Obliterating Islamic State (ISIS)

There are no such things as universal human rights,or better,every state has an other definition of human rights :human rights in the US are not human rights in SA.

Human rights are an invention from the Founding Fathers:before them there were no human rights and billions of people prefer to live without these human rights .And that's their right .

If the inhabitants of SA prefer to live under the system that actually is ruling SA, that's is their goddamned right .OTOH they should not complain about this system .

Denying SA the right to execute condemned criminals (as the ex communist EU Foreign Commissioner is doing) ,and denying the new Polish government to appoint new chiefs of the state media (as a German EU commissioner is doing ), is an attack on the sovereignty of SA and Poland .
 
lljadw said:
There are no such things as universal human rights,or better,every state has an other definition of human rights :human rights in the US are not human rights in SA.

Human rights are an invention from the Founding Fathers:before them there were no human rights and billions of people prefer to live without these human rights .And that's their right .

If the inhabitants of SA prefer to live under the system that actually is ruling SA, that's is their goddamned right .OTOH they should not complain about this system .

Denying SA the right to execute condemned criminals (as the ex communist EU Foreign Commissioner is doing) ,and denying the new Polish government to appoint new chiefs of the state media (as a German EU commissioner is doing ), is an attack on the sovereignty of SA and Poland .
Click to expand...

BS, of course we can criticize SA and Poland for what they do. Who gives you the right to speak for billions of people? We all have the right to critize everything if we want. Freedom of speech and freedom of texts are two things you dislike greatly, isn't it?
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
BS, of course we can criticize SA and Poland for what they do. Who gives you the right to speak for billions of people? We all have the right to critize everything if we want. Freedom of speech and freedom of texts are two things you dislike greatly, isn't it?
Click to expand...

NO :Rudyard Kipling : What gives you the right to criticize other countries ? These countries are independent,and have no lessons to receive from you .


You are arrogating to your self the role of father who knows best and who has the right to lecture the others,because he think he is superior ,meaning he think the others are inferior .

What gives you the right to criticize your neighbours and to dictate them how to dress, how to think,how to punish their children ? Maybe you are thinking you are the envoy of God with the mission to civilise the other countries ,meaning : they must follow your exemple ?

And you should be the last to speak of freedom of speech ,because you want to deny the majority of the world the freedom to live like they want to live,you want that they live like you do .
 
lljadw said:
NO :Rudyard Kipling : What gives you the right to criticize other countries ? These countries are independent,and have no lessons to receive from you .


You are arrogating to your self the role of father who knows best and who has the right to lecture the others,because he think he is superior ,meaning he think the others are inferior .

What gives you the right to criticize your neighbours and to dictate them how to dress, how to think,how to punish their children ? Maybe you are thinking you are the envoy of God with the mission to civilise the other countries ,meaning : they must follow your exemple ?

And you should be the last to speak of freedom of speech ,because you want to deny the majority of the world the freedom to live like they want to live,you want that they live like you do .
Click to expand...

Your stupidity amuses me. To criticize is not to lecture, speaking of which, a school would be good for you. The freedom of speech gives me the right to criticize countries.
 
No : the freedom of speech gives you not the right to criticize other countries:to criticize other countries is to interfere in the business of other countries,which is own on liberalism.

Besides,what bad you are saying of other countries will not change their policy,it will only harden their attitude ,because they will consider this as an insult : no one in Poland asked you for criticizing the Polish government, and what you are saying about Poland will not change the policy of the Polish government .

Freedom of speech stops at the border.
 
lljadw said:
No : the freedom of speech gives you not the right to criticize other countries:to criticize other countries is to interfere in the business of other countries,which is own on liberalism.

Besides,what bad you are saying of other countries will not change their policy,it will only harden their attitude ,because they will consider this as an insult : no one in Poland asked you for criticizing the Polish government, and what you are saying about Poland will not change the policy of the Polish government .

Freedom of speech stops at the border.
Click to expand...

No No and No, try to understand the history you are supposed to be reading, countries don't change their attitude because of that. You are very uninformed, do it it again and do it right or shut up. You don't have any knowledge about the political game, education will change that and get the experience works too. You have neither of these two.

The freedom of speech gives me that right and you can not change it, even if you want to.
 
Last edited:
I3BrigPvSk said:
No No and No, try to understand the history you are supposed to be reading, countries don't change their attitude because of that. You are very uninformed, do it it again and do it right or shut up. You don't have any knowledge about the political game, education will change that and get the experience works too. You have neither of these two.

The freedom of speech gives me that right and you can not change it, even if you want to.
Click to expand...

Politics is not a game .

Your freedom of speech stops where the freedom of speech of the other starts .

