Amanda Knox - Guilty or Innocent

[Brounmoney]

Ok this was my first ever post. Yes it was send to you, but I was just trying to prove a point. Yea it was a little rude sorry, but my point I thought should be worded that way. If you do not want to talk to me again fine, but I have nothing against you and would like to continue talk. The ball is in your court. We got off on the wrong foot.

 

 

 

 

Very well, I accept your apology and I'm glad that you appreciate that by assuming that I came from London was your first mistake, there are over 60 million people living in the UK and only about 8 million of them live in the Capital. But you also waved the racist card and no matter how sensitive you must be you mustn't assume that it is all about her being american. Why does she get so much attention? Because it was a heinous and despicable crime but nonetheless I wonder why she deserves so much attention and blind support just because she is an american when there are currently over 2.3 million people in US jails. Do they all get this level of biased support? No. There is a natural assumption particularly by americans and their flag wavers because the crime and punishment take place in another country, a country that has just a little more history and civilisation than the 230 odd years that the USA can attest to. Have a little respect yourself, you jump on here assuming that it's some sort of British bashing of yanks. This is a UK based forum but also happens to be multicultural and we are all entitled to our opinions whether you think we have done our research or not.

 

Perhaps you could take the time to learn a bit of forum etiquette, might help you express your own opinions.

 

Well you still come at me pretty hard, but that is fine I do not care. The reason that Amanda's conviction has gotten so much attention is because Italy gave it some much attention. In trying to show the world who they thought Amanda was they made the case very popular across the world. Now it may have been big in the US when the trail first started, but not much of anything is said about it now. Even her appeal and everything has been very quiet. I am just someone who is very into this case. Most of the American media is not really on her side, so this is an opinion shared by not as many as you may think.

 

I do understand this forum is a British one, and I understand that I am in the minority. Not that you did this, but it seemed that a lot of people jumped out of the wood work when they saw American. Look at the post on page 24 and 25. I just want to be respected like everyone else.

 

 

 

[Eastside Urchin]

Sorry but anyone who falls for the whole bush is a murderer theory is delusional.

Sadam Hussein was a mass murderer who murdered hundreds of thousands of Kurds.He surpressed his people for decades,because bush,Blair et al went to war to remove him does not make them murderers,unfortunately many people lost their lives.We bombed cities like Dresden torwards the end of world war 11 does this make the armed forces who were out to rid hitler and the Nazis murderers???

Edited March 7, 2011 by Eastside Urchin

[Loose]

Sorry but anyone who falls for the whole bush is a murderer theory is delusional.

Sadam Hussein was a mass murderer who murdered hundreds of thousands of Kurds.He surpressed his people for decades,because bush,Blair et al went to war to remove him does not make them murderers,unfortunately many people lost their lives.We bombed cities like Dresden tirades the end of world war 11 does this make the armed forces who were out to rid hitler and the Nazis murderers???

 

It's an interesting one, can't say that I'd be able to accurately explain the rationale for the bombing of Dresden, Cologne, Hamburg, etc etc, but wasn't the rationale for invading Iraq something to do with removing Sadam Hussein and the mythical WMD? Well we're all pretty much certain that the whole WMD myth was a US/UK diplomatic invention, so, hence the accusation of murder being one to answer. In addition, Sadam has gone, no WMD so what are we still doing in Iraq (and Afghanistan) now? Aren't we interfering in another country's affairs, and killing innocent civilians?

 

 

PS. We (US &UK) let Sadam kill Kurds for years, the invasion had nothing to do with helping them did it?

Edited March 7, 2011 by Loose

[Eastside Urchin]

It rid the country of an evil dictator,someone who ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent victims rather than in the case of bush/Blair etc who declared war on sadam and the Iraq government.Of course people will die,it's inevitable but none were premeditated like the Kurds.

As for why we are still there and in other places,yes that can be debated but these countries are very volatile areas of the world and once we have gone in it would be foolish to pull straight out when certain persons are removed,such as sadam.

[Loose]

It rid the country of an evil dictator,someone who ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent victims rather than in the case of bush/Blair etc who declared war on sadam and the Iraq government.Of course people will die,it's inevitable but none were premeditated like the Kurds.

