Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Hello? Did you *READ* the link I posted where I pointed out how we were one of the *first* countries who signed up to the ECHR in 1951???
|
Hello. I did read it, yes. It also has no relevence to what we are talking about. I don't suppose back in 1951 they thought much about 21st century muslim-vs-west terrorism. Regardless we are tied in, and bound by whatever descisions it makes, Ms. Phillips was just warning against possible descisions it makes in the future, that could reduce the impact we have on the war on terror.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Bottom line, this the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Popularity", aka the Emperor's New Clothes...
|
Understanding what an author is trying to say, whatever that may be is a fallacy is it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Sorry? "Reading the Guardian"? (is this meant to be an insult?!). I don't read the Guardian. In fact I don't *read* any of the Broadsheets or Tabloids. However I *do* read articles that have been written in any or all of them which turn up in searching google etc (and, no, I *don't* just read the ones I agree with!!)
|
No it isn't. I do have friends that read it, and they are hardly ELF-members, so I don't mean it as an insult. (See last comment). I did however thought it was a pretty safe bet, bearing in mind it aligns itself with many beliefs you do voice about. People generally, (not entirely, I know) tend to read media that believes in the same things they do. If you don't, great. If you do, great. Doesn't matter to me in the slightest to me what you read.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Oh well *that's* a devastating counter...!!!
|
Well it wouldn't be to you, being the non-liberal person you are then.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
You are engaging in a classic case of wishful thinking!
|
America stopping a terrorist attack is wishful thinking? Of course, I do wish they would stop the next attack planned on their soil, or any of their overseas interests, including soldiers. It's natural to assume sooner or later one will get through, but doesn't mean we can't hope for anyway.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
How do you *KNOW* that they were terrorists? What *proof* do you have? What happens if and when they turned out (like many of the Guantanamo Bay captives have) to be poor buggers who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time?
|
I don't know, but it's not my job to either. It is for the security services to decide that. I can probably guess what you'll say in response, but they don't go round shooting everyone that looks semi-arabic in case they commit an act of terrorism. They would, from time to time, through informants (Those vital muslims that we can't win this battle without) get clear cut information about a terrorist and pass it on. It would be naive to think that mistakes in intelligence don't happen, but does that mean they shouldn't try at all?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Do you *really* think that their country-folk are going to say "oh well, the US wanted to be secure, so they were justified in killing innocents, just to be on the safe side"...???
|
I don't suppose they would be too happy about it, and I don't think the majority would understand the position the US are in either, because save for few incidents, they haven't been in the same position. Iraqis are starting to find out what it is like to be on the recieving end of terrorism, and have the chance to feel like Americans feel.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
I think you've just managed to contradict yourself in a spectacular fashion here!
Liberties *SHOULD* be a human right, yes, absolutely. Everyone deserves to be free, yes, definitely. Countries have to *fight* to maintain it, 100% agreement!!
If, however, those that run your country say that "to keep you safe, you're going to have to give up some liberties" it's beholden to the people to look very carefully at *WHAT* they are giving up and think whether the temporary safety that that may give is *worth* the loss. They also need to think about how easy it will be to get those liberties *back* afterwards. If they don't think about this, they don't deserve those liberties in the first place.
Which was exactly the point that Ben Franklin was trying to make.
|
In a perfect world, everyone would have all the rights they are due. Unfortunately it isn't. Rights also have priorities, as they are attached to human needs. First of all is right to security. The right to privacy would be nice, and we should have it, but (I know i'm being a bit presumptuous), but people would accept a reduced right to privacy to help protect what most people consider the most important, security. Yes, human right #5 is being eroded to help protect #1. This has been happening for a while, of course, as security services have been monitoring us for decades, and closer to home, in the last few years CCTV has been helping to reduce crime, and increase prosecutions, but i'd sure most people would see this as "using a sprat to catch a mackerel"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
And *why* has Big Brother not taken over? Because there are those, like me, who have stood up and said "hang on a minute, we want some *strong* controls over what happens with these cameras. We want to make sure that those who use these systems do *NOT* abuse them by violating our privacy"!
|
I can only speak for myself, but I don't mind being videoed at Tescos if it helps them capture shoplifters and reduce costs. If the MI-5 want to read my e-mail I just sent to my friend asking him if he wants to out this saturday, in order to protect England from terrorist attacks, then I personally dont mind. This is subjective, I know I have nothing to hide, so I don't mind. I'm more worried about my personal security, than my e-mails. As you have said, you see this as unacceptable. Fine, that's your prerogative. Until we find a better way, which maintsins all human rights to their fullest, we have to make do. (If you do know a way of achieving this, that the powers that be have missed, be sure to drop them a line. *giggles* Sorry, couldn't resist.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Sorry? Where did I use the word "idiot"? (Re-reads previous message) Oh, it appears I didn't.
