Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
*What* "authority" is that? The UN? The EU? The Americans? Al Qaeda??? And if that's what she *meant*, why didn't she say it?
Quote:
|
The EU Court Of Human Rights, obviously. I was going to say so explicitly, but I thought it was obvious so I toned it down a bit.
|
|
"Obviously"? Sorry, where is this obviosity?
Please quote me the relevant phrases or paragraphs from her article at
http://www.melaniephillips.com/artic...es/000392.html which makes it *so* obvious that she was talking about the EU Court of Human Rights.
And, if she was, *why* does she say "For common-sense to be stymied at such a time by the alien †˜human rightsââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ culture is just plain crazy." when this "alien 'human rights' culture" is one that we not only freely and willingly signed up to (in 1951!), but we were also one of the *first* EU countries to do so?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/948143.stm
Quote:
|
None of course, but a country must do everything in its power to defend it's own citizens.
|
When a country starts undertaking actions to "defend" its own citizens that go *against* its most fundamental concepts of law and rights and justice, they are *giving* victories to those who wish to *destroy* that country!!
Quote:
"Those would give up essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin.
Quote:
|
You don't think he might of been saying that to take the moral high ground?
|
|
No, I think he was saying that because he *understood* the fact that liberties have to be hard fought for but it's very easy to give them up again without realising *what* you're giving up.
It's very easy to glibly say "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about", but it's much more difficult to, for instance, regain the right to presumption of innocence when it's been lost.
Quote:
|
Because if you can kill 2 suicide bombers in a safe area, rather than let them blow up 500 people, then that makes common sense (sacrificing 2 lives for 500), but doesn't make moral sense.
|
Common sense? Moral sense? No, *NONSENSE*!!!
I really don't think you have any idea of what you're talking about, let alone what *I* am talking about!
If there are two suicide bombers in the open, about to run into a crowded building and kill lots of people *AND* there is no other way to stop them, it makes both common sense and moral sense to shoot them before they can do so.
However if someone claims that it is "common sense" to allow the Security Services to monitor all of our communications "just in case", then that is utter nonsense because that goes against one of our "core values" of the presumption of innocence.
If we give away our core values to protect ourselves "no matter the cost" we *lose* everything that makes our society *better* than the one that terrorists want to impose on us.
Quote:
|
I haven't seen it, but I said they take history for justification. But you can't hold people who are alive today responsible for what happened many decades, or hundreds of years ago. By that logic, i'm personally responsibile for the British imperialism during the Empire, am I?
|
No, because that's not a logical conclusion.
The point is that Middle Eastern Countries want to be allowed to get on with running their *own* affairs *without* Western "influence" or "control" because they have seen what has resulted from this in the past.
Quote:
Cites?
Quote:
|
Well, if I was president of a country, I would for one.
|
|
No cites, then?
Quote:
"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."
The clear implication there is not just that they "must do something" but that, to be *part* of the coalition, they must do what the Americans want.
Quote:
|
That's exactly what he didn't say.
|
|
If the President of the USA says "you will be held accountable for inactivity" and "you're either with us or against us" I'm not sure what other interpretation can be put on it apart from "if you don't do it our way, you're going to end in in trouble, one way or another".
Quote:
|
You may care, but if you don't do anything about it, what's the point? You might as well be apathetic.
|
Balderdash. Just because you don't do X does *not* mean you are "apathetic" about a situation.
Quote:
You've asked a hypothetical question. You answer it.
Quote:
|
No, I asked you. You seem to be very good sitting on your armchair telling everyone else what they are doing is wrong (It's also very easy), so I merely asked what would you do if you were in that position. (Which isn't so easy).
|
|
If you think I'm going to be impressed by this sort of baiting (with sneering undertones), you are sadly mistaken.
Quote:
|
It is a reasonable enough question. In fact I've already answered it twice on your behalf, and got it wrong.
|
JOOI, if it is such a "reasonable enough" question, how come you have already got it wrong twice?