[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

Obvious to me. I think it is very obvious, because how quickly I thought of the EUCOHR. Like I said wether it is obvious to you or not, doesn't really matter

Originally Posted by Graham

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...!!!

Not at all. Obvious to me. As I said before, I don't even know if i'm right, so I can't imply that you are not. Of course, you have the right to differnt opinions. In fact it would be rather dull if you didn't. (Although the fun seemed to have got sucked out of this thread a while ago)

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

You do read into things a bit too far. I never said you read the Guardian exclusively, I merely said you have read it before.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

It might be wishful thinking, that they will spot every terrorist before they attack, but they do swear an oath to protect this country, so they must do their best. I don't see how justifying killing a terrorist preparing to attack (Don't forget this only applies to suicide bombers who can explode at any time. Any other terrorists would be arrested and interrogated)

Originally Posted by Graham

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!

Just because the tabloids would have a field day over it, doesn't mean to say I would. For all we know they could have been trying to blow up a Saudi mall (or Israeli civilians). However, it was known to the world that there are terrorists bred from the middle east that want to kill civilians in the west, so it isn't hard to believe when it happens. West on east, civilian on civilian violence is less common, and as such would raise more eyebrows.

Originally Posted by Graham

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*!

Well I thought it was. "I would do X, Y and X, but not A because..." looks like an opinion to me.

Originally Posted by Graham

Again, therefore, you made a wrong assumption.

In a debate you have to assume what answers people will come back with when you ask a question. But in the end, in this case, it hardly matters, if I assumed you would come back with a hardline argument or a Moore-styled 'humourous' one.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

It highlights, that there will never be enough security to protect against terrorists, when civil liberties are involved. You can't strip search everyone, but that doesn't mean they can't try and stop a terrorist anyway.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

What assumption? You say it doesn't make sense, but don't explain why either.

Originally Posted by Graham

I somehow don't think that the people *being* terrorised care much about *who* is doing the terrorising!!

Not to a point, but there is a big difference. People can avoid tyrant's wrath, by doing what he says (That's why the remain in power so many years), with civilian terrorism, people will be killed for merely being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hopefully, soon, Iraq will have neither.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

Like I said, to help him remain in power, and carry on what he has been doing for 30 years.

Originally Posted by Graham

OT? I think you mean OTT!!!

America removing Saddam and the sanctions is over-the-top is it? Well, maybe but both have still happened, and Iraw is better for it.

Originally Posted by Graham

On the contrary, I think it's something he's *counting* on to get him re-elected!!

Maybe but it is getting a bit OT

Originally Posted by Graham

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*!!

Not nothing, but they were restricted. In fact nothing has really changed, because the terrorists have got more sophisticated, along with the security services.

Originally Posted by Graham

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*.

Yes, but you do seem to be more preoccupied with sending emails to people unread, than you are about being blown apart. I think you need to adjust your priorities

Originally Posted by Graham

ROFLALALAL!!! There's a word for that sort of thing...!!

I should imagine there is, and don't say "babbling", either.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

Well, maybe when the threat of terrorism is so low that they have time to read emails about people buying bondage toys, then we'll worry about it then shall we?

Originally Posted by Graham

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...!

MI-5 are hardly like the German SS or the Feyedeen (or whatever Iraqi's secret police was called). For one, the government still holds MI-5 accountable, unlike Qusay Hussein (He ran the secret police, not Saddam)

Originally Posted by Graham

ROFL! Oh what a *wonderful* definition you have of "subversive"!



You *keep* assuming that I have called you an idiot when I have not!!

Err, thank you. Same as everyone elses I thought. If you really haven't called me an idiot, then fine, you haven't.

Originally Posted by Graham

Ignorance != Idiocy!

Oh great, so I am ignorant am I? Because that is so much better.

Originally Posted by Graham

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!!

Yeah, I walked into that one. However, I ignored all your other spelling/grammatical errors, and typos, right up until the point you start to insult me.

Originally Posted by Graham

The point was that the US is quite content to ignore human rights violations when it is politically useful for their cause.

America has its hands full with what it is doing, let alone going round to find ALL other countries and effecting regime change on them because they won't allow girls into school. It is not the job of the US, it is the job of one of the single most useless organisations ever, the UN. They are supposed to be finding out human rights abuse, they are supposed to fixing them. Are they heck.

Originally Posted by Graham

Oh, well *that* makes it all right then...!!

Doesn't make it alright, but proves your argument doesn't carry any weight. On paper 1934 doesn't seem like a long time ago, but think back to how life was so different back then. It is much further in people's minds than it is on a calender.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

And in this country certain members of the public want to do it too. Ususally the ones who vote BNP...

The government isn't forcing it to happen, it is happening naturally. Incidently, white people do live in Tower Hamlets as well as black people, so they still have to go to the same school.

Originally Posted by Graham

Opinion or fact?

Opinion, but i'm sure if research was done into it, it would probably confirm that. From what I rememeber back at my school (Not that long ago, I am only 22), you could basically divide the classroom with one cut and separate it into whites and non-whites. Noone forced the kids to do this, but they choose it naturally (open seating).

Originally Posted by Graham

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".

Like I said, white people have to live in Tower Hamlets too. And Toxteth. And Byker, so it isn't as simple as you think to divide races by geographic position.

Originally Posted by Graham

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."

Yeah, but the government isn't doing it to ALL schools. They are only doing it in the southern ones, as the article describes ("bible belt"). Since the civil war, governments may change, but people's opinions still don't. I go to Florida a lot, and still see the rebel "dixie" flag everywhere.

Originally Posted by Graham

You *hope*?! You'd better bloody hope so, because otherwise you've lost an important right for *NOTHING*.

It has already saved lives. You don't reailse how many terrorist attacks get foiled that you don't hear about. It has been suggested that they stop attacks on the scale of Madrid every week, not every 5 years. The fact that lives have been saved, even if it is a few, makes it worth it in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Graham

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...

Not so. Like I said before, if someone orders bomb making ingredients, and the government doesn't find out by intercepting his invoice, then, the first they will hear about it, is when he detonates it. Unless, someone reports him, and if he is a loner, quite, keeps himself to himself, then who would/could?

Originally Posted by Graham

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!"

Yeah, and?

Originally Posted by Graham

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...

I'm not mistaking anything. I am giving my own opinion, and indispersed with facts whenever I can.

Originally Posted by Graham

Yet another *opinion* stated as *fact*...

You are telling me that the US being the #1 desired target for middle-eastern terrorism, is not a fact? I would say it is pretty obvious, but I don't want to start that up again.

Originally Posted by Graham

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...

Yeah, but the fact was, before the bombing, the Popular party stood a very good chance of re-election. In fact, I seem to rememeber reading they were the favourites. Public opinion has changed somewhat then.