In an earlier day, he would have been hung. Death by firing squad was an ‘honorable’ way of being executed, and was used for things like cowardice, misconduct in the face of the enemy, sedition, etc. Murder, rape, robbery, and the like entitle you to an execution in the norm of a common criminal, not a soldier.
On another note, are they taking voulenteers to press the plunger on the needle?
They may not be mutually exclusive, but I don’t see how guinnog’s first post really adds anything to this thread.
Not that this one does either…
I think I prefer Aldebaran. At least he made coherent arguments, such as they were.
And a jury composed of my pet cats surmises you enjoy licking knob cheese from an old tramp’s wiener. Do you just want to trade insults or do you have a point?
Would you say the international standing of the USA has been enhanced by your attacking Iraq? Honestly?
UK; I am a UK citizen and I am glad our participation in your murderous terrorist war is an election issue here. Next week I will take great pleasure in voting against Tony Blair’s government.
Poland is leaving, you may have missed that one. See my link below.
Let’s explore the etc you so coyly deploy there.
It consists of many less than it used to.
Did you know that :
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm
So, by the end of this year, your ‘etc’ will only consist of:
South Korea, Georgia, Romania, Japan, Denmark, Bulgaria and El Salvador. I omit nations sending fewer than 250 to help in your bloodbath. If you want to quibble over the mighty 29 that Kazakhstan has sent, for example, please feel free.
Actually, yes I do.
http://www.cia.gov/terrorism/faqs.html
"The Intelligence Community is guided by the definition of terrorism contained in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):
—The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
—The term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving the territory or the citizens of more than one country.
—The term “terrorist group” means any group that practices, or has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism."
Mr Bush and his cronies perpetrating violence against Iraq without demonstrating the presence of any threat to the US fits squarely into that definition in my opinion.
Your derisive contempt for self-determination is hereby noted.
You may be confusing me with someone else. I have only been posting here for a short while (although I have enjoyed reading the boards and the columns for several years) and so could not be said to have established ‘catchphrases’.
I have never employed the phrase ‘blood for oil’. Just when would you say that was discredited though? Are you perhaps one of the vanishingly tiny minority who still hopes against hope that ‘WMDs’ will be found? Or are you in the belief that your war of conquest was intended to ‘free’ Iraq? As the English writer Saki observed, several excuses are often less convincing than one! Dream on…
Really? Really?! And here was me thinking it was an issue in your last two elections. Which part of Vietnam would you say Bush served in? This will be interesting…
That last was actually rather funny. Thank you. And I’m really sorry you didn’t enjoy my ‘shatire’. I did however.
Heh heh. I used to love Beavis and Butt-head. I wouldn’t let them run my country though…
No doubt. But he is merely continuing a long and honourable tradition of unhappy US soldiers in wars of conquest in foreign lands going apeshit and killing their comrades. The Vietnam war (which killed upwards of 5 000 000 civilians, or roughly a thousand times as many as died in the WTC attacks) coined ‘fragging’ as a painless and quick way of getting rid of unpopular officers. Fragmentation grenades are, unlike a firearm, untraceable. Rolling one into the tent of someone you don’t like was a popular practice in Vietnam. So the shock and outrage over this case is hard to understand. Is it because he was a Muslim?
Oh well, now that you’ve explained to us that it’s a US military tradition!
What’s hard to understand is your lack of comprehension about the difference between an orange and the fucking crack you’re smoking.
So no, it’s because he killed two people!
Barbaric sentence, but that’s to be expected.
Too bad there’s no conistency, though. No death sentences for those who murdered Iraqi prisoners.
Strike one.
Strike two.
Strike 3. Okay, so apparently you don’t know what terrorism is.
I’m opposed to the death penalty only because every jury that convicted an innocent guy was sure.
There does seem to be a similarity here, though.
I see. As we say here, you dinny understand pas.
See if you can find someone who has served in the military. Your dad maybe, or a teacher at your school. Ask them what soldiers do. Come back if you need any further help.
Last I checked, soldiers killed the ENEMY.
Not each other.
If they kill each other, they get in trouble, what with that not being battle but treason and murder.
—The term “terrorism” means premeditated
Oh, it was premeditated all right. There is an evidence trail going back several years.
Strike one.
(Whoosh!)
Quote:
politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups
Bush’s clique constitutes a subnational group. A very undemocratic one and a very evil one too.
Strike two.
(Whoosh!)
Quote:
or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
Definitely intended to influence an audience. His own supporters at home. Ultimately of course his dad. Which is kinda sad in somebody who is leggally an adult.
**Strike 3. **
(Whoosh!)
Okay, so apparently you don’t know what terrorism is.
And apparently then, neither does your CIA.
So you would say that this is the first time ever US soldiers have killed other US soldiers?
Sheesh.
Okay, so you were joking. Whatever.
Well, it’s what we call here ‘satire’. Private Eye and Monty Python were famous (though far from the first) exponents of it. Or ‘shatire’ if you prefer. 
Interesting to see what it brought crawling out of the woodwork. And yet here people believe that satire is finally catching on in the USA. I suppose it still has a way to go.
Can anybody really not see any connection between the brutality of the war and this young man’s actions? Or are you just pretending not to out of ‘patriotism’? The last refuge of a scoundrel and all that…
Can you not have a discussion about the multitude of events or participants in WWII without resorting to a tirade about Hitler?
Can you not hold Akbar to any personal responsibility for murdering two men without resorting to your perceptions about Bush’s intent?
Bush’s war is not popular among many here but it doesn’t prevent them from the ability to focus on subsequent events.
Your notion you’re an able satirist was good for a chuckle though. Thanks for that but nothing else.
That wasn’t satire. For somebody who from an area that fancies itself good at it, you’d think you’d have a better grasp.
guinnog, is it your position that the war in Iraq is somehow exculpatory in the matter of Sgt. Akbar’s murder of his fellow soldiers? How so, precisely? Would you feel the same way if he had, instead of murdering American soldiers, instead murdered Iraqi prisoners?
I don’t understand the purpose of your posts in this thread. War is, indeed, barbarous, and the current war is particularly unjustifiable, but I don’t see how that bears on Akbar’s crime, except insofar as he would not have been in a position to commit it if we had not been in Iraq. It does not make the crime any less heinous, even if your position is that the war in Iraq is a far more serious and reprehensible crime. The presense of a greater injustice does not forgive any lesser injustices. Being appalled by the war in Iraq does not mean one cannot also be appalled by Hasan Akbar’s actions. Being opposed to the slaughter of American servicemen does not make one a supporter of George Bush. In fact, one of the primary reasons for opposition to this war stems from precisely that concern: we don’t want our soldier’s lives to be thrown away carelessly, as they have been by our current administration.
Also, for the most part, Monty Python were not satirists. Although a handful of individual sketches could rightfully be termed satire, they were first and foremost absurdists.
And yet you let them run your brain…