disgusting.

It's a country run by someone whose mental state is so deteriorated that he needs cue cards reminding him to say hello and to take a seat.

They're completely broken as a nation.

[beninho]

I see America has gone mental again. Its absolutely fricken disgusting.

It's a country run by someone whose mental state is so deteriorated that he needs cue cards reminding him to say hello and to take a seat.

They're completely broken as a nation.

But I dont think he had any sway over this horrendous decision, seems more fault on the last lunatic nut job.

[super_realist]

I see America has gone mental again. Its absolutely fricken disgusting.

It's a country run by someone whose mental state is so deteriorated that he needs cue cards reminding him to say hello and to take a seat.

They're completely broken as a nation.

But I dont think he had any sway over this horrendous decision, seems more fault on the last lunatic nut job.

If this had been Trump, the lefties would be all over it, but because it's under Bildens watch him and the terminally dreadful Harris get off Scot free yet again.

People have a go at me for being so against religion, but this abortion issue is so heavily entrenched and couched in religious belief that it shows how much church and state simply aren't separated in the USA. Of all the western, developed countries the USA is at least three hundred years behind Europe.

[super_realist]

I was talking more about the reactions of parts of the general public, such as yourself. You really seem to not like asylum seekers. But then we have vast swathes agreeing to accept Ukrainians in to their home, but don't offer for anyone else claiming asylum.

Funnily enough that so many Ukrainians are actually already refugees who fled to Ukrainine.

There is nothing wrong with managed immigration, I'm just against illegal economic migration and illegal entry to countries

You sound like one of those wonks who wants open borders and has citizen of nowhere on their Twitter bio bit complains when the NHS, roads, schools, doctors surgeries, dentists are over run.

Why are 80% of channel migrants single males under35? Life in their home countries all right for everyone else?

People in the country illegally should be deported.  I don't think you will find an argument against that with many people.

If someone claims asylum after entering the country they are not here illegally.

I'm not an expert I'm travel crossing ages and family circumstances. My basic view would be because its easier to get one into the country to claim asylum and then his family can join him later, rather then risking the lives of them all in getting to the UK.  Seems sensible until a safer way to claim asylum is set up.

Hysterically naive.

The problem is that with destroyed papers and no means of identifying migrants, they are being given the benefit of the doubt that they are genuine. They aren't fleeing anything from France by the way so aren't seeking asylum from France, they are safe there, they just aren't given stuff for free there .
Boats in France should be destroyed, and people who come across should be in old army barracks, cruise ships or Church of England property seeing as they own so much and pay zero tax yet preach how bad Rwanda is, whilst simultaneously condoning slavery, genocide, incest etc in their holy book.

[beninho]

How is Biden meant to stop the supreme court judges? Trump put 2 in, I think. Both obviously voted to overturn the rule.

What I do wonder is the cross over between gun nuts, abortion haters, and pro death penalty.

[beninho]

I was talking more about the reactions of parts of the general public, such as yourself. You really seem to not like asylum seekers. But then we have vast swathes agreeing to accept Ukrainians in to their home, but don't offer for anyone else claiming asylum.

Funnily enough that so many Ukrainians are actually already refugees who fled to Ukrainine.

There is nothing wrong with managed immigration, I'm just against illegal economic migration and illegal entry to countries

You sound like one of those wonks who wants open borders and has citizen of nowhere on their Twitter bio bit complains when the NHS, roads, schools, doctors surgeries, dentists are over run.

Why are 80% of channel migrants single males under35? Life in their home countries all right for everyone else?

People in the country illegally should be deported.  I don't think you will find an argument against that with many people.

If someone claims asylum after entering the country they are not here illegally.

I'm not an expert I'm travel crossing ages and family circumstances. My basic view would be because its easier to get one into the country to claim asylum and then his family can join him later, rather then risking the lives of them all in getting to the UK.  Seems sensible until a safer way to claim asylum is set up.

Hysterically naive.

The problem is that with destroyed papers and no means of identifying migrants, they are being given the benefit of the doubt that they are genuine. They aren't fleeing anything from France by the way so aren't seeking asylum from France, they are safe there, they just aren't given stuff for free there .
Boats in France should be destroyed, and people who come across should be in old army barracks, cruise ships or Church of England property seeing as they own so much and pay zero tax yet preach how bad Rwanda is, whilst simultaneously condoning slavery, genocide, incest etc in their holy book.