As for why we are still there and in other places,yes that can be debated but these countries are very volatile areas of the world and once we have gone in it would be foolish to pull straight out when certain persons are removed,such as sadam.

 

I'm just wondering why it is any business of ours and I do not agree that the rationale had been to stop Sadam from killing his own people, the West have let this happen for decades not just in Iraq.

 

I accept though that as an humanitarian issue I do not have an answer for why we remain.

[missunderstood]

[quote name=Loose' timestamp='1299508600'

post='1708890]

No sunshine, you brought up where you are from but since you can't seem to keep from getting over emotional and

making it a personal thing about what

country who is from I don't think you can

have a sensible discussion.

 

 

 

 

Oh really that is cool. You may want to

go back and read your first couple of

post to me, but hey what ever. Keep

trying to act your post were calm and

were open to discussion. Please first

post took a shot a Rhodes, so please

don't tell me all you do is talk about the

subject at hand. You do a real good job

of going off topic, and making trouble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you need to try and understand is that forums often go off topic, as it keeps them fresh and interesting. It also has to be said that the vast majority of people that contribute to this forum have the ability to write in a coherent fashion and spell correctly, things you are obviously incapable of.

 

Perhaps you could practice your writing skills by answering a simple question, do you believe that ex president Bush, and Tony Blair are mass murderers? and do you think it acceptable that America kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people? in countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, and afghanistan?

 

 

Ok misunderstood I understand that the forum may get off track just a little. I am fine with it not being just about Amanda, but Loose takes it to another level.

 

I want to answer your question and thought I did before. First of all when in the last 30 years has the US attacked or killed people in Vietnam? I do not think that Bush is a murder. Bush did what he thought he had to do. I don't think any of us could ever understand what it is like to be the president of United States Of America, so for me to question that decision would be stupid. I am not as you put is a Christian red neck. I am a Christian that loves where I lives. If that is such a bad thing sorry I don't care. Again I ask you what do you think was happening in Iraq before the US attacked? I have no problem talking about this with you. I would like some respect to my opinion, and I will give you respect.

 

 

So you think that Bush is not a murderer because "he did what he thought he had to do". Does that mean you feel the atrocities that where carried out on the orders of Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, and even Osama Bin Laden where perfectly acceptable because they also undeniably did what they thought they had to do.

 

Perhaps you would also like to explain how you can call yourself a christian, and not condemn the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, including the Vietnamese and Cambodians over thirty years ago.

 

 

Alright misunderstood I kind of understand the way you are thinking, but not completely. Now what Hitler did was not right at all. Let me see If i understand what you are saying. Bush sent bombs to be dropped on military points in Iraq right? Hitler had Jews put in death camps just because he did not like the race of the people right? Now if at this point I have gone wrong sorry, but this is the way I see it. Does this make them the same thing. Yes innocent people were killed in the attacks on Iraq, but do you think that war should never happen? If that is the case then we may never agree on this or even come close. I am asking these questions in respect to your opinion. You said "explain how you can call yourself a christian, and condemn the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives." I can call myself a christian because in the bible there were lots of wars. Sodom and Gomorrah would be my first example. If you don't know this story please let me know and I will tell you.

not sure why the text got bigger but on well. My next point would be that God destroyed the earth with a flood. There were people that really had done nothing wrong, but God only spared Noah and his family. Bush is not God or anything even close, but innocent lives are a cost of war. I do not like it at all, but I also did not like what happened on 9/11 or any of the other attacks on other nations. That is how I can call myself a christian. If you don't understand just ask I will be happy to answer.

 

 

 

So you think because the bible contains references to lots of wars, its OK to slaughter innocent people. Perhaps you would like to read your bible again and see if it ever condones wars and the taking of innocent lives, I think you will be in for a long night. It does however say in the ten commandments "thou shall not kill".

 

Dozy ex President Bush didn't just target military points in Iraq, shock and awe was all about killing as many people as possible, and it was American aircraft that killed tens of thousands of innocent Cambodians because they thought vietnamese freedom fighters had crossed the border and were hiding in the Cambodian jungle. I have seen first hand the devastation and misery caused by the Americans in Cambodia, and in the opinion of almost all of South East asia america is, the evil empire.

