• Meanwhile, in Syria: Syrian Army attacks Rastan indiscriminately with rockets
    47 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ghosevil;35008883]If they gave me the weapon to execute him I would take the karma for the sake of the rest of the world. [editline]5th March 2012[/editline] And by execute, I mean painfully torture him for the last 30 years of his life.[/QUOTE] I really really doubt you're even capable of that. Stop living weird fantasies.
[QUOTE=ghosevil;35008883]If they gave me the weapon to execute him I would take the karma for the sake of the rest of the world. [editline]5th March 2012[/editline] And by execute, I mean painfully torture him for the last 30 years of his life.[/QUOTE] so hardcore and totally not hypocritical
I don't think it’s necessary for me to watch any of those videos after seeing many similar videos from other massacres, getting an idea of what gun shots, shelling and air strikes can do to human beings is really life changing. I remember when I would hear about attacks like these in the past and it would just fly over my head, but now I can’t help but just imagine all the pain and damage they are causing. I really hope there are some protests over here in London and other places to get us to intervene.
fyi human rights don't exist
Hey my only child just got shot lets youtube it.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;35008160]Please pick a number from 1-8000 murders. At which point does it become acceptable to "torture him for the next 30 years of his life.". Are you honestly able to quantify the point when it becomes okay to do so? And who gave you the fucking right to decide in the first place. People in this thread make me sick at their callous disregard for one of the most important cornerstones of modern society.[/QUOTE] I didn't say torture him, just execute him. No one gave me the right, but a lot of Syrians want him dead I imagine, for, you know, butchering civilians.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35021389]I didn't say torture him, just execute him. No one gave me the right, but a lot of Syrians want him dead I imagine, for, you know, butchering civilians.[/QUOTE] And that makes everything okay, does it? [editline]6th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kalibos;35010042]fyi human rights don't exist[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/[/url]
Atrocities require three things. 1. Victims (innocent Syrians in Homs, Aleppo, Damascus, etc.) 2. Butchers willing to kill. (Syrian Armed Forces) 3. Observers and outsiders unwilling to intervene. (Every other nation on earth is fulfilling this role right now.) The US should intervene. But intervening in Syria is not like intervening in Libya. For example, Syria's army is fives times larger than Ghaddafi's was. In addition, Syria has a formidable air defense system that only American air power can take down. To stop the Syrian Governments slaughter would require the cooperation of the U.S. and the E.U. (Also Russia and China would have to be persuaded to allow intervention, although I doubt they would stop an intervention.) Countries like the UK, France, and Turkey would be absolutely essential. It should be noted that Syria has strong relations with Iran. [editline]6th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=CasualJoe;35010117]Hey my only child just got shot lets youtube it.[/QUOTE] What else can they do? The hospitals are no longer functional. Field hospitals are set up in random houses, but they lack basic medical supplies. Videos are a way for the Syrian people to appeal for outside help.
If the FSA vow to try Assad for his crimes (rather than Gaddify'ing him), and forge a secular state, I'll throw my support behind them. That ain't happening anytime soon, however. [QUOTE=smurfy;34991607] Back then I thought about what it would have been like if there had been no intervention, how depressing it would have been to just see Gaddafi roll into Benghazi and slaughter everyone while the rest of the world just went "please stop dude!" Now we're seeing that for real and it's awful, it feels like we've gone back in time and played out an alternate history[/QUOTE] Oh yes! I'm sure anything Gadaffi would do would be a lot worse than the [b]ETHNIC CLENSING[/b] the Islamists are doing in Libya.
[QUOTE=muesli23;35025848]If the FSA vow to try Assad for his crimes (rather than Gaddify'ing him), and forge a secular state, I'll throw my support behind them. That ain't happening anytime soon, however.[/QUOTE] Just shoot him. He won't get a real trial no matter how hard you wish for it to be the case. Furthermore nothing he does is illegal if he makes the laws. You can't find people guilty retroactively after making up new laws. International laws only apply if you sign onto them. The trial will be one long song and dance that is ultimately a waste of money and will inevitably end in his demise. He is a monster. Shoot him and skip the part where they start their country with a complete lie.
[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;35024557][url]http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/[/url][/QUOTE] i'm not going to click it but i'm assuming the letters udhr mean universal declaration of human rights so what can you rationalize the idea that human rights [I]do[/I] exist and not just link me to some dumb UN garbage? what are they? how are they guaranteed? is everyone entitled to them? if not, why? if not, what constitutes the difference between an inalienable right and a privilege? basically what i'm asking in its simplest form is can you prove that human rights (or indeed rights in general) are practically demonstrable and are more than just words?