So, you dont think we shoukd take in Ukranians who have come via another European country?

I dont think they are claiming asylum from France. France is irrelevant.

People really do get their knickers in a twist over asylum seekers.

[JuliusHMarx]

I was talking more about the reactions of parts of the general public, such as yourself. You really seem to not like asylum seekers. But then we have vast swathes agreeing to accept Ukrainians in to their home, but don't offer for anyone else claiming asylum.

Funnily enough that so many Ukrainians are actually already refugees who fled to Ukrainine.

There is nothing wrong with managed immigration, I'm just against illegal economic migration and illegal entry to countries

You sound like one of those wonks who wants open borders and has citizen of nowhere on their Twitter bio bit complains when the NHS, roads, schools, doctors surgeries, dentists are over run.

Why are 80% of channel migrants single males under35? Life in their home countries all right for everyone else?

People in the country illegally should be deported.  I don't think you will find an argument against that with many people.

If someone claims asylum after entering the country they are not here illegally.

I'm not an expert I'm travel crossing ages and family circumstances. My basic view would be because its easier to get one into the country to claim asylum and then his family can join him later, rather then risking the lives of them all in getting to the UK.  Seems sensible until a safer way to claim asylum is set up.

Hysterically naive.

The problem is that with destroyed papers and no means of identifying migrants, they are being given the benefit of the doubt that they are genuine. They aren't fleeing anything from France by the way so aren't seeking asylum from France, they are safe there, they just aren't given stuff for free there .
Boats in France should be destroyed, and people who come across should be in old army barracks, cruise ships or Church of England property seeing as they own so much and pay zero tax yet preach how bad Rwanda is, whilst simultaneously condoning slavery, genocide, incest etc in their holy book.

Hysterically ironic, coming from someone who doesn't appear to have done the slightest bit of research about why they come to this country, or about how many don't come to this country.

[super_realist]

I was talking more about the reactions of parts of the general public, such as yourself. You really seem to not like asylum seekers. But then we have vast swathes agreeing to accept Ukrainians in to their home, but don't offer for anyone else claiming asylum.

Funnily enough that so many Ukrainians are actually already refugees who fled to Ukrainine.

There is nothing wrong with managed immigration, I'm just against illegal economic migration and illegal entry to countries

You sound like one of those wonks who wants open borders and has citizen of nowhere on their Twitter bio bit complains when the NHS, roads, schools, doctors surgeries, dentists are over run.

Why are 80% of channel migrants single males under35? Life in their home countries all right for everyone else?

People in the country illegally should be deported.  I don't think you will find an argument against that with many people.

If someone claims asylum after entering the country they are not here illegally.

I'm not an expert I'm travel crossing ages and family circumstances. My basic view would be because its easier to get one into the country to claim asylum and then his family can join him later, rather then risking the lives of them all in getting to the UK.  Seems sensible until a safer way to claim asylum is set up.

Hysterically naive.

The problem is that with destroyed papers and no means of identifying migrants, they are being given the benefit of the doubt that they are genuine. They aren't fleeing anything from France by the way so aren't seeking asylum from France, they are safe there, they just aren't given stuff for free there .
Boats in France should be destroyed, and people who come across should be in old army barracks, cruise ships or Church of England property seeing as they own so much and pay zero tax yet preach how bad Rwanda is, whilst simultaneously condoning slavery, genocide, incest etc in their holy book.

So, you dont think we shoukd take in Ukranians who have come via another European country?

I dont think they are claiming asylum from France. France is irrelevant.

People really do get their knickers in a twist over asylum seekers.

Ukrainians are identifiable as Ukrainians, those coming across the channel are made to destroy their papers so that we cannot identify where they are from and so are forced to accept their claim of asylum despite them not being able to demonstrate they are from a country where they require asylum.

How many Ukrainians are you seeing coming through multiple countries or sailing the channel to enter a country ?
Besides Ukrainian are refugees, not really the same as "asylum seekers/economic migrants"

[super_realist]

I was talking more about the reactions of parts of the general public, such as yourself. You really seem to not like asylum seekers. But then we have vast swathes agreeing to accept Ukrainians in to their home, but don't offer for anyone else claiming asylum.

Funnily enough that so many Ukrainians are actually already refugees who fled to Ukrainine.

There is nothing wrong with managed immigration, I'm just against illegal economic migration and illegal entry to countries

You sound like one of those wonks who wants open borders and has citizen of nowhere on their Twitter bio bit complains when the NHS, roads, schools, doctors surgeries, dentists are over run.

