The run up to conflict in Northern Ireland

[johnneycool]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

[smelmoth]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

[trueblue1234]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

[smelmoth]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Explain why it is not possible?

[general_lee]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

I would say circumstances would include but not be confined to instances where the state through various agencies is shooting dead it's own citizens either directly or indirectly through paramilitary proxies.

[seafoid]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

If it prevents an abortion but hopefully not for much longer. Mna na h Eireann seem to have had enough of the hypocrisy.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

If it prevents an abortion but hopefully not for much longer. Mna na h Eireann seem to have given up on the hypocrisy .

[trueblue1234]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Explain why it is not possible?

Experience would suggest it's not possible. How many wars are fought in this manner?

[johnneycool]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Explain why it is not possible?

So was Loughgall was fine by you or state sanctioned murder?

What about Sean Downes, was that murder?

[smelmoth]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

I would say circumstances would include but not be confined to instances where the state through various agencies is shooting dead it's own citizens either directly or indirectly through paramilitary proxies.

So which lives would you be justified in taking in this scenario?

Presumbly by justified you also mean indemnified against legal sanction?

[smelmoth]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Explain why it is not possible?

Experience would suggest it's not possible. How many wars are fought in this manner?

If a dissident kills today and is motivated by a reversal of partition and a historical denial of civil rights in NI should they be subject to the law of the land or would you argue that they should be assessed as a combatant in a war (which is not lawless, just a different set of laws)?

I am interested in when you think a private individual has the right to take life

[smelmoth]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

When has the state the right to take a life?

I gave an example earlier re the jihadist with the finger on the trigger or detonator. Lethal force has to be restricted to circumstances like this.

Of course, but it's naive to think that is possible.

Explain why it is not possible?

So was Loughgall was fine by you or state sanctioned murder?

What about Sean Downes, was that murder?

I wonder why you are even asking the question? 

Anyway. An easy one. Clearly murder and should have been investigated as such.

[general_lee]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

I would say circumstances would include but not be confined to instances where the state through various agencies is shooting dead it's own citizens either directly or indirectly through paramilitary proxies.

So which lives would you be justified in taking in this scenario?

Presumbly by justified you also mean indemnified against legal sanction?

Combatants.

Legal sanction from who? The government doing the killing? 

[smelmoth]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

I would say circumstances would include but not be confined to instances where the state through various agencies is shooting dead it's own citizens either directly or indirectly through paramilitary proxies.

So which lives would you be justified in taking in this scenario?

Presumbly by justified you also mean indemnified against legal sanction?

Combatants.

Legal sanction from who? The government doing the killing? 

Ane what makes someone a combatant? i.e. who specifically can have life justifiably (in your view) taken?

[general_lee]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

I would say circumstances would include but not be confined to instances where the state through various agencies is shooting dead it's own citizens either directly or indirectly through paramilitary proxies.

So which lives would you be justified in taking in this scenario?

Presumbly by justified you also mean indemnified against legal sanction?

Combatants.

Legal sanction from who? The government doing the killing? 

Ane what makes someone a combatant? i.e. who specifically can have life justifiably (in your view) taken?

Paramilitaries and security forces.

[smelmoth]

There are limited circumstances where taking life is permitted.

I'm glad you agree. I would take this stance.

Where we differ is that you are absolute in your assertion that only the state can take life.

please outline the circumstances when life can be taken by someone other than the state?

Will you be taking this stance to the electorate? Certainly without the sort of mandate that can bring about a change in the law the civilised will get on with with criminalising this sort of behaviour

I would say circumstances would include but not be confined to instances where the state through various agencies is shooting dead it's own citizens either directly or indirectly through paramilitary proxies.

So which lives would you be justified in taking in this scenario?

Presumbly by justified you also mean indemnified against legal sanction?

Combatants.

Legal sanction from who? The government doing the killing? 

Ane what makes someone a combatant? i.e. who specifically can have life justifiably (in your view) taken?

Paramilitaries and security forces.

So I can put you on record as believing that the paramilitary murders of all others was unjustified and unjustifiable. And equally that mere membership of a paramilitary organisation (including republican organisations) or the police means you deserve to be murdered?

Want to put this to the electorate and see if garners popular support?