Terrorist/criminal human rights
Posted by: Rasher on 03 July 2007
quote:
Rasher
I'd argue that just when it seems most desperately necessary to ignore human rights for a greater good - is exactly when a Nation needs most to cleave to them unwaveringly.
Deane
I understand the need for calm insofar as we don't want lawless chaos, but taking an extreme case like Zimbabwe & Robert Mugabe, surely for the sake of the countless lives the man and his regime must be overthrown at any cost. His rights surely cannot be considered alongside the rights of those starving and dying as a result of him. He can be treated as a human being
after he has been removed and all efforts have been made for aid for the country, but certainly not before.
In the case of terrorists, priorities have to be considered and their rights have to be pretty far down the list. Far more important are the lives of the innocent. Maybe this is where it has all gone wrong; that we see the rights of the criminal as equal priority to the rights of the victims, and this has led us to wish that they didn't have any rights at all.
Read this and explain to me how you could possibly feel so inclined to consider the rights of this scum. I don't think I could, and to be honest, I wouldn't want anyone else to either.
Posted on: 10 July 2007 by Phil Barry
The Bible as I know it teaches us to destroy 'Amalek', an ancient tribe which refused hospitality to the Hebrews when they wandered in the desert and even ambushed and killed some of the weakest of the Hebrews. IIRC, Jews were commanded to remember Amalek so as to wipe it/them out of the world's memory.
[I've often wondered how one can both remember and forget the same thing. I don't think it's a koan. But that's besides the point. ]
I've heard some Jews say that so-and-so is actually a descendant of Amalek, so he should be destroyed, along with all his followers.
The point here is that biblical violence is not irrelevant - it's being used today to justify oppressing fellow human beings, and the Bible is recognized as a source for Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.
Makes one wish for an alternative...Hinduism? Um...I had a lunch with an Indian today, which would have been delightful had it not been for his disdain for Pakistan and Pakistanis. Buddhism? The monasteries in China and Japan created armies for 'self-defense'.
As for collateral damage, my President simply doesn't believe in the 600,000+ figure for Iraqi civilian deaths. US media don't report Iraqi civilian deaths, except in unusual cases. I guess they don't believe the count of the dead with the dead people's confirmed testimony.
US media do report insurgent body counts - I guess body count must have been a metric that revealed real progress in previous wars.
Regards.
Phil (whose memory of military metrics predates 1965)
Posted on: 10 July 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:
Originally posted by Phil Barry:
[QUOTE]
As for collateral damage, my President simply doesn't believe in the 600,000+ figure for Iraqi civilian deaths.
Yes, Bush says its only 40,000 bless him.
quote:
US media don't report Iraqi civilian deaths, except in unusual cases. I guess they don't believe the count of the dead with the dead people's confirmed testimony.
The figure of 650,000 deaths was the result of an independent survey whose methodology has been verified as being correct.
Posted on: 11 July 2007 by Don Atkinson
quote:
The Whitehouse and the Pentagon both believe it is sometimes permissible to bomb civilians only they call it 'Collateral damage'. 650,000-750,000 civilians killed in iraq.
Can you confirm that this is the number of Iraqi civilians accidentally killed during American bombing during the war in Iraq.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 11 July 2007 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Can you confirm that this is the number of Iraqi civilians accidentally killed during American bombing during the war in Iraq.
Don
What do you accept "confirm" to mean in the context of that question? I mean, you'd have to admit that it's a bloody mess in Iraq at the moment, so where is authoritative source of any such figure - other than the deaths of military personnel?
Deane
Posted on: 11 July 2007 by Rasher
It would appear that IBC are the main accepted source of compiled figures for this, and their methodology is
here.Trouble is, no matter what they say, they have an agenda, so that has to be considered. I think that is about as accurate as it gets, but it still doesn't mean much. I'm not sure that actual figures are necessary as
any civilian deaths are unacceptable.
I still fail to comprehend why no-one has yet bumped-off GWB. The Americans used to be quite good at it. It would send out a good message on behalf of the American people.
(Okay, I'm only joking - I'm not seriously suggesting murder before you all get on to me).
Posted on: 11 July 2007 by Deane F
Actually, I suspect that Don might be trying to make a point about how the civilians died - ie: not by bombing...
Posted on: 11 July 2007 by acad tsunami
Posted on: 11 July 2007 by acad tsunami
It is amazing how many videos on
YouTube get 'disappeared'. It must be something to do with democracy.
Posted on: 12 July 2007 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by acad tsunami:
Looks like the invasion has been a great success then.
It's been a disaster.
Apparently though, as Mike Lacey keeps saying, I can sleep safely in my bed because there are men willing to do violence.
Posted on: 15 July 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
I think I said it to you once, Deane; another context but what the hey.
Glad my point was remembered.
Mike
PS - I think you'll find Erik was being ironic...
Posted on: 15 July 2007 by Deane F
Really though Mike, these men ready to do violence just follow orders. The chain of command is unbroken and it ultimately rises to somebody outside of that Army (in a democracy). Soldiers can have whatever agenda they like - but their actions are extensions of government in all cases.