Why are 80% of channel migrants single males under35? Life in their home countries all right for everyone else?

People in the country illegally should be deported.  I don't think you will find an argument against that with many people.

If someone claims asylum after entering the country they are not here illegally.

I'm not an expert I'm travel crossing ages and family circumstances. My basic view would be because its easier to get one into the country to claim asylum and then his family can join him later, rather then risking the lives of them all in getting to the UK.  Seems sensible until a safer way to claim asylum is set up.

Hysterically naive.

The problem is that with destroyed papers and no means of identifying migrants, they are being given the benefit of the doubt that they are genuine. They aren't fleeing anything from France by the way so aren't seeking asylum from France, they are safe there, they just aren't given stuff for free there .
Boats in France should be destroyed, and people who come across should be in old army barracks, cruise ships or Church of England property seeing as they own so much and pay zero tax yet preach how bad Rwanda is, whilst simultaneously condoning slavery, genocide, incest etc in their holy book.

Hysterically ironic, coming from someone who doesn't appear to have done the slightest bit of research about why they come to this country, or about how many don't come to this country.

About wjy come to this country? Go on then. You don't just get asylum because you have friends in that country, relatives or support Arsenal. Why are they coming to Britain if it isn't because we are a soft touch? Why don't they stay in France?

If you had the choice of any developed nation on the world, why the hell would anyone pick this rubbish country? Especially as its "so institutionally racist" and so"against migrants" and "governed by horrible, mean Tories "

Funny how Britain is such a bad place but migrants are desperate to come here isn't it

[beninho]

Almost every Ukranian family that I've seen turn up as homeless over recent months, and there have been quite a lot, have all travelled through Europe to get here. They walk into the country and straight away receive at least £200pp per week.

Claiming that asylum seekers are destroying their papers so they can claim asylum just sounds like scaremongering. I'm assuming you have nothing to back that up? Or anything to back up that or the claim that they are saying they are from different countries in order to claim asylum. That sounds like nonsense. But I'm sure you can back it up with official figures.

Britain is no more a soft touch then any other country in Europe, as we know they take less then a lot of big countries. Having friends and family in the country is very much a fair reason to try and claim asylum here.

I think the main point is, you seem to struggle with the difference between asylum seekers and other migrants, as you keep saying economic migrants when you talk about asylum seekers. I'm guessing it's deliberate though, but shows up your own stupidity.

[beninho]

And who says Britain is a bad place?

The person who seems to have issues with Britain is you.

[JuliusHMarx]

I was talking more about the reactions of parts of the general public, such as yourself. You really seem to not like asylum seekers. But then we have vast swathes agreeing to accept Ukrainians in to their home, but don't offer for anyone else claiming asylum.

Funnily enough that so many Ukrainians are actually already refugees who fled to Ukrainine.

There is nothing wrong with managed immigration, I'm just against illegal economic migration and illegal entry to countries

You sound like one of those wonks who wants open borders and has citizen of nowhere on their Twitter bio bit complains when the NHS, roads, schools, doctors surgeries, dentists are over run.

Why are 80% of channel migrants single males under35? Life in their home countries all right for everyone else?

People in the country illegally should be deported.  I don't think you will find an argument against that with many people.

If someone claims asylum after entering the country they are not here illegally.

I'm not an expert I'm travel crossing ages and family circumstances. My basic view would be because its easier to get one into the country to claim asylum and then his family can join him later, rather then risking the lives of them all in getting to the UK.  Seems sensible until a safer way to claim asylum is set up.

Hysterically naive.

The problem is that with destroyed papers and no means of identifying migrants, they are being given the benefit of the doubt that they are genuine. They aren't fleeing anything from France by the way so aren't seeking asylum from France, they are safe there, they just aren't given stuff for free there .
Boats in France should be destroyed, and people who come across should be in old army barracks, cruise ships or Church of England property seeing as they own so much and pay zero tax yet preach how bad Rwanda is, whilst simultaneously condoning slavery, genocide, incest etc in their holy book.

Hysterically ironic, coming from someone who doesn't appear to have done the slightest bit of research about why they come to this country, or about how many don't come to this country.

About wjy come to this country? Go on then. You don't just get asylum because you have friends in that country, relatives or support Arsenal. Why are they coming to Britain if it isn't because we are a soft touch? Why don't they stay in France?