[The Doog is King]

It rid the country of an evil dictator,someone who ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent victims rather than in the case of bush/Blair etc who declared war on sadam and the Iraq government.Of course people will die,it's inevitable but none were premeditated like the Kurds.

As for why we are still there and in other places,yes that can be debated but these countries are very volatile areas of the world and once we have gone in it would be foolish to pull straight out when certain persons are removed,such as sadam.

 

I'm just wondering why it is any business of ours and I do not agree that the rationale had been to stop Sadam from killing his own people, the West have let this happen for decades not just in Iraq.

 

I accept though that as an humanitarian issue I do not have an answer for why we remain.

 

It also seems odd as to why we turn a blind eye on the brutal dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Egypt (for example) because they are our "friends" and are lucrative for oil and arms deals - but feel able to remove Saddam because he was a "brutal dictator" - yet he was our friend when he was fighting against Iran.

 

Our hypocrital stances are being shown up now for what they are and the whole area is beginning to unravel...

[Brounmoney]

It rid the country of an evil dictator,someone who ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent victims rather than in the case of bush/Blair etc who declared war on sadam and the Iraq government.Of course people will die,it's inevitable but none were premeditated like the Kurds.

As for why we are still there and in other places,yes that can be debated but these countries are very volatile areas of the world and once we have gone in it would be foolish to pull straight out when certain persons are removed,such as sadam.

 

I'm just wondering why it is any business of ours and I do not agree that the rationale had been to stop Sadam from killing his own people, the West have let this happen for decades not just in Iraq.

 

I accept though that as an humanitarian issue I do not have an answer for why we remain.

 

 

 

Now when you say we remain do you mean British soldiers? Are there and British soldiers still in Iraq? I thought it was just US. The reason we are still there is because Obama does not know how to remove the troops yet. The US is removing soldiers all the time, but it will be like Germany we will never really go away.

 

 

[missunderstood]

It rid the country of an evil dictator,someone who ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent victims rather than in the case of bush/Blair etc who declared war on sadam and the Iraq government.Of course people will die,it's inevitable but none were premeditated like the Kurds.

As for why we are still there and in other places,yes that can be debated but these countries are very volatile areas of the world and once we have gone in it would be foolish to pull straight out when certain persons are removed,such as sadam.

 

 

Strange then that we haven't invaded zimbabwe, as surely Robert Mugabe is no less evil than Saddam Hussein, maybe its because there's no oil in zimbabwe.

[Loose]

It rid the country of an evil dictator,someone who ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent victims rather than in the case of bush/Blair etc who declared war on sadam and the Iraq government.Of course people will die,it's inevitable but none were premeditated like the Kurds.

As for why we are still there and in other places,yes that can be debated but these countries are very volatile areas of the world and once we have gone in it would be foolish to pull straight out when certain persons are removed,such as sadam.

 

I'm just wondering why it is any business of ours and I do not agree that the rationale had been to stop Sadam from killing his own people, the West have let this happen for decades not just in Iraq.

 

I accept though that as an humanitarian issue I do not have an answer for why we remain.

 

 

 

Now when you say we remain do you mean British soldiers? Are there and British soldiers still in Iraq? I thought it was just US. The reason we are still there is because Obama does not know how to remove the troops yet. The US is removing soldiers all the time, but it will be like Germany we will never really go away.

 

 

 

 

I mean't we as in us - since it was a joint US/UK initiative in the first place. In addition there are a sizeable number of UK/Gobal companies employing UK/Multi Nationals under the guise of "Security Consultants & Trainers remaining in Iraq.

 

 

[Eastside Urchin]

Maybe it is,but sadam Hussein had the potential to be far more dangerous than Mugabe ever could outside of his country

[Brounmoney]

[quote name=Loose' timestamp='1299508600'

post='1708890]

No sunshine, you brought up where you are from but since you can't seem to keep from getting over emotional and

making it a personal thing about what

country who is from I don't think you can

have a sensible discussion.

