Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@emmalush wrote:
@slayer wrote:
I LISTENED to the whole interview and whilst I am no supported of Blair, he was quite categoric in what he said and the stance of the government- the reported was a complete pr/at who continually harped on with a question because Blair wouldn’t actually use the word “yes”
Why are you looking for a cheap argument?
Did blair say he agreed with sadam being executioned? NO.
The reporter asked him a question, and blair started crying, looking for cheries hand to hold and wishing his mommy was there to wipe his nose.
WHY? Because new labour dont agree with that part of the democraticly elected “government” they have in Iraq, and he knows full well if he did and say so, he would have to allow it here because 68% of us want it too.
So, his “hypocrisy” is to oppose the death sentence in Britain and in Iraq? Where did you get the 68% from? You probably don’t realize but you can’t be part of the EU if you have the death penalty. It’s foolish to support the death penalty.
He said he didn’t support the death penalty but he did it in a very vague way. It was a politician’s response because he didn’t want to upset Washington or the Iraqi government.
Considering that he confessed and that he plead guilty and considering what he was planning to do, I think 40 years is a fair sentence.
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.
Well, I’m positive that the violence will get worse if he’s executed because it will be seen as the shia/kurdish government executing a sunni leader. It will aggravate sectarian tensions. If Saddam were to be given a life sentence then he would be held by the Iraqis and so there would be no hijackings or attacks against us, especially if we get our troops out soon. It’s not that he doesn’t deserve to die, but I don’t think Iraq could cope with the repercussions of his execution.
What is obscene about this whole affair is that Rumsfeld and Cheney were helping Saddam in the 1980s but they will never be held to account for the role they played in arming and financing Saddam.
I think being happy about the death sentence is a short-sighted view. It will make him a martyr and it will probably be the tipping point that pushes the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds into civil war. It seems obvious to me that the situation will deteriorate badly in the run-up to his execution and in the wake of his execution. I don’t think the Iraqi government nor the american government have a plan on how to cope with the aftermath, but that’s not surprising considering how hopeless america’s planning has been so far. The death penalty shouldn’t have been part of the new iraqi constitution, that would have enabled a life sentence which would have less of an impact than the execution of saddam. It is clear to me that things in Iraq are bound to get much worse.
The article I provided a link for completely undermines your claims about the need to fight fire with fire. Since you obviously didn’t read it I’ll post an excerpt:
<<In the 1950s, France’s war against the rebels in Algeria was distinguished by extraordinary savagery. Torture and disappearances were widespread. Gen. Jacques Massu, a French commander in Algiers, said that torture was a “cruel necessity.” Yet France was subsequently forced out of Algeria, not least because its brutal tactics turned ordinary Algerians against its rule.
Only much later did Massu change his mind. In 2000, he told Le Monde, “Torture is not indispensable in time of war, we could have got along without it very well.” He said that France should officially admit its policies of torture and condemn them: “I think that would be a good thing. Morally torture is something ugly.”2
(Interestingly, even some in the Pentagon have acknowledged the failure of the torture policy, with reference to abuses by French forces in Algeria. In 2003, shortly after U.S. forces arrived in Baghdad, the Pentagon organized a screening of Gillo Pontecorvo’s The Battle of Algiers, with a flier which put Pontecorvo’s famous movie in perspective. The Defense Department flier summed up the message: “How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas.”)>>
The article also points out how the military juntas of latin america used national security as an excuse to carry out torture.
Bad Manners is right, if you fight fire with fire then you turn Britain into a state that carries out state-terror. So what is the purpose of the “war on terror” if you want to be terrorized by both the state and by the terrorists?
It’s clear to me now Drivel that you don’t just want to torture suspected terrorists you want to torture all suspected criminals. There have been countless miscarriages of justice and countless cases where people have made false allegations against people e.g. the Hamiltons, John Leslie, Craig Charles, Matthew Kelly etc. so it proves that your viewpoint is totally illogical. You most certainly are a fascist if you believe suspected criminals should have no rights at all. The critical flaw in your argument is your failure to realize that mistakes and abuse of power are not as rare as you naively assume them to be.
Emma they played the recording during the BBC documentary. If I remember correctly it was at the party meeting in Yorkshire where Griffin suggested that people should kill muslims before they themselves get killed by muslims.
What’s funny about the BNP defence is that they had some idiot dressed up as the Pope holding a banner saying “selective prosecutions”. As if the Pope could be prosecuted by the CPS for a lecture he gave in Germany. He’s not British and he wasn’t in the UK. That in itself is ridiculous enough but the Pope was quoting a statement made by a mediaeval emperor in the wake of the siege of Constantinople in the context of a wider theological discussion. He didn’t endorse those opinions in any way. It shows how desperate the BNP are.
You can’t immediately converse fluently in a foreign language just because you go to live in a foreign country. It takes time and sometimes you will have to revert to your native tongue. You also won’t understand every single word that foreigners say to begin with. English isn’t the easiest language in the world to learn if you’re a foreigner and if your native language belongs to a different language group.
@emmalush wrote:
@Mr Bigstuff wrote:
I think parents need to take more responsibility over their kids behaviour and those that can’t handle their kids should be given support.
What kind of support?
It would also help to have more police on the streets or at least PCSOs or wardens or some kind of visible deterrent.
More police yes, but new labour have taken them of catching non monetry crims in favour for car crimes such as no tax or insurance. Are you going to write a letter to blair and ask him to change his mind :D
There are too many feral teenagers causing havoc in our communities.
If only the kind of people in power you support generally would do what you want…
I think there should be a photo database of every resident within a borough held by the local council. That way, if cctv picks up an incident, or if someone witnesses/is a victim of a crime, then the database can be searched and a suspect can be found.
Why should those non victims or perpretrators of crime have one, surely it should be voluntary, not forced in a dictatorship manner.
We definately need you monitory you incase you commit a crime :wink:
If parents can’t cope with their kids then there should be specialist help organisations they can easily turn to to give them counselling. Some kids are out of control despite the best efforts of their parents to discipline them.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be actual police officers, if there was a visible authority presence on the streets then it would deter kids from behaving anti-socially and it would cut down street robbery because you’re not going to rob someone when there’s a person there who could stop you.
The town hall already has your details so why not add a photo for every resident. I think it would help because it would facilitate the identification process for people involved in loutish or criminal behaviour in public. Instead of putting photos in newspapers or making e-fits you could just search the council database for a matching face. Then you could question the person and try to establish if it really was him/her.