If you had the choice of any developed nation on the world, why the hell would anyone pick this  rubbish country? Especially as its "so institutionally racist" and so"against migrants" and "governed by horrible, mean Tories "

Funny how Britain is such a bad place but migrants are desperate to come here isn't it

I've already sent links and explanations about this in the past. If you couldn't be bothered to read those or even do basic Internet research I'll assume you prefer your ignorance to actually learning something that might take you out of your xenophobic comfort zone.

[Duty281]

Claiming that asylum seekers are destroying their papers so they can claim asylum just sounds like scaremongering. I'm assuming you have nothing to back that up?  Or anything to back up that or the claim that they are saying they are from different countries in order to claim asylum. That sounds like nonsense.  But I'm sure you can back it up with official figures.

This has been widely reported - how have you missed it?

Nearly every Channel migrant arrives in the UK without a passport after being told by smugglers to shred their documents to avoid deportation, Home Office figures have revealed.

Only 317 – or two per cent – of 16,510 Channel migrants had passports with them when they were picked up by Border Force, according to the data, released under Freedom of Information laws. That means 16,300 – 98 per cent – arrived in the UK without documentation.

People-smugglers encourage migrants to destroy ID papers because it boosts their chances of securing asylum and makes it hard to deport them as officials have nowhere to send them.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/24/almost-channel-migrants-arrive-without-passports-told-shred/

[beninho]

I cant read the article, but it says that the asylum seekers say they don't have passports after being told by smugglers that's the way they can't be deported? That's very open of them.

[JuliusHMarx]

The monsters in all this are, of course, the people smugglers. International co-operation is required to bring them down. We are less involved with that since Brexit as we no longer have access to key data, but hey ho, we have blue passports, so that's OK.

One way to break the chain would be to offer safe passage to the UK, but then we'd have those pesky foreigners invading the country, taking our jobs and ravaging our women.

[beninho]

If you can only claim asylum in the UK, you have a system aimed at encouraging the use of smugglers or gangs.

If you have something to encourage asylum claims from other countries you likely increase asylum claims.

It seems the balance accepted by the hovernment and many who have issues with asylum seekers is, they would rather them risk life trying to get here because it means less claim here.

[beninho]

Kendrick lamar can rap.

Pet Shop boys can put on a show

[beninho]

I quite enjoyed Laurence Fox in Lewis. Now he is making a nazi sign out of tge pride flag, hours after people were killed at a pride event in Oslo. The man has serious problems

[superflyweight]

I see America has gone mental again. Its absolutely fricken disgusting.

It's a country run by someone whose mental state is so deteriorated that he needs cue cards reminding him to say hello and to take a seat.

They're completely broken as a nation.

But I dont think he had any sway over this horrendous decision, seems more fault on the last lunatic nut job.

If this had been Trump, the lefties would be all over it, but because it's under Bildens watch him and the terminally dreadful Harris get off Scot free yet again.

People have a go at me for being so against religion, but this abortion issue is so heavily entrenched and couched in religious belief that it shows how much church and state simply aren't separated in the USA. Of all the western, developed countries the USA is at least three hundred years behind Europe.

Because Trump is supporting the decision and is directly responsible, whereas Biden and Harris are against it and there's nothing they can do to prevent the Supreme Court making that decision.

An odd point for you to make along with the expected criticism of a woman of colour.

[Soul Requiem]

I see America has gone mental again. Its absolutely fricken disgusting.

It's a country run by someone whose mental state is so deteriorated that he needs cue cards reminding him to say hello and to take a seat.

They're completely broken as a nation.

But I dont think he had any sway over this horrendous decision, seems more fault on the last lunatic nut job.

If this had been Trump, the lefties would be all over it, but because it's under Bildens watch him and the terminally dreadful Harris get off Scot free yet again.

People have a go at me for being so against religion, but this abortion issue is so heavily entrenched and couched in religious belief that it shows how much church and state simply aren't separated in the USA. Of all the western, developed countries the USA is at least three hundred years behind Europe.

Because Trump is supporting the decision and is directly responsible, whereas Biden and Harris are against it and there's nothing they can do to prevent the Supreme Court making that decision.  

An odd point for you to make along with the expected criticism of a woman of colour.  

Three of the justices were nominated by Trump, all of whom voted to overule Roe vs Wade. As of right now none of them have been nominated by Biden although that will imminently change with the retirement of Stephen Beyer.

