-
Posts
-
The thing is – unlike MR B and BM – I don;t need to go to a gaggle of links to “French” ffs links or Guardian writers links – I can form my own opinions
I dont paste and copy big words out of articles as you do then think yourself clever .Fascist , commie , etc etc they are just words – they don’t mean anything – or they mean deifferent things to different people
You live in a fantasy world – there will never ever be world peace – because people are so different – there will always be war , killings , muggings rapes etc
I take the view of an eye for an eye
You mamby pamby liberal human rightists think everyone should be wrapped up in cotton wool
There are evil people about – no amount of social workers , liberals , human rights activists will change them
Torture them , flog them , hang them or whatever – the world will be a better place without them !!!The purpose of posting part of the article on torture from the Human rights Watch website was to support the opinion that I had already expressed. It backs up everything that I said 100%. It proves that the adoption of torture as routine practice would not be an effective strategy for us.
Clearly you are a fascist if you don’t believe in human rights, you support systematic torture, and the idea of an omnipotent, authoritarian state that can violate laws and treaties when it sees fit. You say the word fascist means nothing but the definition is clear in any dictionary and you fit the description perfectly.
I don’t live in a fantasy world, I just don’t want to live in a barbarian society. Seriously, the idea of an eye for an eye is just stupid and the world would be a much worse place if everyone thought like you. Saudis murdered innocent civilians in New York so, according to your thinking, New Yorkers should go to Saudi Arabia and murder Saudi civilians. It’s utterly ridiculous. All your points on this issue are nonsensical.
As the article said, most of the human rights treaties that we refer back to today were created after WWII. It’s absurd to suggest that world leaders of that era were “namby-pamby liberals”. The purpose of the treaties was to try to stop the inhumanity and atrocities that were carried out during the war. Hitler killed 10 million people in his camps. The Japanese carried out horrific crimes in Asia. Are you seriously suggesting that Bin laden poses a bigger threat than the Axis powers did?
Fortunately, most people are civilised enough to understand that a policy of systematic torture and the abrogation by a government of constitutions, treaties, court decisions, human rights, etc. would be a retrograde step for society. It would take a country back to the Dark Ages. If you want to live in a country like Pinochet’s Chile and if you want endless wars and civil unrest then support for these kind of fascist measures will get you there.
Ask yourself why we have wars. Is it because of liberals or is it because of chauvinists, hawks and other types of hardliners. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a single war started by a liberal, democratic, government. It does suggest that Drivel’s way of thinking is the problem.
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
…Ask yourself why we have wars. Is it because of liberals or is it because of chauvinists, hawks and other types of hardliners.
I did ask myself …. and the answer was that it IS because of liberals with their namby pamby tree-hugging ways. They prance about on their moral high ground until somebody just HAS to knock them off it.
THAT is how wars start !!!
I’d consider myself a Liberal.
Im not “against” war however. If the War is just and has to be fought, then I’m not against it. I wasnt against enterting Afganistan, but I sure as hell was against them invading Iraq illegally, and Im against all the Fascist tactics employed by the Americans with us backing them up as Cheerleaders.
On a sidenote let’s hope for a victory from the “liberal’s” in the US Senate and House of Rep elections today. A good victory for the Democracts in both or even in one of them could cut Bush’s ball’s off, and make him a lame duck President. The Democrats could also push for a withdrawal of of our troops and an inquest into the disgraceful invasion of Iraq.Yes and maybe they should have Hilary Clinton as President into the bargain.
(Do you suppose that she would offer blow jobs to all her fit male staff – after all it sems to be a family tradition).
It would be interesting and not to mention historic if the Clintons returned to the Whitehouse. I think Hillary would have a good chance of winning if she ran alongside Wesley Clark because it would sway some Republicans who think Democrats are soft on the security issue. Obama would make a good running-mate too because he has charisma and is popular.
The Mid Terms mean nothing…watch the results!
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
The purpose of posting part of the article on torture from the Human rights Watch website was to support the opinion that I had already expressed. It backs up everything that I said 100%. It proves that the adoption of torture as routine practice would not be an effective strategy for us.
What a load of bollox Mr B – you read the article first then published enippets of it on here – as if it was your idea
You are incapable of formimg your own opinons – hence the many linksI am not advocating state torture -as the norm – but in times of terrorism – then it has it’s uses
Suppose someone was going to plant a bomb in your local cafe – wher you read your daily Guardian – I bet you wouldnt mind someone being tortured if it saved your life
You’re really clutching at straws now Drivel. If you look at when I made my first post on this topic it was the 5th of October. I didn’t look up the torture issue on HRW until I heard about their report about Britain’s torture policy on the news. The report was only published on the 2nd of November. You can also see that when I did quote from the HRW website I actually said so and put the quotations within quotation marks. Obviously, this was too difficult for you to understand.
This thread relates to America’s use of torture which you fully support. If you give the government the green light to torture terrorism suspects they will do it, not only in time critical situations but as a matter of routine. They will also torture the wrong people as has already been proven and the use of torture will lose the battle of hearts and minds in particular when mistakes are made. You should also take into account that the use of torture is unconstitutional in america and violates the convention against torture. So you can’t give them the right to torture suspects.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!