"Counterfactual" The point is that when looking historically you can't just say this decision was the problem without speculating as to what would have happened if a different choice was made. As I posted earlier inaction has consequences too. Er, and why does it matter that I haven't see a lot of films in the last few years when discussing the aftermath of a terrorist act. I think that one was fiction, y'know.......
So, shortly after the attack May talks with Trump. Now Britain is condemning US Officials for risking the operational integrity of the investigation after they leaked information to US media. This is beyond a joke.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-Iraq-invasion-Obama/articleshow/46609458.cms https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...t-without-the-iraq-war-there-would-be-no-isis
It seems to me that the other necessary condition was the chaos in Syria cause by Assad chosoing to shoot protestors rather than negociate:
First, do no harm, remember? The Hippocratic oath exists for a reason. That has something to do with how people on the receiving end of those actions experience the consequences. Responsibility means being mindful of and owning how people experience the consequences of your actions. Then again, had the coalition not invaded Iraq in the first place, there would still be a relatively stable secular government in place and Daesh would never had got a look in. Then again, does the West really have the ability and resources to invade a third country? It still hasn't sorted out the mess in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that's been over 13 years. In fact, I remember us having this conversation many years ago. You felt the invasion of Iraq was valid because of Al Qaeda and assorted terrorists; I said it wouldn't work and would, in fact, result in the emergence of an even worse terrorist group. Enter Daesh, QED. Neither is doing anything the correct alternative to not doing anything. As for the victim's standpoint, you have to ask whether the victims of collateral damage in Syria feel any less loss knowing that the bomb wasn't intended for them but for Daesh. Those feelings matter too.
Just so you know, we may be liable for arrest for stating against-the-grain opinions on this topic http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...attack-comments-on-social-media-35751256.html
Indeed, he could have said absolutely anything on the topic from "terrorists are bad" to "here are instructions on how to build a bomb like that" or anything in between. So the article really doesn't have much purpose.
You call that "against the grain opinion"? Looking at the posts in this thread, I think we're pretty safe.
I wish we would stop arresting people who say stupid and disgusting things so easily, really wish we had a first ammendment in this country. However if the guy is sentenced I hope it's to do a mandatory grammar and spelling course.
It says right there in the article, The Malicious Communications Act 1988. I don't, but the arresting officers apparently did, although I'm sure this guy is just being picked on because he's inarticulate and probably doesn't have the education or life experience to adequately defend himself. We don't get to decide how these laws are interpreted, and while my post about it was provocative, it's apparently accurate. This country will be indistinguishable from Orwell's 1984 if may gets her wish in policing opinion.
No they didn't. You're misrepresenting "malicious communications" as "against the grain views" to fit some dystopian Orwellian fantasy.
Allow me to translate: "I have no sympathy for the victims. The UK is now merely a victim of the crimes they commit on a daily basis in other countries. In fact, this news gives me some satisfaction given the brutal history of Irish occupation by the UK. I support Irish freedom fighters" While he didn't express his views eloquently it's a perfectly valid opinion to hold. Arresting him for expressing that view is fascistic and inappropriate in a democracy. He didn't threaten anyone, he merely expressed an opinion. I'm a member of the loyalist, protestant community so I hold no ingrained political solidarity with the guy in the face of sectarianism. If what he said counts as malicious communication, would you advocate Harlequin be arrested for advocating the use of nuclear weapons on N. Ireland earlier in this very thread?