[QUOTE=Kalibos;35028917]i'm not going to click it but i'm assuming the letters udhr mean universal declaration of human rights so what can you rationalize the idea that human rights [I]do[/I] exist and not just link me to some dumb UN garbage? what are they? how are they guaranteed? is everyone entitled to them? if not, why? if not, what constitutes the difference between an inalienable right and a privilege? basically what i'm asking in its simplest form is can you prove that human rights (or indeed rights in general) are practically demonstrable and are more than just words?[/QUOTE] Human rights do exist and they are established off of the common mores of every free civilized society. According to the philosophy behind many democratic governments including the US, human rights are unalienable and apply to every human being regardless of age, gender, race, or sexual preference. It is the responsibility of governments to ensure that the people's basic rights are respected. Although often governments fail to do so (SYRIA). Human rights are more than just words because the people of many nations have chosen to regard then as more than just words. The ideas behind basic human rights have existed for hundreds of years. The first famous conceptualization of human rights can be traced back to the Magna Carta in 1215. The US Declaration of independence also outlines human rights and famously declares that all men are equal and human rights are self-evident, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Human rights exist because the people of a nation demand so. In nations where the people have little to no power, human rights are paid little to no respect.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;35043702]Human rights do exist and they are established off of the common mores of every free civilized society. According to the philosophy behind many democratic governments including the US, human rights are unalienable and apply to every human being regardless of age, gender, race, or sexual preference. It is the responsibility of governments to ensure that the people's basic rights are respected. Although often governments fail to do so (SYRIA). Human rights are more than just words because the people of many nations have chosen to regard then as more than just words. The ideas behind basic human rights have existed for hundreds of years. The first famous conceptualization of human rights can be traced back to the Magna Carta in 1215. The US Declaration of independence also outlines human rights and famously declares that all men are equal and human rights are self-evident, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Human rights exist because the people of a nation demand so. In nations where the people have little to no power, human rights are paid little to no respect.[/QUOTE] circular argument. they're more than words because they're more than words. i can try my very hardest to will a unicorn into existence but it doesn't mean it will happen two paragraphs and you didn't provide any actual evidence. "rights" are just a concept that people in power tell you you have to make you feel secure. they can be taken away at any time, and that violates the definition of a right - that makes them privileges. for example [quote=United States Declaration of Independence]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.[/quote] if life and liberty are [B]inalienable rights[/B] then... doesn't that mean it shouldn't be possible to kill or incarcerate someone, no matter what? but yet the government has the power to do both
[QUOTE=Kalibos;35078748]circular argument. they're more than words because they're more than words. i can try my very hardest to will a unicorn into existence but it doesn't mean it will happen two paragraphs and you didn't provide any actual evidence. "rights" are just a concept that people in power tell you you have to make you feel secure. they can be taken away at any time, and that violates the definition of a right - that makes them privileges. for example if life and liberty are [B]inalienable rights[/B] then... doesn't that mean it shouldn't be possible to kill or incarcerate someone, no matter what? but yet the government has the power to do both[/QUOTE] Its not circular argument, I didn't say human rights are more than words because their more than words. I said they are more than words because[B] the people of a nation demand[/B] they be enforced. I also pointed out what happens in nations where the people have little to no power. That being said, you are partially right because human rights are a concept and furthermore, human rights are not practically demonstrable because they are a concept not scientific law. You're statement that rights are established only to serve the government is incorrect for the following reasons. Rights can indeed be violated, but the idea is that there is accountability on behalf of the violator. This is why cities shell out millions in police brutality or wrongful arrest lawsuits. This is also why cops charged with official oppression often go to prison. The American govt. has a system of checks and balances to ensure the peoples rights are respected. The Supreme Court and Congress often battle over people's rights. Congress writes legislation that is challenged and disputed by the Supreme court. As long as Americans know they have rights, they can exercise them and hold those who violate them accountable. To answer your question about unalienable rights, I will first say this: In an idea society, the govt wouldn't be able to kill people, outside of war (remember the founder's didn't want our nation to be defenseless, they gave Congress war powers). In reality civilian or police self defense is high priority and it is acceptable to take someones life who wishes to take yours. another However, what does the govt. do with a citizen who wishes to infringe upon another's unalienable rights? The current form of punishment is incarceration, but in America we developed the (once) revolutionary concept of rehabilitation. The idea being that a convict can be removed from the general populace then reintroduced. Even though, this punishment does indeed technically suppress the right to liberty, the idea is that a offender can have full liberty returned. There are convicts who are deemed impossible to rehabilitate. In this case, it is my personal thought that they should have their liberty permanently restricted. It is senseless to release someone dangerous to society back into society to endanger others again. Some states execute them, but I am against the death penalty because it involves state and fed authorities killing (sometimes innocent) people, violating there unalienable right to life which, unlike Liberty, is unrestorable. TL;DR-We have to punish criminals somehow, so better to restrict their liberty because it is restorable, rather than kill them. The gov't can kill people we are a war with, or people who are depriving others of their right to life provided there are people in imminent danger.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.