Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
I never said it was a fact.
|
No, you said (I 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."
I've already pointed out that this is not as obvious as you think it is.
Quote:
|
Being as i've never spoken to Ms Phillips, I don't even know if i'm right. I merely expressed an opinion as to what she meant. Because the idea came to me readily, it therefore seemed obvious to me. Whatever you thought about it is your own lookout.
|
No, whatever I thought about it is my *opinion*. But your claim was that *your* opinion was "obvious" which rather seems to imply that your opinion is right and mine is wrong, even though you now admit that you "don't even know if you are right"! Oddly, I could have sworn someone was making points about having the right to hold differing opinions somewhere in this thread...!!!
Quote:
|
Actually as you read the Guardian in electronic form, it wasn't an assumption at all, it was a fact that you told us.
|
Now you're reaching again. Yes, I've read *articles* in the Guardian. I've also read articles in the Times, the Telegraph, the News of the World, The Sun and a whole bunch of other papers too.
However the expression "Guardian Reader" (or insert the name of any other newspaper) has the underlying implications that a) it is the *only* newspaper that the person reads and b) that they read it because it agrees with their opinions and prejudices or they agree with its. I do not do either.
Quote:
|
Killing a suicide bomber before he can detonate a bomb, is wishful thinking in stopping a terrorist attack is it? Don't think so. I'd say that would pretty much put an end to it.
|
But that's not what you said. Again I quote your exact words: "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?"
I pointed out that the "wishful thinking" was in identifying them as terrorists *in the first place* and then justifying killing them because of it.
Quote:
|
I think most reasonable muslims, regardless of location, would come to the same conclusions as us; it makes more sense to kill 2 muslims that are planning on killing 500 innocents. The other set, that are convinced America deserves nothing but death, nothing will convince them America is doing the right thing.
|
Now let's look at it from the other point of view. Imagine the following news story: "Two British tourists were shot by security guards in the Middle East because they were believed to be carrying a bomb". Would *you* and "reasonable British people" and the "reasonable"(!) British Press just say "oh, well, that's all right then??? Somehow I don't think so!
Quote:
|
I never said it was your job. Nor have I ever said you had to do anything. I merely asked your opinion.
|
No, and yet again I quote, you asked me " Out of curiousity, if you are the US president, how would you of responded after 9/11 against terrorists?"
That is *NOT* asking for an *OPINION*!
Quote:
|
Like I said before, this is a forum, for an open exchange of opinions.
|
Yes, and I am *STILL* well aware of that fact.
Quote:
|
Actually your response was more muted that I thought you would of came back with.
|
Again, therefore, you made a wrong assumption.
Quote:
|
I'm white, british and I get enough hassle at airports. Arabic people aren't solely targetted.
|
No, but I never said they were.
Quote:
|
Besides, if the US "hassled" Atta a bit, then maybe the twin towers would still be standing.
|
Yet, even *after* the event, at the *height* of the alerts, four British tourists managed to get on a US plane with knives, brass knuckles and stun guns in their baggage!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/1643009.stm
Quote:
|
Oh, I got the impression from the anti-war brigade
|
(Snip of a bunch of *opinions* which are nothing to do with *me*)
Quote:
|
You make it sound like it was worth going in there to get rid of him. Oh yeah, it was.
|
No, I pointed out that your claim that "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." is another nonsensical assumption.
Quote:
|
Anyway, it's a different kettle of fish. We are talking about civillian on civillian terrorism. Specifically Al Qaeda *points to topic*.
|
I somehow don't think that the people *being* terrorised care much about *who* is doing the terrorising!!
Quote:
|
I don't know of many terrorist attacks yielding 3000 deaths that has happened around the world. Most people at this point will come back with "sanctions kill thousands of iraqi children a day". You mean the sanctions that were put in place by the UN to allow a dictator remain in place?
|
Quoting from:
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sanction.htm
"Under Article 41 of the UN Charter, the Security Council may call upon Member States to apply measures not involving the use of armed force in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such measures are commonly referred to as sanctions."
The purpose of UN sanctions is *NOT* to effect regime change.
Quote:
|
Well that evil zionistic imperialist government has removed him, along with the sanctions. A bit OT, but anyway.
|
OT? I think you mean OTT!!!
Quote:
|
Something that Bush hasn't understood yet, is the war on terror will never end.
|
On the contrary, I think it's something he's *counting* on to get him re-elected!!
Quote:
|
*Pardons Graham*. You do mind, and that's your choice. Incidently, i'm not the ostrich, for realising that MI-5 are powerless to stop anything, without infringing our civil liberties.
|
Ah, so for all those years they've been operating *without* the new powers they've been giving that violate our civil liberties, they've actually acheived *NOTHING*!!
Quote:
|
I'm the one that can see the problem in the future. It is a very big problem, and it's one that means the security services will need to keep on doing these type of things to remain on the heels of terrorists.
|
Yes, and I'm the one who can see the problem in the future that our very precious liberties are being eroded and that affects *EVERYONE*.
Quote:
|
And why should they monitor me? Because tomorrow, I could meet a mulism guy, he converts me, and I go to the Finsbury Park mosque, (or any by the sound of it), become radicalised and brainwashed and decide to turn England into a islamic theocracy by bombing the countries leaders. If noone tells them i'm going to, how else would they know I would?
|
ROFLALALAL!!! There's a word for that sort of thing...!!
Quote:
|
Do you honestly think that MI-5 have so much time on their hands that they can sit in their offices giggling that Mr X has purchased a bondage toy?
|
Well, yes, if I go by your argument from above "that MI-5 are powerless to stop anything, without infringing our civil liberties"!!
