ElishaScottBC

Copious beans topping?

That sounds smart.... wait a second!!

You see my mate Trident, yeah shut your mouth or you and your che guevara t-shirt get it. okay, pup?

tlhIngan Hol Dajatlh’a’ ?

Yo I'mma let you finish, Airwolf is good but Thunder is for the children!

Two Door Cinema Club - What You Know https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXwYJyrKK5A

Thank you for the reply. I appreciate the International Humanitarian Law in regards to an indiscriminate attack. On closer inspection of the Geneva Convention, it's protocols and various resolutions agreed to by a list of countries, the legality appears to be on a knife edge. By which I mean, in theory, stating a specific military objective and then executing the plan with a high number of civilian casualties is still in breech of international law if all efforts have not been made to protect civilian life. To effectively carry out a legal and justified bombing campaign is almost impossible. depending on interpretation of what life can be saved or spared, so justification to bomb Syria through use of law is sounds sort of like "well we were legal before we became illegal". The inevitably of laws becoming blurred once the bombs start to fall is all too familiar. I concede that Britain doesn't plan to participate in indiscriminate bombing. But I believe Britain is heading towards indiscriminate bombing, however we will only be able to refer to it as that after such has happened.

I'm fine with being wrong because respectively it doesn't matter what I believe. Can you point me to where the law is clear on this, I'm not familiar with it and would appreciate the info if you know it offhand?

Collateral damage is an unwanted but inevitable part of a targeted bombing campaign. Collateral damage is a cold, almost emotionless term, and endeavours to soften the nature of the reality those experience first hand. Whether the bombing is seen as discriminate or indiscriminate probably gives a clue to the ever polarizing stance on whether we should bomb or should not. At the well judged risk of being considered a left wing Daily Mail commenter, I consider previous bombing campaigns as a measure of previous efforts to meet the targets set. Therefore considering the bombing campaigns, I would believe indiscriminate is a fair term. Interestingly Daily Mail have published in regards to the 49 innocents killed to every terrorist target in Pakistan Link Guardian: 41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes Link Huff Post: Nearly 90 percent of people killed in recent drone strikes were not the target, across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia Link

Easy for you to say. This however is the product of deep rooted ideology of hatred and is incompatible with our society, so in self defence I declare we bomb Colorado and demand other countries help us as well. We can't stop till they are all eradicated, don't shirk your patriotic responsibilities Rico.

Whatever you do don't tell them. The secret to tastiest results are greatly enhanced when they don't know what they are eating. Truth spoils meat like you wouldn't believe.

No. Just like the St George's cross is not representative for everyone living in England, the Union Jack isn't flown in parts of the UK due to it's implications. The Spanish flag is contentious in regions of Spain, the Tricolour isn't embraced by everyone in France. The claim it's representative of everyone in involved in the Paris incident or changing your profile picture to the Tricolour is all fine in my book, but I don't think it's automatically a gesture free of prejudice.

FREE THE BEANS

So if Cameron says he won't cut tax credits, then cuts tax credits. How do you propose I understand it? If asked 6 times in succession whether the policy he endorses will hurt 3 million in the lower wage bracket, and all his answers deviate from the question, how do I understand it? I don't disagree with your point about understanding the intellectual foundation of one's opponent, it's highly necessary, but when the foundation of one's intellect remains unclear after repeated attempts of establishing an understanding, I don't see this as a stalemate, rather more placed in check.

Yeah desperate to play for England, showed real desire there, but has done everything to avoid playing for us, if the bench was an option he'd take it, that's what i heard. Shithouse, got an attitude, what's that pointing at the sky all about? If he falls over in training I hope Klopp runs over and kicks him while he's lying there. His wages are a disgrace and I feel guilty for missing a day at work. You'll never walk a..gain. No cause for rawkus. Who's next? Coutinho being sold would benefit the economy and empower younger generations towards a brighter Britain. This is a matter of Liverpool FC's security.

Which episode of Being: Liverpool was this?

Would you cripple yourself for Sturridge, Baltar? Offer your legs to Sturridge, there must be a way to make this work.

Yes, man!

Sopranos. Your kids will love it.