 

 

 

 

Oh really that is cool. You may want to

go back and read your first couple of

post to me, but hey what ever. Keep

trying to act your post were calm and

were open to discussion. Please first

post took a shot a Rhodes, so please

don't tell me all you do is talk about the

subject at hand. You do a real good job

of going off topic, and making trouble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you need to try and understand is that forums often go off topic, as it keeps them fresh and interesting. It also has to be said that the vast majority of people that contribute to this forum have the ability to write in a coherent fashion and spell correctly, things you are obviously incapable of.

 

Perhaps you could practice your writing skills by answering a simple question, do you believe that ex president Bush, and Tony Blair are mass murderers? and do you think it acceptable that America kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people? in countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, and afghanistan?

 

 

Ok misunderstood I understand that the forum may get off track just a little. I am fine with it not being just about Amanda, but Loose takes it to another level.

 

I want to answer your question and thought I did before. First of all when in the last 30 years has the US attacked or killed people in Vietnam? I do not think that Bush is a murder. Bush did what he thought he had to do. I don't think any of us could ever understand what it is like to be the president of United States Of America, so for me to question that decision would be stupid. I am not as you put is a Christian red neck. I am a Christian that loves where I lives. If that is such a bad thing sorry I don't care. Again I ask you what do you think was happening in Iraq before the US attacked? I have no problem talking about this with you. I would like some respect to my opinion, and I will give you respect.

 

 

So you think that Bush is not a murderer because "he did what he thought he had to do". Does that mean you feel the atrocities that where carried out on the orders of Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, and even Osama Bin Laden where perfectly acceptable because they also undeniably did what they thought they had to do.

 

Perhaps you would also like to explain how you can call yourself a christian, and not condemn the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, including the Vietnamese and Cambodians over thirty years ago.

 

 

Alright misunderstood I kind of understand the way you are thinking, but not completely. Now what Hitler did was not right at all. Let me see If i understand what you are saying. Bush sent bombs to be dropped on military points in Iraq right? Hitler had Jews put in death camps just because he did not like the race of the people right? Now if at this point I have gone wrong sorry, but this is the way I see it. Does this make them the same thing. Yes innocent people were killed in the attacks on Iraq, but do you think that war should never happen? If that is the case then we may never agree on this or even come close. I am asking these questions in respect to your opinion. You said "explain how you can call yourself a christian, and condemn the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives." I can call myself a christian because in the bible there were lots of wars. Sodom and Gomorrah would be my first example. If you don't know this story please let me know and I will tell you.

not sure why the text got bigger but on well. My next point would be that God destroyed the earth with a flood. There were people that really had done nothing wrong, but God only spared Noah and his family. Bush is not God or anything even close, but innocent lives are a cost of war. I do not like it at all, but I also did not like what happened on 9/11 or any of the other attacks on other nations. That is how I can call myself a christian. If you don't understand just ask I will be happy to answer.

 

 

 

So you think because the bible contains references to lots of wars, its OK to slaughter innocent people. Perhaps you would like to read your bible again and see if it ever condones wars and the taking of innocent lives, I think you will be in for a long night. It does however say in the ten commandments "thou shall not kill".

 

Dozy ex President Bush didn't just target military points in Iraq, shock and awe was all about killing as many people as possible, and it was American aircraft that killed tens of thousands of innocent Cambodians because they thought vietnamese freedom fighters had crossed the border and were hiding in the Cambodian jungle. I have seen first hand the devastation and misery caused by the Americans in Cambodia, and in the opinion of almost all of South East asia america is, the evil empire.

 

Don't just leave it as South East Asia cause lots of nations think we are the evil empire. Did you read what I said about the bible? I said look at the flood. The people that God killed were in your eyes not bad people. You would even go as far as to say they were innocent, but if you read the bible it says that the world was sinful and worshipping other gods. That is why God destroyed the earth killing millions of people, but he had a reason. You did not ask me any questions at all, but you misunderstood me. I am calling what Bush did war. You are calling it something completely different, so I am not sure that we will ever agree on this. Please do not tell me I misunderstood my bible and I need to read it again because you did not understand what I said. You are just reading what you want to read and leaving things out. Please read my entire post.

