Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
"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 |
It is obvious, because the EUCOHR has been so proactive in running our country. Come on, from the Daily Mail, even most novices to current affairs could of probably saw the link. Who else dictates our Human Rights legisture to us? The UN supposedly does, but they don't do anything, ever. The whole point of the sentence (my impression of it anyway) talks about how the EU want to enforce human rights actions on the UK which favouring the terrorists/going easier on them would result them being able to hit us more easily.
Bottom line: It was obvious to me, and others. If it wern't to you, sorry. I'd thought reading the Guardian, you'd know exactly how the EU court of Human Rights takes care of the issue in our country.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
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!!
|
That's liberal wish-wash. How on earth is America preventing another 9/11-sized attack by murdering some terrorists before they can strike, a victory for the country the terrorists came from? Sounds more like a victory to the US to me. What victories are they giving to the terrorists' home country then?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
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.
|
No, liberties are a human right. Everyone deserves to be free, not just the countries that fight for them. Countries have to fight to maintain it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
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.
|
They said the same thing about CCTV. "Oooh Big Brother is watching you!", "The government will know where you like to shop!". Here's one i'd like to say: "There goes another rapist into prison because he was caught on CCTV and CrimeWatch!"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
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.
|
My, my, my, getting a tad personal now aren't we? I may debate with you, but you still have an opposing view and I respect that, but to call me an idiot because I dare disagree with you? I don't think I need to say anything more about that. *hands Graham more rope*
You are also ignoring that Moral Sense is subjective. It came as as a suprise to Xaccers and I that you would kill the bombers, because most left-wingers say "murder is murder, and not 1 is acceptable". Presumption of innocence was lost a long time ago, and nothing to do with the Internet and technology, or the war on terror. Since when has a rapist ever been thought of innocent before conviction? Or a child murderer? People normally try and lynch them before it even gets to court.
No, the things that may make countries like the US better than where the terrorists come from are things like freedom. Freedom to practice a religion. Freedom to go to school. Freedom to just do things you want. Now compare that with the fact if you tried to sell alcohol in Iran. If you tried to practice Judaism in Palestine. In Saudi Arabia, women aren't allowed to drive (Unless they get international licenses abroad). In afghanistan, women wern't allowed to go to school, or even the shops unsupervised. America, as well as England, have to take drastic steps to protect the most important freedom of all: the right to exist without persecution, from anyone least of all from another country. It is the freedom that Al Qaeda are trying to take.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
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.
|
Yeah, and a fine job they are doing of it as well. America would love for regimes that harbour, sponser or otherwise aid terrorism to sort the problem out themselves, but they either can't, or won't. To its infinite credit Pakistan has made so much ground in arresting terrorists, shutting down camps, and helping the US persue bin Laden. But when the next assination attempt on Musharraf succeeds, we'll be back to square 1 i'm sure.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
No cites, then?
|
Name a president/head of any country that would go on record saying that. I certainly wouldnt. The idea is not to show weakness, even if you are feeling it. It is natural while complating any descision like supporting the invaison of Iraq that you would think, is it worth the hassle?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
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".
Balderdash. Just because you don't do X does *not* mean you are "apathetic" about a situation.
|
Inactivity. That means not doing anything. Never has Bush ever said you have to commit troops to Iraq, to be a helpful partner in the war on terror. Like I said before, which you decided to ignore, there are many ways you can fight terror, without involving an army. If you seize $2bn in terrorist assets, i'm sure the US would be pretty happy. If you shut down a terrorist training camp, likewise. Like Xaccers said, even something like a vote on a UN saction is something. Also, don't get confused between the coalition and the war on terror. The coalition is made up of solely for ousting Saddam, but the war on terror, there is much you can do to help without invading any country.
If you dont do X or Y about a situation, that doesn't make you apathetic, but if you don't do anything, at all, then whats the point if you care, or you don't? You might as well not care. Actions speak louder than thoughts,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
If you think I'm going to be impressed by this sort of baiting (with sneering undertones), you are sadly mistaken.
|
I'm not sneering, i'm genuinely interested (as I am with most liberals) in understanding their point of view fully. I may not agree with it, and I may even want to debate it, but I still respect it, and want to understand what you think about things.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
JOOI, if it is such a "reasonable enough" question, how come you have already got it wrong twice?
|
Well you manage to avoid giving me an answer again. Congratulations. It is a reasonable question, but as I still haven't got an answer out of you, I can only guess, can't I? The fact I keep guessing wrong means i'm more interested in what you feel the US should do. Everyone has a slightly different answer, and they are all as valid as each other, although obviously, some would be more successful than others. So it's no suprise I can't guess exactly how you feel, or what you'd do. My failure to guess your response would be be due to the fact you don't give a lot (anything?) away. At the moment, it seems like you care, but you haven't said you would do anything specifically. That is semi-appeasement. If you don't do anything you allow terrorists to flourish, which is almost as bad as aiding them.
On a separate note, we (you?) may want to calm this down, or it'll just get closed/posts deleted. Keep debates in the right spirit.