ThisIsSin
Pareo distribution: whereby 20% of the fabric shows 80% of the body
No bio...
User ID: 822
the killer refuses to accept culpablity and continues to insist that his victim was a racist, as if this would justify the killer's conduct even if it was true.
And he is correct. A society doesn't normally prosecute soldiers for murder, because they are killing that society's enemies. Why else do you think only that group is de facto allowed to go around armed? (Canada at least requires you to have it zip tied to the sheath so it can't be drawn, but in fairness that was 10 years ago.)
Here, though, English society gets to have its cake and eat it, too- killing its enemies while at the same time being able to claim murder is bad. Certainly confusing for the soldier in question- because here his claims that he was acting on society's general orders (to kill its enemies for their crime of existing, or "racism" for short) won't save him from prosecution.
Then again, soldiers get thrown under the bus all the time.
America definitely isn't holding Europe's balls or brains
Empires hold their provinces' balls or brains almost by definition.
They gave their brains and balls away along with the rest of their colonial possessions.
That's an unfair characterization. They sold their brains and balls and the rest of their colonial possessions to Uncle Sam, because the European powers (and the UK) were back-to-back World War losers.
The Allied powers like to delude themselves into thinking their contributions made a difference but, uh, no? Most of the materiel came from American factories, and Americans accepted the price for that materiel in mineral rights and real estate.
It wasn't "giving away". It was war reparations. The rest of Western Europe has paid similarly.
- Prev
- Next

Hence "have cake and eat it too".
Just because they're throwing the killer away does not imply [those who define UK society] are not in complete agreement that what the killer did was justice.
More options
Context Copy link