 

 

 

[Brounmoney]

It rid the country of an evil dictator,someone who ordered the deaths of thousands of innocent victims rather than in the case of bush/Blair etc who declared war on sadam and the Iraq government.Of course people will die,it's inevitable but none were premeditated like the Kurds.

As for why we are still there and in other places,yes that can be debated but these countries are very volatile areas of the world and once we have gone in it would be foolish to pull straight out when certain persons are removed,such as sadam.

 

I'm just wondering why it is any business of ours and I do not agree that the rationale had been to stop Sadam from killing his own people, the West have let this happen for decades not just in Iraq.

 

I accept though that as an humanitarian issue I do not have an answer for why we remain.

 

 

 

Now when you say we remain do you mean British soldiers? Are there and British soldiers still in Iraq? I thought it was just US. The reason we are still there is because Obama does not know how to remove the troops yet. The US is removing soldiers all the time, but it will be like Germany we will never really go away.

 

 

 

 

I mean't we as in us - since it was a joint US/UK initiative in the first place. In addition there are a sizeable number of UK/Gobal companies employing UK/Multi Nationals under the guise of "Security Consultants & Trainers remaining in Iraq.

 

 

 

Ok just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing.

 

Did you have an opinion on what I said about Amanda?

 

 

 

[sjj2112]

Maybe it is,but sadam Hussein had the potential to be far more dangerous than Mugabe ever could outside of his country

 

Until Mugabe signs the deal to sell all of Zimbabwe's Uranium deposits to Iran...........

[sjj2112]

Iraq : Dictator who killed his own people + oil = US/UK invasion to remove him

 

Libya : Dictator who is currently killing his own people + oil = US/UK saying we don't want to get involved

 

Where exactly is the difference?

[missunderstood]

[quote name=Loose' timestamp='1299508600'

post='1708890]

No sunshine, you brought up where you are from but since you can't seem to keep from getting over emotional and

making it a personal thing about what

country who is from I don't think you can

have a sensible discussion.

 

 

 

 

Oh really that is cool. You may want to

go back and read your first couple of

post to me, but hey what ever. Keep

trying to act your post were calm and

were open to discussion. Please first

post took a shot a Rhodes, so please

don't tell me all you do is talk about the

subject at hand. You do a real good job

of going off topic, and making trouble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you need to try and understand is that forums often go off topic, as it keeps them fresh and interesting. It also has to be said that the vast majority of people that contribute to this forum have the ability to write in a coherent fashion and spell correctly, things you are obviously incapable of.

 

Perhaps you could practice your writing skills by answering a simple question, do you believe that ex president Bush, and Tony Blair are mass murderers? and do you think it acceptable that America kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people? in countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, and afghanistan?

 

 

Ok misunderstood I understand that the forum may get off track just a little. I am fine with it not being just about Amanda, but Loose takes it to another level.

 

I want to answer your question and thought I did before. First of all when in the last 30 years has the US attacked or killed people in Vietnam? I do not think that Bush is a murder. Bush did what he thought he had to do. I don't think any of us could ever understand what it is like to be the president of United States Of America, so for me to question that decision would be stupid. I am not as you put is a Christian red neck. I am a Christian that loves where I lives. If that is such a bad thing sorry I don't care. Again I ask you what do you think was happening in Iraq before the US attacked? I have no problem talking about this with you. I would like some respect to my opinion, and I will give you respect.

 

 

So you think that Bush is not a murderer because "he did what he thought he had to do". Does that mean you feel the atrocities that where carried out on the orders of Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, and even Osama Bin Laden where perfectly acceptable because they also undeniably did what they thought they had to do.

 

Perhaps you would also like to explain how you can call yourself a christian, and not condemn the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, including the Vietnamese and Cambodians over thirty years ago.

