Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
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
|
No, it doesn't, at least not until the point where you think that your *opinion* carries more weight than someone else's.
Quote:
|
You do read into things a bit too far.
|
Quote:
|
Well I thought it was. "I would do X, Y and X, but not A because..." looks like an opinion to me.
|
Then I suggest you buy a dictionary.
(Snip of lots of stuff that isn't worth bothering with)
Quote:
The purpose of UN sanctions is *NOT* to effect regime change.
Quote:
|
Like I said, to help him remain in power, and carry on what he has been doing for 30 years.
|
|
Wrong *AGAIN*! To "help" someone remain in power is to do something *active*. The purpose of UN Sanctions, as I just pointed out, is "to maintain or restore international peace and security", which is *NOT* the same.
Quote:
|
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
|
And I, in turn, think *you* need to adjust yours! You are *much* more likely to be killed in a road accident than *ever* to die in a terrorist attack (last year more people died on the UK's roads than died in the September 11th attacks!)
Yet because terrorist attacks get headlines and TV news coverage, whilst road accidents (unless very spectacular or bloody) do not, people have a completely mis-guided idea of what risks they *actually* face every day.
Quote:
|
I should imagine there is, and don't say "babbling", either.
|
Actually I was thinking of "paranoid"...!
Quote:
|
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?
|
No, we should worry about it *before* we lose the rights that enable this sort of thing to even *happen*.
Quote:
|
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)
|
Because Qusay Hussein *was* the government as far as the Iraqi secret police were concerned. If *any* government lets their Security Services or Secret Police or whatever you want to call them violate the basic rights of its people *without* being held to account because it's "to protect the state" and the people do not, or cannot hold the government to account, then the whole balance shifts to a situation that does *not* benefit the people.
Quote:
Oh what a *wonderful* definition you have of "subversive"!
Quote:
|
Err, thank you. Same as everyone elses I thought.
|
|
"You thought". Yes, yet again you assume that *everyone* thinks the same as you! Whereas I think you'll find that a lot of people do *not* consider Arthur Scargill or Enoch Powell to be subversives and most certainly should *not* be lumped in with Abu Hamza!!
Quote:
|
If you really haven't called me an idiot, then fine, you haven't.
|
THANK YOU!! (With heavy emphasis)
Quote:
|
Oh great, so I am ignorant am I? Because that is so much better.
|
Yes, actually it is.
Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance. - Confucius
Quote:
|
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.
|
Oh dear. Punky, I *never* insulted you until you resorted to the childish and petty tactic of pedanting a spelling mistake to try to score a point. (I could, if I could be bothered, also argue that "childish and petty" are not insulting, but merely descriptive!)
You have made *numerous* spelling and grammatical errors (not to mention having committed serious acts of abuse against the poor innocent comma!) but I have *not* deemed it fit or necessary to bring these up previously.
I have been willing to leave these alone because for all I know you may be dyslexic, have had learning difficulties, or have English as your second or third language, however when *you* start using these tactics, you should not be surprised if your own shortcomings are pointed out to you.
Quote:
|
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,
|
I think you need to look a bit closer into the US's history of its behaviour towards other countries...!! Columbia, Nicaragua, Chile, Cuba, Grenada...
Quote:
|
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.
|
I suggest you take a closer look at the UN's charter and see what the UN's job actually *IS*. (Oh, BTW, I also suggest you look at the League of Nations that was set up after World War I and see why it failed. Here's a hint, it was because a big country decided that it didn't need to join in. The initials of that country are an anagram of S, U and A...!)
Quote:
|
Doesn't make it alright, but proves your argument doesn't carry any weight.
|
It "proves" nothing of the sort!
Quote:
|
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.
|
<Cough> Northern Ireland <cough>
Quote:
|
The government isn't forcing it to happen, it is happening naturally.
|
Ah, another wonderful word: "naturally". Just as it was "natural" for the "superior" White Race to enslave the "inferior" Black Race...!
Quote:
|
Opinion, but i'm sure if research was done into it, it would probably confirm that.
|
And you were doing so well.
Quote:
|
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).
|
And that was *obviously, of course, in *no way* due to prejudices in society!
When you do research you don't ignore inconvenient facts because they don't fit in with what you want to prove.
Quote:
|
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").
|
I suggest you read it more carefully: "In the "Bible belt" of the South, 55% of school districts had "abstinence-only" policies while the northeast insisted on such curriculum in just 20% of districts."
They are talking about *School districts*, not the government. It is the Government who, in Congress in 1996, passed legislation which "made available $250 million for teaching abstinence."
Quote:
|
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.
|
Suggested by *whom*? Cite please.
I recall not so long ago (January 2003) when we were "saved" from a deadly terrorist attack after "traces of ricin" were found in a London Flat.
"The arrests were being hailed by MI5 as "significant" and confirmation of background intelligence pointing to attempts by terrorist groups linked to al-Qa'eda to acquire biological, chemical or even nuclear weapons."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...%2Fnrici09.xml
Curiously enough, after the initial splash of stories, there seems to have been very little written since about this. Odd.
Quote:
|
The fact that lives have been saved, even if it is a few, makes it worth it in my opinion.
|
That "fact" is not a fact. It is another opinion.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Oh dear, once again you seem to have little idea of what you're talking about. Do you really think that someone's going to just write to an explosives manufactuer and say "ok, I'd like to order a hundred kilos of Semtex, deliver to this address"...??
Any farmer could make a pretty decent bomb with half a tonne of fertilizer, some diesel fuel and a few bags of bolts bought *entirely* legitimately. There are *many* ways of making explosive devices with common chemicals as any chemistry student will tell you. Intercepting people's e-mails will do *NOTHING* to stop this.
Quote:
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!"
|
Gosh, I *wish* I lived in your world where everything is so *clearly* black and white...!!
Regrettably I live in the Real World (tm) where things are a *little* more complicated. Shame.
Quote:
I'm not mistaking anything. I am giving my own opinion, and indispersed with facts whenever I can.
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.
|
But again, you state opinions *as if* they are facts!! Look again at what you wrote:
"Because it is the US that will feel the repercussions if country-X doesn't do anything, if terrorists are active within its borders."
"It *IS* the US that *WILL* feel the repercussions". Not "it is my opinion". Not "I think", you state this as a bald fact.
You then carry on, above, "You are telling me that the US being the #1 desired target for middle-eastern terrorism, is not a fact? " as if that was what you *said* when, in fact, it was not. And, by the way, not *all* Middle-East terrorism is directed against the USA...!
Quote:
|
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.
|
Yes, because the government tried to blame ETA without any reasonable proof and exploit the bombings for political gain, causing a massive backlash.