|
You didn't say it, but you inferred it. By saying I don't know what i'm talking about, you are calling me an idiot, effectively. Incidently, I do know what you are saying, I just happen to disagree.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
If you are determined to make a fool of yourself, that's your perogative. However asserting that you appear to have no idea what you are talking about is *NOT* the same as "calling you an idiot". Accusing someone of "getting personal" when they are not is foolish.
|
If I don't have the intelligence to understand what i'm saying, then surely that makes me an idiot? I'm foolish? Maybe. Incidently, mis-spelling prerogative is rather foolish too.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
BTW I believe this is your rope.
|
It is? Well, if you say so then.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
And again you reveal you have no idea what you are talking about, because I am *NOT* a "left winger". You assumed this based on no facts and, regrettably, have made yourself look foolish again.
|
Not that you can be easily misrepresented of course? Everyting you have said in this thread that i've read nicely fits into the left-wing mindset. You sound more left-wing, than most people I know that call themselves left-wing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
If you look at the "Political Compass" thread that was on here a while back, you'll find that my politics are virtually dead centre, but *strongly* libertarian.
|
Good for you, then.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Yes, I'm well aware that there are (all too many) people out for whom the concept of presumption of innocence is a lost idea, however those who administer justice in this country *ARE* still aware of its existance and *WILL* stand up for it and I wholeheartedly support them.
|
I doubt supporting judges will make much difference. It is public opinion you really need to change. That has the effect we were talking about long before judges get involved.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
|
I was talking about the rights of Americans.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
|
70 years ago is recent is it? America has progressed a lot in the 20th century, as events in 1934, 1973 and 1990 show.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
|
Since when is segregated education = no education? And where does it say the government is suppressing education for anyone?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
|
While the PATRIOT act has reduced the right to privacy, it hasn't affected any of the other human rights that the US want to protect. Like I said before, right to privacy was always going to have to be compromised to protect the others (in no particular order: right to security, practice religion, free speech, etc). This has been happening long before Al Qaeda were formed, and was necessary to protect its citizens from domestic crime. Al Qaeda aren't helping, but I wouldn't call it a victory either
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
As opposed to regimes that sponsor "brave freedom fighters"?
Colombia, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Israel, Chile, El Salvador: All have had or still have terrorists (sorry, freedom fighters!) supported by the USA!!!
http://www.bookmasters.com/clarity/b0023.htm |
I thought we were talking about middle-eastern communities dealing with the problem of middle-eastern terrorism. Who the US support, for whatever reason (and normally there is a good reason, like Afghan Freedom Fighters, like bin Laden, were supported to help defeat the communist threat. But that is a discussion for another thread).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
No cites, then. No proof. No evidence, just supposition and opinion.
|
Forgive me, I thought it was a forum. I was also under the impression, it is a place where people can voice their opinions.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
Thank you, I am aware of what the word means. However I don't think you are quite aware of what it *implies*, especially in a context such as this.
|
No implies about it. As i've said before, there is a difference between not doing anything, and invading a country. Bush has even said exlicitly, you don't have to invade a country with them to prove you aren't supporting terror, but do something non-violent instead. It doesn't matter what, so long as it is something.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
However this is rubbish.
|
Says you. But caring doesn't make the world a better place. Doing some sort of action, might.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
And when someone says "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." there is a strong implication that anyone who doesn't do the things that the USA likes is going to suffer.
That, however, does *NOT* mean that they are either "apathetic" about terror, nor that they are *pro* terror.
|
If you don't do something the USA likes, the US won't be too pleased with you, but invading countries isn't the only support Bush wants. He has said that in the quote you posted. There are more ways of fighting terrorism than just invading countries.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
In which case I first suggest you understand that I am not a "Liberal" any more than I am a "Left-Winger". Secondly I suggest you understand that, as I have said many times before, it is not necessary or obligatory to provide an alternative course of action simply because you disagree with a course that has been proposed.
|
Alright fine, if you say you aren't a left-wing/liberal person, than fine you aren't. No-one said you had to provide and answer, I merely asked for one. It isn't an unreasonable request, but i'm not going to waste anymore time asking.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
I could have sworn someone just said "I'm not sneering, i'm genuinely interested", yet then they come up with a comment like this...!
|
I am genuinely interested in what actions you'd take. I really wouldn't ask, or even ask as much, if I wasn't interested. I wouldn't throw them back in your face either.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
No, it is not a reasonable question. I have the right to object to a course or policy *without* needing to solve the problem as the price of that objection.
|
You don't need to solve anything, least of all a something that is not your job to solve. I merely asked if you had a better course of action, kindly would you share it with the rest of us. If you don't have a better idea, you should at least say so (although you are under no obligation to. Would be nice though).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
This is such utter nonsense that I won't even dignify it with a response.
|
Alright.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
And once again my solicitors, Messers Pott and Kettle-Black pay us a visit.
|
Regardless of what you may think, I don't intend to go round insulting everyone that posts on forums. I may sail a bit close to the wind sometimes, but I try not to actually insult anyone personally, directly. And I have to you, then i'm sorry. It is not my interest into flinging insults. This is supposed to be a debate of ideas, not each other.