However the point is not that they're going to "giggle" about it, but that that information could be used to put pressure on someone because they may not *want* that information about their private life revealed.
Quote:
|
And the security services have to suspect everybody,
|
I have no problems with them "suspecting everybody" *provided* they do it according to the *laws* and *rights* that we have in place. If they don't, well there are plenty of countries who have had "Security Services" aka "Secret Police" who *don't* worry about those legal niceities. Iraq comes to mind...!
Quote:
|
I doubt you are subverting anyone. You may be pretty aggressive and intense in your beliefs, but you are hardly in the same bracket as Arthur Scargill, Enoch Powell and Abu Hamza.
|
ROFL! Oh what a *wonderful* definition you have of "subversive"!
Quote:
|
I didn't assume anything. You said I don't know what i'm talking about, so that is calling me an idiot.
|
You *keep* assuming that I have called you an idiot when I have not!!
Ignorance != Idiocy!
Quote:
|
But for someone to call me an idiot,
|
*Why* are you obsessing about a word that I never even used?
Quote:
|
but not be able to spell at a GCSE-pass level, is a bit hypocritical? Still, as you said it is not a point for debate.
|
By the way, who was it who said "Out of curiousity, if you are the US president, how would you of responded after 9/11 against terrorists?"
Now whilst I could excuse "curiousity" (which, BTW, does not have a 'u' in it!) as a typo, the use of "how would you *of* responded" instead of "how would you *have* responded", is not a typo and *is* totally inexcusable!!
Quote:
|
Public opinion won't change by supporting judges and hoping for the best, unfortunately. As you said, politicians react to public opinion, and it the public that want to lynch sex offenders before they have had a fair trial.
|
I agree, that is *very* unfortunate.
Quote:
|
Where does it mention the rights of Americans? It merely points out that outside America some countries don't have the religious protection that America has.
|
The point was that the US is quite content to ignore human rights violations when it is politically useful for their cause.
Quote:
|
Anyone old enough to remember what life was like pre-1934 would have to be 85 at least. How many 85+ year old native Americans are there? I bet it is not a lot.
|
Oh, well *that* makes it all right then...!!
Quote:
It is not "no education", it is "diminished education".
|
I suggest you do your own research into the history of America's segregated schooling system and the fact that the Black schools had much poorer facilities than white ones.
Quote:
|
And more to the point, where does it say the government is forcing this to happen? It is the public that are doing this.
|
And in this country certain members of the public want to do it too. Ususally the ones who vote BNP...
Quote:
|
Races naturally feel more comfortable amongst their own, and feel they can learn better that way.
|
Opinion or fact?
Quote:
|
Incidently the Supreme Court descisions it mention aren't explained very well, but it sounds like they are enforcing the catchment-area-style schooling we have here, which has nothing to do with race, but geographic positioning.
|
It is very easy to "arrange" matters so that catchment areas are organised on the basis of race. Especially if people live on the "wrong side of the tracks".
Quote:
|
This is hardly supressing education, but rather educating schoolchildren, [...] the government is just trying to be tolerant.
|
The US Government is *NOT* trying to be tolerant. The US Government is doing this as a matter of *policy*!!
"The abstinence-only message has been pushed hard by conservatives who believe that teaching children about contraception suggests that sex before marriage is acceptable. They have been backed by Congress and in 1996 legislation made available $250 million for teaching abstinence."
Quote:
|
Yeah, and hopefully it will mean terrorist to violate my right to be able to live in a city without being blown apart.
|
You *hope*?! You'd better bloody hope so, because otherwise you've lost an important right for *NOTHING*.
Quote:
|
Until we find a better of finding and catching terrorists without infringing on everyone's civil liberties, then yes there is a "have to" about it.
|
We *do* have those ways already, but the Security Services *always* complain that those ways are "not enough" or make their job "too difficult" and now they have the perfect excuse to push their powers into areas that they wouldn't have been able to before. Areas that the Security Services or Secret Police in other countries like to be able to investigate without anyone looking over their shoulders...
Quote:
So it's OK to support a Freedom Fighter when he's convenient to your cause, but when he doesn't do what you want, then he becomes a Terrorist?
Quote:
|
No, he becomes a terrorist when he tries to kill you. I really don't think the CIA would of cared so much if bin Laden would of refused to fight the Russians, but they did when he starting bombing embassies in Africa.
|
|
Ah, another wonderful definition "A Terrorist is someone who tries to kill you. A Freedom Fighter is someone who tries to kill someone you don't like!"
Quote:
|
Thank you for agreeing with me. Now you can stop chastising me for voicing one.
|
Sigh, I am not "chastising you for voicing an opinion" I am pointing out that you keep mistaking *opinions* for *FACTS*, look, like this one right below...
Quote:
|
Sorry, I forgot to add: "I believe that" in front of that previous sentence. Incidently, If they did believe that, then they would be right, as I posted earlier.
|
I think you forgot to add "I believe that" in front of the words "they would be right"...!!!
Quote:
|
There is a bit of a difference between a typo and not being able to spell, (whilst calling someone that can an idiot.)
|
Yawn. Addressed elsewhere.
Quote:
|
Because it is the US that will feel the repercussions if country-X doesn't do anything, if terrorists are active within its borders.
|
Yet another *opinion* stated as *fact*...
Quote:
|
Also, you are STILL obsessed with war. There are many ways to aid the war on terror without any kind of violence. Freezing accounts, voting, etc.
|
And, yet, if you don't do it in a way that the USA likes, you get accused of "appeasing terrorists" as the (Republican) Speaker of the House of Representatives did when referring to the Spanish people voting to change their government because it didn't listen to *them* when 90% of them said they were *against* the invasion of Iraq...