Prince Myshkin

Take note of my use of the word 'appear'. Thank you for allowing me to hold my opinions. You are entitled to yours, but don't throw your toys out of the pram when asked to justify them. I don't mind ended it here, everyone can have a giggle when they read the last few pages.

Why? Those are very 'Daily Mail' views you hold, and you appear to read the Daily Mail. Bringing that up doesn't change all that much. Just justify your points. You don't appear to think that mass murderers or terrorists deserve human rights. One of the most volatile statements I've seen on here in a long time.

Fine, if you want. Or you could just be a mature adult and debate.

Say what now?

No, they know the laws, it should be looked into whether they followed the laws. It doesn't need to be clarified, they merely have to prove they didn't break the law. Human rights apply to all, just like if they had captured him they could have either imprisoned him or activated the death penalty if they felt that was legal too. That would have been following the law.

:laugh3::laugh3::laugh3::laugh3: Unbelievable.

It isn't every day that I'm accused of shedding tears over terrorists. You're lucky I'm an adult about these things and won't be reporting the post, as you often do to other people, Mark.

Wolves three up haha.

Nobody in this thread is shedding tears over it as far as I am aware (and if they are then that is their prerogative, albeit a very unusual stance to take), and that in itself is a very interesting tone to take Mark. An apology, if you will. Several posters in this thread, and the torture thread are simply dismayed at the potential lack of legal grounding for these actions and the precedent that this may have set. It may have been the safest way to go about things, but the request of evidence to back it up is not something which should be frowned upon. If there was no legal backing, then I feel something should be done, as in the future this could be used against people who aren't actually guilty. Simply trying to make people feel guilty for taking an interest in why he was actually killed is quite bizarre, Mark, and it won't help you in honest debate. This is not the Daily Mail letters page, it's a free thinking discussion regarding the potential problems towards others that these actions may lead to, after it appears a clear precedent has been set. Do you understand this, Mark? Maybe I'm just not explaining it well enough. I'm sure there are plenty of other posters around who can spell it out for you.

Whether it was the 'best' scenario or not, it should be investigated to see whether it was legal as everyone is bound by law and thankfully so. Haha, fat cat lawyers? Yeah, we'd all rather see a man dead than them getting any money :confused: The human rights of mass muderers and terrorists are the same as any other human being when they are not posing a threat to somebody. There won't be any clarification on it since none is needed. Like I said, it may have been best to kill him in that situation, but simply saying 'we'll never know' or 'let's not go through the legal system or fat cat lawyers will make money' or 'who cares about his human rights?' isn't what anybody with any form of emotion would be suggesting.

I miscalculated. A West Ham win over Wigan and a United win over Blackpool, and our goal difference should see us through. Still, come on Baggies. Blackpool are down, don't worry, it's which of the other three survives.

Dammit Wolves.

So effectively what you're saying is... 1. People are always going to be against it, so that means he might as well be killed. 2. Bin Laden is a monster who doesn't care about human rights so therefore we can become monsters and not care about his human rights. I have no problem with you believing that him being killed may have been necessary. It indeed may have been, but an investigation should take place so the truth can be outed. This you agree with, but are sceptical about, which is fair enough. I do not understand your reasoning behind the two points above however.

Aye, I'm gonna get Mrs Desai on the back of my Rovers shirt! As barmy as they are I back Venky's. They told Allardyce to play attractive football, he replied winning is attractive and was obstructive towards them in the board room so he was sacked. He also interestingly revealed the other day that he tried to leave Rovers in the Summer but was bound by his contract, so he can stuff any claims of lack of loyalty. I was for hs sacking so this didn't bother me. They put Steve Kean in as interim manager, then said they would keep him till the end of the season or longer. Then they decided to keep him for longer. I have to say I'm actually a fan of him, though this is not shared amongst other Rovers fans, mostly the racist ones and the Allardyce fans. Criticism wise they are a joke, but they seem to have some money at least, and whilst they want a publicity signing and their PR is atrocious and they are often misquoted, we are in a better position than we were about 8 months ago.

Fucking good band.

If Wolves don't beat West Brom today, West Ham beat Wigan next week and United beat Blackpool last game of the season, Rovers shouldn't need another point to be safe because of their goal difference.

More blowing bubbles and cheese.

I can see why you rarely get involved in debate given your dangerous views on basic human rights and freedoms, Mark. Too much Daily Mail methinks. Are you for the death penalty under certain circumstances? Locking him up for life would have been much better. Give the torture thread a read. Whilst centred around torture, plenty of people have given their insights into the way those in authority should behave, and the rights everybody has to actual justice. You have to go through your own laws, so simply by saying 'no outcome would be deemed acceptable' and that locking him up for life wouldn't have worked does not justify anything that has been done. It is the law that you try and achieve that, and even if people don't agree with your law, if you are the people acting on the matter, you should follow the law and then answer to criticism later. In America they have the death penalty, so if he was found guilty then I think that is what would have happened, like with Saddam Hussein (another thing I don't see as justice, incidentally, because of my views on the death penalty). It's an unsettling precedent to have set, if they did not have to kill him, which I feel should be investigated. I'm sure other terrorists would rather be shot that be put in prison for life, as it's a much quicker route to their reward. It could be more inspiring to budding terrorists to have acted in this manner.

Well you do that every other post. You gotta let me get away with one every now and again. Count yourself lucky I didn't make another joke based on your introduction of cheese into the equation.

So we kill him then? Interesting logic.

Jones is replacing him. The man who will need replacing is Nelsen, when his legs go. Might get one more season out of him. Givet is a centre back too, and we have young Hanley coming through. Central midfield and striker are more worrying positions for us. I was expecting to see the Michael Jackson statue outside Upton Park yesterday. Forgot it was at Fulham. I got confused when they were all singing 'I'm forever blowing bubbles'.

Luck on our part, poor skill on his. And yes, his career must have taken a dive if he's had less appearances than Benni McCarthy this season, regardless of the fact that he's been there half the time. Yeah, Samba will be gone this Summer. He's been wanting to leave for over a year now. Tried to use the Allardyce sacking as a reason for departure till it came out that he'd tried to engineer moves while Allardyce was at the club. Fortunately he's a player who will always try even when not totally happy, and you get an honest performance from him. Been one of the best centre backs I've seen at Rovers. Hoping to get over £8mil for him, though if money isn't an issue for us I don't see why we couldn't hold out for plus £10mil if somebody with the finances comes in. As long as we keep hold of Phil Jones I won't be too disheartened. He'll be better than Samba if he carries on.

The conspiracy theorists don't matter but will always exist, even when you have conclusive proof. I wonder who would carry out the investigation. America might want to carry one out, Pakistan might, is there a global war court too (forgive my ignorance)? It will be very hard indeed to get people to part with their knowledge on the matter and classified information as they'll no doubt hide it behind National Security. We'll see how it plays out.

Thankfully. That's the bit of luck Rovers have been missing the last 3 months.

None of this means it shouldn't be investigated though. Particularly when it was filmed. You may indeed be correct, but there is no harm in the pursuit of the truth through legitimate means. It is genuinely refreshing to see your insight though Mark. I mean that.