 

 

Alright misunderstood I kind of understand the way you are thinking, but not completely. Now what Hitler did was not right at all. Let me see If i understand what you are saying. Bush sent bombs to be dropped on military points in Iraq right? Hitler had Jews put in death camps just because he did not like the race of the people right? Now if at this point I have gone wrong sorry, but this is the way I see it. Does this make them the same thing. Yes innocent people were killed in the attacks on Iraq, but do you think that war should never happen? If that is the case then we may never agree on this or even come close. I am asking these questions in respect to your opinion. You said "explain how you can call yourself a christian, and condemn the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives." I can call myself a christian because in the bible there were lots of wars. Sodom and Gomorrah would be my first example. If you don't know this story please let me know and I will tell you.

not sure why the text got bigger but on well. My next point would be that God destroyed the earth with a flood. There were people that really had done nothing wrong, but God only spared Noah and his family. Bush is not God or anything even close, but innocent lives are a cost of war. I do not like it at all, but I also did not like what happened on 9/11 or any of the other attacks on other nations. That is how I can call myself a christian. If you don't understand just ask I will be happy to answer.

 

 

 

So you think because the bible contains references to lots of wars, its OK to slaughter innocent people. Perhaps you would like to read your bible again and see if it ever condones wars and the taking of innocent lives, I think you will be in for a long night. It does however say in the ten commandments "thou shall not kill".

 

Dozy ex President Bush didn't just target military points in Iraq, shock and awe was all about killing as many people as possible, and it was American aircraft that killed tens of thousands of innocent Cambodians because they thought vietnamese freedom fighters had crossed the border and were hiding in the Cambodian jungle. I have seen first hand the devastation and misery caused by the Americans in Cambodia, and in the opinion of almost all of South East asia america is, the evil empire.

 

but if you read the bible it says that the world was sinful and worshipping other gods. That is why God destroyed the earth killing millions of people, but he had a reason.

 

 

So what you are saying is its OK to kill people that believe in different things to you because they must be sinful, and yet when Osama Bin Laden did exactly the same thing to innocent Americans he is evil (which he is).

 

If you had half a brain you could be dangerous, but as you don't you will almost certainly spend the rest of your life proving beyond doubt that your a total fruitcake.

[Brounmoney]

[quote name=Loose' timestamp='1299508600'

post='1708890]

No sunshine, you brought up where you are from but since you can't seem to keep from getting over emotional and

making it a personal thing about what

country who is from I don't think you can

have a sensible discussion.

 

 

 

 

Oh really that is cool. You may want to

go back and read your first couple of

post to me, but hey what ever. Keep

trying to act your post were calm and

were open to discussion. Please first

post took a shot a Rhodes, so please

don't tell me all you do is talk about the

subject at hand. You do a real good job

of going off topic, and making trouble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you need to try and understand is that forums often go off topic, as it keeps them fresh and interesting. It also has to be said that the vast majority of people that contribute to this forum have the ability to write in a coherent fashion and spell correctly, things you are obviously incapable of.

 

Perhaps you could practice your writing skills by answering a simple question, do you believe that ex president Bush, and Tony Blair are mass murderers? and do you think it acceptable that America kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people? in countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, and afghanistan?

 

 

Ok misunderstood I understand that the forum may get off track just a little. I am fine with it not being just about Amanda, but Loose takes it to another level.

 

I want to answer your question and thought I did before. First of all when in the last 30 years has the US attacked or killed people in Vietnam? I do not think that Bush is a murder. Bush did what he thought he had to do. I don't think any of us could ever understand what it is like to be the president of United States Of America, so for me to question that decision would be stupid. I am not as you put is a Christian red neck. I am a Christian that loves where I lives. If that is such a bad thing sorry I don't care. Again I ask you what do you think was happening in Iraq before the US attacked? I have no problem talking about this with you. I would like some respect to my opinion, and I will give you respect.

 

 

So you think that Bush is not a murderer because "he did what he thought he had to do". Does that mean you feel the atrocities that where carried out on the orders of Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, and even Osama Bin Laden where perfectly acceptable because they also undeniably did what they thought they had to do.

 

Perhaps you would also like to explain how you can call yourself a christian, and not condemn the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, including the Vietnamese and Cambodians over thirty years ago.

