He supported Russia in the war against Ukraine, was anti vax and said the killing of school children was a risk with paying to retain the right to bear arms. I would suggest that he got exactly what he deserved. He was a hate mongering extremist in anyone's language. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Murdering someone is not the correct option but his death makes the world a better place.
Meanwhile someone has burned down a Lab MPs constituency office and the BBC deems it only worthy for 'local news'. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3qwpe93yzo
Rather extreme Ian? While these two statements seem at odds with each other! I would suggest that he got exactly what he deserved. Murdering someone is not the correct option
If you make these kinds of terrible statements, I think you would have to be aware that they have a reciprocal reaction. Words have consequences and if you spout hatred like him , you should expect to upset people. His demise was entirely a consequence of his unpalatable opinions. I am not saying is murder was excusable but it certainly was predictable. No one has commented how many people have died from Covid or shot in a schools brought about by his opinions. Free speech is a privilege which he had abused. He is little better than Yexley Lennon.
I’m sure his wife and two children will be comforted by your grotesque and hateful opinion. Suggest you might try verbally to offer that opinion to children (if you would dare stoop so low) within your contact range and hear yourself saying such terrible stuff and you might just realise how horrible it all is. Please, think again about what you have encouraged as a view and be more careful, please!!
Treading carefully here, but it's an interesting discussion. Much as what Ian just said is unpalatable, is there a point at which the killing of somebody is a good thing? Did Hitler deserve to be killed? Would that have been a "good" assassination. You'd probably suggest yes. Bin Laden? Probably yes. Putin? I think most people would say yes. Netanyahu? So where is the line drawn? Trump? What dictates that line in people's minds? Just interesting.
Expounding a bit on that. The US in particular has committed targeted assassinations of leaders of groups. Trump certainly has with some of the Hamas/Hezbollah/AQI crowd. Putin obviously loves all that. And Netanyahu is doing it right now. When does it become okay, and not okay? (I have my own ideas, as to whether the target is directly responsible for the death of others, but interested to hear viewpoints).
Or order a drone to dispatch. That's an awful lot easier. (Answering your question though. Putin I think would maybe be one. Very hard to say though).
This is wrong! A) As an act of Arson, that may have endangered life. B) As an attack on a political party's local headquarters. C) As a definite attack against democracy. And where are the BBC? Hiding behind Pater Mandelson. I give up.
Horrid as it sounds , are you suggesting that no murder is EVER a good thing ? Bearing in mind this man had said that unfortunate as it was , unfortunately some lives maybe lost through shootings , but it meant protecting the second amendment ? I feel sorry for his family , I honestly do , but I have as much sympathy for the families of the victims of shootings where school children and teachers , workers in abortion clinics etc ,are the target . This didn’t get much coverage did it ? I wonder why . https://abcnews.go.com/US/shooting-...-school-2-kids-transported/story?id=125452526
It's a thorny question indeed. The way I see it, rule of law should remain first and foremost. I'd like to see despots and scumbags tried by a court and sentenced. That would be the civilised thing. But that never happens because of how power operates, and controls the mechanisms of justice. So we get a lone shooter from across the political divide, who carries out an assassination of somebody important to the government. Then you get the tit for tat shooting that will invariably come after this plus an escalation of hostility between the two tribes. And scale that up to a country's ruler. Same actions, same results. Whether the outcome of an assassination is seen as positive or negative is completely subjective of course but the actual results and backlash from any politically motivated killing affects everybody negatively. It destabilises society, reduces freedoms and has a ripple effect on other societies that are connected. It would also be very easy for a foreign power to carry out assassinations under the guise of it being a domestic disgruntled gun owner or bomb maker. So any acceptance of any political assassination should come with the caveat that you understand the implications of what might happen as a result and that you think it's a price worth paying for ending the one life. That's my view, I think
If Putin got eaten by a bear though, or Trump choked after getting his head stuck whilst drinking from the toilet, I would laugh my ass off. The more ironic and embarrassing the death, the better. But I can't condone assassination because where does it stop?
Thumwood showing his true colours again. He once said that all Israeli's were viable targets. Would a reciprocal reaction be a justified consequence for that hate mongering extremism?
Thumwood is only tolerated on this board because he is left wing. Others have have been thrown off for less than this.
I'm not particularly pro-gun but that's a legitimate view to hold. Most things have positive and negative consequences. As an example, like most people in the world, you probably hold a similar view in relation to cars. Over a million people globally are killed in motor vehicle accidents every year and tens of millions are injured or disabled by them. But nobody seriously proposes banning motor vehicles. We accept the loss of so many lives is worth the benefits we get from using motor vehicles. He believed the benefits of the right to bear arms outweighed the costs. You can obviously disagree, most people in Britain would, but that doesn't mean he deserved to be murdered.