[beninho]

I know its fun to shout lefties for the sake of it. But states banning abortion and the supreme Court overturning a judgement has very little to do with lefties.

This is all on Conservative Christian crazy mofos. If anything I hope tge lefties fight this as much as possible.

[beninho]

Not sure how many cricket fans on here, but in the last two matches Jonny Bairstow found some sort if cheat code and it was magnificent

[beninho]

Tory mp just got up and said

https://twitter.com/MirrorPolitics/status/1541778555088011264?t=PaqNDrS-nXg4EH-WX_K49A&s=19

Where do these people come from.

[dynamark]

Bumped into a couple of mates tonight from Cosby golf club and they had a question and answer session in the clubhouse on tuesday with a fairly well known golfer - a certain Mr John Daly !
It appears he is doing a bit of a tour presumably to stock up on diet coke post the Open .By all accounts very entertaining as you would expect .Would have loved to have attended

[Galted]

Wtf you posting about golf on here for? There's a forum for that.

[dynamark]

My humbie apoiogies galted,I was posting on here when you were in school BTW

[Galted]

No worries, dynamark. We'll draw a line under this unfortunate incident and move forward.

[JAS]

Yay well done Dyna & Galted for bringing the thread back to life, I thought it had died. That must have been the longest period ever without a post on the anything goes thread.

Meanwhile Dyna, are you happy with the final 2 contenders in the Tory Party shooting itself in the foot episode, sorry leadership race?

[Duty281]

My humbie apoiogies galted,I was posting on here when you were in school BTW

I hope not, the judge has previously told Galted to stay away from schools.

[Galted]

My humbie apoiogies galted,I was posting on here when you were in school BTW

I hope not, the judge has previously told Galted to stay away from schools.

Only primary schools.

[Duty281]

My humbie apoiogies galted,I was posting on here when you were in school BTW

I hope not, the judge has previously told Galted to stay away from schools.

Only primary schools.

With fat children.

[Galted]

My humbie apoiogies galted,I was posting on here when you were in school BTW

I hope not, the judge has previously told Galted to stay away from schools.

Only primary schools.

With fat children.

l*l

[Soul Requiem]

My humbie apoiogies galted,I was posting on here when you were in school BTW

I hope not, the judge has previously told Galted to stay away from schools.

Only primary schools.

With fat children.

They're the smart target; they love sweets, grateful for the attention and most importantly can't run away.

[McLaren]

It's home.

[pedro]

It's ho(me).

Fixed it

[incontinentia]

USA just committed an extra-judicial killing in Afghanistan. This is nothing new of course, they've been using drones for many years to take out people they suspect of leading terrorism. Its interesting though in the context of the criticism of Saudi for human rights... violations. Perhaps drone assassinations are just as heinous as the Saudi stuff?

[Soul Requiem]

USA just committed an extra-judicial killing in Afghanistan. This is nothing new of course, they've been using drones for many years to take out people they suspect of leading terrorism. Its interesting though in the context of the criticism of Saudi for human rights... violations. Perhaps drone assassinations are just as heinous as the Saudi stuff?

How about definitely not; assassinating a terrorist is not the same as the human rights abuses carried out by Saudi Arabia. What a stupid comment.

The US are in the wrong but it's not really a heinous act.

[incontinentia]

USA just committed an extra-judicial killing in Afghanistan. This is nothing new of course, they've been using drones for many years to take out people they suspect of leading terrorism. Its interesting though in the context of the criticism of Saudi for human rights... violations. Perhaps drone assassinations are just as heinous as the Saudi stuff?

How about definitely not; assassinating a terrorist is not the same as the human rights abuses carried out by Saudi Arabia. What a stupid comment.

The US are in the wrong but it's not really a heinous act.

But how is it established that someone is a terrorist? The person's life or death is totally at the discretion of the military commanders. Ideally, anyone sentenced to death should go through due process in a court of law using evidence and a jury of their peers. 
Let's also not forget the indefinite, illegal detainment of suspects at Guantanamo bay. Ever seen the movie The Mauritanian?

[Soul Requiem]

Al-Qaeda are an internationally recognised terrorist organisation, that includes the UN.

[incontinentia]

Al-Qaeda are an internationally recognised terrorist organisation, that includes the UN.

So the US military check the guy's Al Qaeda membership card, and then the green light is given for assassination?

[Soul Requiem]

Al-Qaeda are an internationally recognised terrorist organisation, that includes the UN.