 

 

Alright misunderstood I kind of understand the way you are thinking, but not completely. Now what Hitler did was not right at all. Let me see If i understand what you are saying. Bush sent bombs to be dropped on military points in Iraq right? Hitler had Jews put in death camps just because he did not like the race of the people right? Now if at this point I have gone wrong sorry, but this is the way I see it. Does this make them the same thing. Yes innocent people were killed in the attacks on Iraq, but do you think that war should never happen? If that is the case then we may never agree on this or even come close. I am asking these questions in respect to your opinion. You said "explain how you can call yourself a christian, and condemn the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives." I can call myself a christian because in the bible there were lots of wars. Sodom and Gomorrah would be my first example. If you don't know this story please let me know and I will tell you.

not sure why the text got bigger but on well. My next point would be that God destroyed the earth with a flood. There were people that really had done nothing wrong, but God only spared Noah and his family. Bush is not God or anything even close, but innocent lives are a cost of war. I do not like it at all, but I also did not like what happened on 9/11 or any of the other attacks on other nations. That is how I can call myself a christian. If you don't understand just ask I will be happy to answer.

 

 

 

So you think because the bible contains references to lots of wars, its OK to slaughter innocent people. Perhaps you would like to read your bible again and see if it ever condones wars and the taking of innocent lives, I think you will be in for a long night. It does however say in the ten commandments "thou shall not kill".

 

Dozy ex President Bush didn't just target military points in Iraq, shock and awe was all about killing as many people as possible, and it was American aircraft that killed tens of thousands of innocent Cambodians because they thought vietnamese freedom fighters had crossed the border and were hiding in the Cambodian jungle. I have seen first hand the devastation and misery caused by the Americans in Cambodia, and in the opinion of almost all of South East asia america is, the evil empire.

 

but if you read the bible it says that the world was sinful and worshipping other gods. That is why God destroyed the earth killing millions of people, but he had a reason.

 

 

So what you are saying is its OK to kill people that believe in different things to you because they must be sinful, and yet when Osama Bin Laden did exactly the same thing to innocent Americans he is evil (which he is).

 

If you had half a brain you could be dangerous, but as you don't you will almost certainly spend the rest of your life proving beyond doubt that your a total fruitcake.

 

If you had half a brain, but because you don't you don't know what the crap I am saying. I NEVER SAID IT WAS OK TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE! Are you a journalist or something cause all you do is hear what you want to hear, and read half of what I am saying. I disagree with you that Iraq was a war that had to be done. There are going to be innocent people that die. I don't know if you read history books in school or not, but the ones that we read in our school talk about war. In WWII the US had to get involved in the war and attack. I am pretty sure that we killed innocent people in the process of killing the enemy. Don't you think stopping Hitler was a good thing? You really need to learn to read. Killing innocent people sucks, but guess what it happens in war.

 

 

 

[Eastside Urchin]

There seems to be the usual twisting of peoples posts by the usual intelligent suspects.Why can't people actually have a conversation without twisting peoples words,this isn't the house of commons,this is a chat forum but it's hardly surprising that it is only used by a handful of people with all the ridiculous spin some put on things.

[Loose]

Did you have an opinion on what I said about Amanda?

 

 

I think you were asking about who led the media interest in the case? It's only my opinion that it's a three ring circus. If the UK had had an american citizen raped and killed by a different foreign national in this country there would have been diplomatic attention and pressure plus each country can always accept it's homegrown killers more readily; it is first of all almost an affront to have a foreign national commit such a crime on your soil, times it by whatever if ithe victim is a child/young person, multiply it by whatever percent depending on the victim's nationality. Think how Italy feel, doing their best to deal with a crime and being told that the perpetrator's Secretary of State criticizes or questions or says she is going to bat for them. That they read hundreds of articles (sometimes half a dozen a day) saying that their system is corrupt. Who needs that?