Gredom of speech never is absolute .
 
I look forward to numbnuts pearls of wisdom each day, I need a laugh in the morning at my age.:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
lljadw said:
Politics is not a game .

Your freedom of speech stops where the freedom of speech of the other starts .

Gredom of speech never is absolute .
Click to expand...

Gottle of Geer????:mrgreen:

Are you the ventriloquist or the dummy???

Its OK, I know the answer.:mrgreen:
 
BritinAfrica said:
I look forward to numbnuts pearls of wisdom each day, I need a laugh i nthe morning at my age.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I know this feeling... unbelievable reading .... yet still amusing.
t2716.gif
 
lljadw said:
Politics is not a game .

Your freedom of speech stops where the freedom of speech of the other starts .

Gredom of speech never is absolute .
Click to expand...

You are contradicting yourself and that is very amusing. You have criticized Obama. You are entitled to do so, but why do you do that when according to yourself, you can't.

Politics is always a game. I don't expect you to understand that
 
JOC said:
Was that unbelievable or unbearable reading? ;-)
Click to expand...


I would have to say both because I usually don't finish them. They're definitely amusing to an extent and then become so unreal and as gibberish that I become disinterested. It's as if he's just typing words beside each other which make no sense. Almost as if a computer being scrambled or something--it's a little strange.

It reminds me of a car wreck, you begin to watch out of curiosity to see what happened, yet after a second or so.. you just keep moving.
 
lljadw said:
NO :Rudyard Kipling : What gives you the right to criticize other countries ? These countries are independent,and have no lessons to receive from you .


You are arrogating to your self the role of father who knows best and who has the right to lecture the others,because he think he is superior ,meaning he think the others are inferior .

What gives you the right to criticize your neighbours and to dictate them how to dress, how to think,how to punish their children ? Maybe you are thinking you are the envoy of God with the mission to civilise the other countries ,meaning : they must follow your exemple ?

And you should be the last to speak of freedom of speech ,because you want to deny the majority of the world the freedom to live like they want to live,you want that they live like you do .
Click to expand...

Has Belgium come out of hiding yet as Northern Europe seems fairly safe, the closest thing to death I have faced so far has been alcohol poisoning in Finland.

Anyway:

“To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.”
― Aristotle

Or if you would prefer something more contemporary...


“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body; it calls attention to the development of an unhealthy state of things. If it is heeded in time, danger may be averted; if it is suppressed, a fatal distemper may develop."

[New Statesman interview, 7 January 1939]”
― Winston S. Churchill

Criticism is not dictating anything it is simply demonstrating a point of disagreement and if you can not handle that you are on the wrong planet.
 
lljadw said:
No : the freedom of speech gives you not the right to criticize other countries:to criticize other countries is to interfere in the business of other countries,which is own on liberalism.

Besides,what bad you are saying of other countries will not change their policy,it will only harden their attitude ,because they will consider this as an insult : no one in Poland asked you for criticizing the Polish government, and what you are saying about Poland will not change the policy of the Polish government .

Freedom of speech stops at the border.
Click to expand...

He may be stuck at his border.
m1726.gif
 
STOP THIS 'SOFT ON TERRORISM' CRAP

"Nobody is 'soft' on terrorism. Not even terrorists - they're BIG on terrorism. But NOBODY in the west is 'soft' on terrorism!

Anytime someone in politics suggests that there may be a more effective way of fighting terrorism than playing live-action 'Call of Duty', the Right calls that person 'soft' on terrorism. As if using brainpower instead of firepower, or along with firepower, is the equivalent of giving terrorists a Swedish massage.

While blowing things up may be spiritual Viagra for armchair warriors, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WORKING!

Anyway, I saw a headline in the Toronto Sun, it pissed me off, and here's my response."

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y0BenbCwJA"]Nobody is 'Soft on Terrorism' (The Ed the Sock Show) - YouTube[/ame]
 
Oddly enough I don't agree, I think we are soft on terrorism.
The reality is we are not really confronting ISIS anywhere we are relying on a mixture of untrustworthy allies, borderline terrorist groups, opposition states and a small bunch of stateless fighters to take on ISIS and with the exception of the Kurds there isn't one of these groups that doesn't have an agenda that will put us at odds with them as soon as the fight with ISIS ends.

On the home front we refuse to take on hate speech and incitement due to a fear of offending someone and as soon as some one does try and confront if someone else starts bleating on about "free" speech.

Basically we are doing nothing to reduce the causes of extremism on either the foreign or domestic fronts.
 
Absolutely spot on Monty, I couldn't agree more.

Anjem Choudary was arrested for encouraging ISIS support, yet the scum bag is out on bail. The bastard should be in jail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top