So the US military check the guy's Al Qaeda membership card, and then the green light is given for assassination?

Yes, these decisions are that simple.

[Duty281]

Al-Qaeda are an internationally recognised terrorist organisation, that includes the UN.

So the US military check the guy's Al Qaeda membership card, and then the green light is given for assassination?

He was the leader, not just a rank and file member.

[incontinentia]

Al-Qaeda are an internationally recognised terrorist organisation, that includes the UN.

So the US military check the guy's Al Qaeda membership card, and then the green light is given for assassination?

Yes, these decisions are that simple.

You're a douche

[incontinentia]

Al-Qaeda are an internationally recognised terrorist organisation, that includes the UN.

So the US military check the guy's Al Qaeda membership card, and then the green light is given for assassination?

He was the leader, not just a rank and file member.

My point still stands. I'm sure he was a bad guy but where are the checks and balances? Biden could decide you were a threat to national security and then you'd be toast with no chance to state your case. Even Bin Laden deserved his day in court.

[Soul Requiem]

Al-Qaeda are an internationally recognised terrorist organisation, that includes the UN.

So the US military check the guy's Al Qaeda membership card, and then the green light is given for assassination?

Yes, these decisions are that simple.

You're a douche

Thank you.

[incontinentia]

Al-Qaeda are an internationally recognised terrorist organisation, that includes the UN.

So the US military check the guy's Al Qaeda membership card, and then the green light is given for assassination?

Yes, these decisions are that simple.

You're a douche

Thank you.

So maybe we should just let the police in our countries decide who to punish and what sentences to give? After all, they "know" who's guilty, they never arrest or charge anyone in error...

[JuliusHMarx]

Al-Qaeda are an internationally recognised terrorist organisation, that includes the UN.

So the US military check the guy's Al Qaeda membership card, and then the green light is given for assassination?

Yes, these decisions are that simple.

You're a douche

Thank you.

So maybe we should just let the police in our countries decide who to punish and what sentences to give? After all, they "know" who's guilty, they never arrest or charge anyone in error...

It's not black and white. In this country the law is enforceable. I would not condone a targeted killing in this country, or any other where the law is enforceable.
However, in Afghanistan, with the Taliban in charge, law enforcement against known terrorists (and he was a terrorist by all accepted legal definitions) cannot be carried out.
Targeted killings are a very nuanced ethical area, but in this case it is justified imho.

[Soul Requiem]

Al-Qaeda are an internationally recognised terrorist organisation, that includes the UN.

So the US military check the guy's Al Qaeda membership card, and then the green light is given for assassination?

Yes, these decisions are that simple.

You're a douche

Thank you.

So maybe we should just let the police in our countries decide who to punish and what sentences to give? After all, they "know" who's guilty, they never arrest or charge anyone in error...

What kind of argument is that? Ayman al-Zawahiri was the internationally recognised head of an designated terrorist organisation, this is not a case of national law and comparisons of that type are useless. Joe Biden hasn't made this decision on his own.

[Duty281]

Al-Qaeda are an internationally recognised terrorist organisation, that includes the UN.

So the US military check the guy's Al Qaeda membership card, and then the green light is given for assassination?

He was the leader, not just a rank and file member.

My point still stands. I'm sure he was a bad guy but where are the checks and balances? Biden could decide you were a threat to national security and then you'd be toast with no chance to state your case. Even Bin Laden deserved his day in court.

What checks and balances? They sewed the wind and they'll reap the whirlwind.

They can get a day in court if they surrender to the authorities, like Saddam or Milosevic or any of the various high-ranking Nazis did. But if they keep battling on and leading their terrorist organisations during a time of war, sod 'em.

[JuliusHMarx]

Al-Qaeda are an internationally recognised terrorist organisation, that includes the UN.

So the US military check the guy's Al Qaeda membership card, and then the green light is given for assassination?

He was the leader, not just a rank and file member.

My point still stands. I'm sure he was a bad guy but where are the checks and balances? Biden could decide you were a threat to national security and then you'd be toast with no chance to state your case. Even Bin Laden deserved his day in court.

What checks and balances? They sewed the wind and they'll reap the whirlwind.

They can get a day in court if they surrender to the authorities, like Saddam or Milosevic or any of the various high-ranking Nazis did. But if they keep battling on and leading their terrorist organisations during a time of war, sod 'em.

Spoiled the whole post.

[Sponsored content]