Vile lies and fear mongering from a pig lover!

[Audio Advent]

What would have been the point of putting him on trial? Was there ever a possibility of him being found innocent?

How many Nazis got slung at the Nuremburg Trial? None. If fighting a war should we put every enemy soldier on trial before we allow our soliders to shoot them? Is that in any way practical? No, of course not, but then this is Jeremy Corbyn we are talking about isn't it?

In a way I would love to see him as the PM, the conflict between his naievety and the very difficult moral decisions he would be faced with would be highly entertaining.

Hahaha ... well there goes our whole justice system, the ideology behind it and core British values of justice which we've exported to the world!

What's the point of having ANY trial if you believe hard enough that someone is guilty? That's the Isis way I guess! It was the Stalin way and it was the Hitler way too but at least they might put on a show trial. Given that way of working, you can also just throw in some people you don't like to be murdered too, completely innocent of anything.

Trial is important, even when you know that the accused is guilty. The US had him there, unarmed. But they decided trial wasn't important to their moral code and prefered assassination, murder, revenge - that is a tragedy right there, to see the US's ideals exposed.

Nuremburg trials were held in a 1940s world where capital punishment was pretty rife. Yet despite that, some Nazis were given life imprisonment instead, deemed not to have committed crimes requiring the death penalty. Yet you would have murdered them all because you feel angry and therefore they were guilty of everything you could have thought of. That kind of thinking is to reduce society to barbarism worthy of Isis.

It depends where Bin Laden would have been tried but capital punishment has been dropped in many many places around the world because our moral attitudes have evolved to become more civil. So why would his death been inevitable had he been tried?

Where is the war in this situation that you talk of? There has been no war against terrorism - it is rhetoric to influence people's opinions and outlook on the following actions (sorry you fell for it..) but there is no war as is defined by things like the Geneva convention. Terrorism is a string of criminal acts, no matter how descructive. To hear someone sucking up United States's agenda-promoting distortions as if they are the thruth is quite shocking - I thought that was only done in the gun toting, republican south or the fringes of the internet.

The refusal to accept other people's corruption and amoral behaviour as the way things must therefore be done is NOT naievity. In fact it is naieve to believe you will be seen as strong and powerful by ordering extrajudicial killings as the US does and Cameron does.

The strong leaders who earn real respect around the world are those who insist on real justice to be done and especially those who resist calls for revenge and murder from uncivilised parts of society.

[Audio Advent]

Effective leadership in difficult times requires ruthlessness. Unfortunately the Tories think this extends to the treatment given to the people of the country.
Corbyn is likely to take the opposing standpoint. Therefore we are potentially, stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea!

Effective leadership requires people to follow, by definition. It absolutely does not require ruthlessness, in fact ruthlessness is divisive and creates opposition - the opposite of effective leadership unless you only want to lead dwindling numbers.

Strong leadership results in effective leadership. Strong leadership stems from trust, belief that they have the interests of the country's populous at heart, knowing your leader's moral stand point and trust that he/she will be unwavering in that.

Cameron is as weak and limp-wristed as they come because he has no moral values, he has no real views and he lies all the time, saying what he things people want to hear (even for something as pointless as what football team he supports! ) . I suspect his only views which come close to being guiding priciples are a) to be in power b) that only the rich are to be respected (and the poor really just need to work harder and stop being so pathetic) even though his wealth is only inherited. The difficult times haven't yet happened to Cameron - I suspect that when they do economically, he and Osborne will be left floundering.

Corbyn has real moral values that he has adhered to for more than 30 years in politics and has shown strength by defying the party whip on over 500 occasions, something that weak or career-minded politicians would never ever do. I think his leadership as PM would show similar strength.

What prevents that is whether people agree with his political outlook, ways to achieve those moral goals.. we will see.

[Audio Advent]

Politics and another version of the truth. Are you surprised? I wouldn't let it wind you up.

Problem is that the lies influence many people to then make political choices which screw us all over in the long term..

A bit like lending someone something personally important and valuable to you and watching them chuck it about with not a care in the world and eventually destroying it. Best to get wound up by that, take it off them and let them know exactly their faults... Can't sit about rolling eyes and trying to ignore it, will only result in the destruction actually happening.

[Macca]

Fine words but that is all they are. Clearly there is a moral difference between putting a man on trial for murder and shooting dead an enemy soldier. In the former case the man is found guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' before punishment is administered.

In the latter case the man may be entirely innocent, a conscript who is there against his will. He gets no trial, no hearing, nothing. A bomb or shell drops on his foxhole and kills him.