 

Theres factual reporting (AP ./ Reuters - some of what we call "broadsheets") - then there are the less earnest newspapers (here - The Sun, Daily Mail etc) - and at the end of the line the rabid blogs/community message boards (perugiamurderfile.org. - amandadefensefund - seattleblahblah - friendsofamanda.dot.dot etc etc etc)

 

From a personal point of view it always seems that Knox's family feed the pro Amanda blogs, press whilst the Kerchers have been very dignified. That there have been several testimonies by people of doubtful provenance on her behalf including this somewhat shady "Retired FBI-Agent" who I've seen several articles claiming that he's nothing of the sort, just an ex-employee in administration. Who knows what that truth is!!

 

I genuinely attempted to share with you a start in looking at just facts of the trial and actual evidence, not rumours of evidence offered by prison inmates etc. Again - people of doubtful provenance.

 

I'm fascinated by it all I confess and I can thank our Rhodesy for that because I objected to his biased reporting of the events right at the beginning of the appeal process. By co-incidence I'm in Italy, quite near Perugia for the next stage of the appeal, probably just another hearing deciding admissability of evidence or hearing one motion or another but I'll report back on the Italian media's version of events.

 

BTW, I can't fathom an Amanda turning cartwheels while in the police station, kissing and giggling with her boyfriend when her flat-mate had just been killed, is that normal behaviour for american students? Students anywhere these days?

Edited March 7, 2011 by Loose

[Brounmoney]

Did you have an opinion on what I said about Amanda?

 

 

I think you were asking about who led the media interest in the case? It's only my opinion that it's a three ring circus. If the UK had had an american citizen raped and killed by a different foreign national in this country there would have been diplomatic attention and pressure plus each country can always accept it's homegrown killers more readily; it is first of all almost an affront to have a foreign national commit such a crime on your soil, times it by whatever if ithe victim is a child/young person, multiply it by whatever percent depending on the victim's nationality. Think how Italy feel, doing their best to deal with a crime and being told that the perpetrator's Secretary of State criticizes or questions or says she is going to bat for them. That they read hundreds of articles (sometimes half a dozen a day) saying that their system is corrupt. Who needs that?

 

Theres factual reporting (AP ./ Reuters - some of what we call "broadsheets") - then there are the less earnest newspapers (here - The Sun, Daily Mail etc) - and at the end of the line the rabid blogs/community message boards (perugiamurderfile.org. - amandadefensefund - seattleblahblah - friendsofamanda.dot.dot etc etc etc)

 

From a personal point of view it always seems that Knox's family feed the pro Amanda blogs, press whilst the Kerchers have been very dignified. That there have been several testimonies by people of doubtful provenance on her behalf including this somewhat shady "Retired FBI-Agent" who I've seen several articles claiming that he's nothing of the sort, just an ex-employee in administration. Who knows what that truth is!!

 

I genuinely attempted to share with you a start in looking at just facts of the trial and actual evidence, not rumours of evidence offered by prison inmates etc. Again - people of doubtful provenance.

 

I'm fascinated by it all I confess and I can thank our Rhodesy for that because I objected to his biased reporting of the events right at the beginning of the appeal process. By co-incidence I'm in Italy, quite near Perugia for the next stage of the appeal, probably just another hearing deciding admissability of evidence or hearing one motion or another but I'll report back on the Italian media's version of events.

 

BTW, I can't fathom an Amanda turning cartwheels while in the police station, kissing and giggling with her boyfriend when her flat-mate had just been killed, is that normal behaviour for american students? Students anywhere these days?

 

I understand what you are saying. I am a new comer to this story. I have done some research and that is why I am here. I really think media can damage things like this. We have no idea what the truth is. We can only hope to read this media crap and get the good stuff out. I know you said before that the book I am reading is bias too, but I feel like it has a lot of facts. I mean they have all the phone records and the phones that were bugged. I really am learning a lot about the people involved in this whole thing. I think we are all feed a bunch of crap from the media. I mean if this murder had taken place in the US then I think the media would have taken a large part in the result as well.

 

If you are in Italy please keep me informed about the media, and the whole workings of this thing. I would love to be right there getting it right from the source.

 

Amanda's actions were not right, but by the way it sounds she was really kind of a weird girl. I mean I don't know if this is a common act by college students in the US when they are in trouble, but I really can not say what I would do if I were in her shoes. I don't think that I would do cartwheels. Is there any thing being said right now about the whole thing in Italy?