You want some sort of moral rules whereby it is okay to kill with no trial in a war, but not in other combatitive situations. So who decides whether it is a war or not? And if they decide it is a war is it then fine to start the indiscriminate carpet bombing? Does that now become morally acceptable just because there has been a vote in the U.N?

This is the problem with moral standards - run them too high up the flagpole and you will start to get you knickers in a twist. To mix a metaphor.

On the other hand, setting aside so called 'morality' we all understand basic right from wrong in specific circumstances. In the case of Bin Laden he had already publically claimed responsibility for 9/11 along with several other mass-murders. If they had caught him and someone said to me: 'Look, we've got Bin Laden here, no-one knows yet, we can hand him over for a multi-miilion dollar global show trial or you can just take him out the back and shoot him in the face.' I know what I would have done.

Morality? It's just a word.

[walpurgis]

Morality? It's just a word.

Bang on Martin! I don't believe in 'other people's' measure of morality, or right and wrong. And as I mind my own business most of the time and treat people decently, I don't believe 'other people's' rules and laws apply to me, as I don't need them!! 'Society' supposedly creates moral values and rules, but society is just an invention, or just a concept if you like and I didn't volunteer to join it (whatever it is) when I was born.

[User211]

Problem is that the lies influence many people to then make political choices which screw us all over in the long term..

A bit like lending someone something personally important and valuable to you and watching them chuck it about with not a care in the world and eventually destroying it. Best to get wound up by that, take it off them and let them know exactly their faults... Can't sit about rolling eyes and trying to ignore it, will only result in the destruction actually happening.

I agree. But BS flying around in political circles has been going on since - well, a long time ago. You cannot stop it, so don't get upset by it.

If you feel you are actually in a position to do something about it, then the situation is somewhat different.

[anthonyTD]

Quite agree!

Bang on Martin! I don't believe in 'other people's' measure of morality, or right and wrong. And as I mind my own business most of the time and treat people decently, I don't believe 'other people's' rules and laws apply to me, as I don't need them!! 'Society' supposedly creates moral values and rules, but society is just an invention, or just a concept if you like and I didn't volunteer to join it (whatever it is) when I was born.

[agk]

The man needed to die. Shame he didn't suffer more first.

The world is a hard place and bleating about it won't change it.

[Audio Advent]

Fine words but that is all they are. Clearly there is a moral difference between putting a man on trial for murder and shooting dead an enemy soldier. In the former case the man is found guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' before punishment is administered.

In the latter case the man may be entirely innocent, a conscript who is there against his will. He gets no trial, no hearing, nothing. A bomb or shell drops on his foxhole and kills him.

You want some sort of moral rules whereby it is okay to kill with no trial in a war, but not in other combatitive situations. So who decides whether it is a war or not? And if they decide it is a war is it then fine to start the indiscriminate carpet bombing? Does that now become morally acceptable just because there has been a vote in the U.N?

This is the problem with moral standards - run them too high up the flagpole and you will start to get you knickers in a twist. To mix a metaphor.

I'm not sure where it fits in to the thread but war is immoral generally. Sometimes though that immorality is forced upon people in order to prevent greater amorality or immorality - like fighting WW2. If the enemy soldier was innocent and gave himself up, to shoot him is a war crime, but is overlooked due to the difficulty in self-control in such a situation.

On the other hand, setting aside so called 'morality' we all understand basic right from wrong in specific circumstances. In the case of Bin Laden he had already publically claimed responsibility for 9/11 along with several other mass-murders. If they had caught him and someone said to me: 'Look, we've got Bin Laden here, no-one knows yet, we can hand him over for a multi-miilion dollar global show trial or you can just take him out the back and shoot him in the face.' I know what I would have done.

Morality? It's just a word.

Everything you've written is just a bunch of words - but they convey real meaning! That's surely obvious. Morality is a word representing something real amongst at least human kind.

So your standard of guilt is someone claiming responsibility for something, nothing more than a sentence or perhaps just the accusation of something by some body you trust? And you're prepared to murder on their say so? You're coming across as a danger to society as you're potentially available to use as weapon via simply convincing you of something or other. To some people that's radicalisation you'd be susceptable to.

To act against people being such weapons turned against their own or other's societies, we have trails and courts of law.

[Audio Advent]

I agree. But BS flying around in political circles has been going on since - well, a long time ago. You cannot stop it, so don't get upset by it.

If you feel you are actually in a position to do something about it, then the situation is somewhat different.

If you can point it out to a handful of people so that they begin to think about what they are reading or hearing and learn to examine the truth behind something...

... then I am doing something about it.

Thowing up your hands and saying you can't stop it is effectively to condone it either passively or actively (depending on your personal outlook).