'Torture-tainted evidence' mars US legal image: rights group (AFP)

[justin1552]

Either that... or don't whine about human rights in the first place.

That's what I always say. Human rights is a privilege. Just like air is. Both can be taken away like that.

 

[senojekips]

Don't be so ridiculous. I Finitoed at a stage where I was most comfortable and was merely putting my part in the argument to bed, by not continuing to pick the bones out each others' posts.

However when Le's post appeared and you came again I came back still in contention with you and pointing out where. No change in my case there.

WRONG,... I never "came back",... remember,... I never left, it was you who said "FINITO BENITO" not I.

I answered Le Enfield, nothing to do with you or your past inanities

Nonsense again. I never SOUGHT your agreement, I spelt out where it existed, no coat-changing whatsoever. See post 36. In pointing out that we were in agreement, I was NOT changing my opinion, but that our views on those particular points happenned to be same. On those you had been wrong in assuming that we were opposed. Read my posts. Our views just happened to be the same. No-one was changing position there, it was not necessary. As I pointed out, you are once again trying to put your words into my mouth. Where you see 'I agree with you' understand that I am politely trying to demonstrate that the opinion you happen to hold there is the opinion that happens to be mine. I was simply correcting your take on those points, not changing position.
Obviously I should have taken a bigger stick to make the point, I over-estimated your comprehension. I won't do it again.
Definitely no coat-changing there, and the weather doesn't bother me.

I never said a word about you seeking my approval. What I did say "was that you agreed with my posts", and that you wrongly stated that WE were in agreement. No,... I don't agree with you, and I won't be sucked into your attempt to justify your lack of moral fibre by suddenly stating that WE are in agreement as if I had come across to your point of view instead of the reverse, and I quote, "In case you've forgotten already,... I'm the one stating that the coalition is making a mess of things, you are the one who says such things as, "What's good for America is good for the world"... "Snort" and that Camp delta has your "nod",... and of course, how could I forget "The guys who came back here from Gitmo did not speak of terrible horrors."

No back-peddling involved there. But I see what a mistake it was to offer a genuine hand. I will not make that mistake again.

Well my argument hasn't changed, work it out for yourself.

I forget nothing - and I am the one in support of the USA anti-terrorist efforts On the other hand, you would have the Americans fight with their hands tied behind their backs.

Since when is abiding by the rules which we expect others to follow, "fighting with your hands tied behind your back" Your complete and utter lack of moral fibre shows at every turn.

Not true - post 36 shows precisely where we are in agreement and where we are not, and is there for all to see. I have made it clear there, not a question of your choice, just a statement of where my opinion matches your own, and has done so from the start, not in response to changed attitudes.

No,... you are using the word WE again, WE are not in agreement and I quote my last post, "So it is not "We" as I never agreed with a single thing you've said"

More nonsensical tosh from the great man! I am sorry to have to be the one to tell, old chap, that that just ain't going to happen. But of course, yours is the only opinion which counts as your signature indicates.
BTW - have you never heard of the rack, drawing and quartering, the Inquisition practices, the Iron Maiden, the middle-eastern practice of hot-ironing people etc.etc.etc. - perhaps you and your friends cannot see the gap between those and the Coalition behaviour.

Tosh to you because you are morally vacuous. I have heard of all of your quoted tortures, and it seems that you have again forgotten that it is I who is arguing that torture is immoral and you that is arguing in support of its use. Torture is torture regardless of your continued attempts to justify its use.

You are singing from the wrong hymn-sheet there, the lyrics are ... "'written word, on record, both feet in, take no b/s from inflated egos,
do not change course or give way to stone-throwing or personal abuse, and never seek prizes, stay above such low ideals." Good song.
You will find it on post 36, in detail, confirmed in my later friendly posts, where I honestly sought to heal any personal hurt I had inflicted inadvertantly.
As I have said so many times, with some folk, any compassion is interpreted as weakness.

Well ,thing again, Sir, I offered you my hand only through PITY, believe it or not.

I will never trust you with my hand again, you obviously have confused me with some other guy who doesn't give a s*** for honour.

Now , all that is yesterday's news - back on topic.

I stand on my position and have done so throughout. And now I'm off, unless dragged back in. gone fishin.

Delboy, the only time you ever "offer your hand" is when you are on your back foot.

Off again, back again, it makes no difference. I wouldn't believe you if you were to tell me that the Pope is Catholic. You'll be back, like last time, but certainly not at my bidding.

 

[Del Boy]

WRONG,... I never "came back",...

NO -I WAS RIGHT!
And as I thought - you can only operate by insults and character assassination. You quote others incorrectly. you refuse to recognise the obvious through the obstinacy of a mule. Nobody can have a opinion which does not line up with yours. Your only attitude is 'that's my opinion -get on with it' - but you can't stand to get that back. You cannot recognise the maxim of agreeing to disagree - you just can't help taking matters to a very personal level. I find you far too needy to become involved with, because you make me feel sorry for you even as we argue, and that leaves me uncomfortable and wanting to help.

Let's take a look, shall we.

You suggested that we stop wandering and got back on-topic.

I responded by answering your post and then Finito Benito-ing to clear the way.

HOWEVER - you then accused me of cutting and running.

I then pointed out to that you had no class, with your low-down non-humour attempts.

Then Le Enfield posted.

Then you came again - not to me particularly, but on the board. I did NOT say that you 'came back' - another typical mis-quote.

I then decided to post -and I did not need your permission .

Now do you get that? Is that clear and simple enough even for you?

If you do not agree - go back through the posts- do not call me a liar.


[quote =senojekips;410399]

I answered Le Enfield, nothing to do with you or your past inanities [/quote]



There you go again with the insults, demonstrating your ignorance.
Actually you QUOTED Le, while posting on the board , and I made no suggestion about that having anything to do with me. You over-estimate your importance, which I admit is easy to do.

I never said a word about you seeking my approval. What I did say "was that you agreed with my posts", and that you wrongly stated that WE were in agreement. No,... I don't agree with you, and I won't be sucked into your attempt to justify your lack of moral fibre by suddenly stating that WE are in agreement as if I had come across to your point of view .

More personal insults and character assassination! Tut.

Surely even you can not be so obtuse?

The question, as I have repeatedly referred to you, is related to post 36, and you have completely misconstrued this, probably for your own ends.

In post 36, I say 'I agree' on a number of points, or 'we are in agreement'.

In these cases I am merely stating a fact, not re-aligning my position to suit you, or currying favour. Who the hell would want to curry your favour?

For example if you are against torture and I am against torture - then we are in agreement on that point, whether you want to be or not. You would have to be 'for torture' for us NOT to be in agreement.

I really should not have to keep having to go over this - it is quite clear in post 36.

I did not change sides - I make it clear where I am already of the same opinion as you and where I am not.

I hold to and defend those opinions that I have previously put forward. I have continually defended these, and I am still there. If you are being too thick to take that post on board then look to yourself.

Since when is abiding by the rules which we expect others to follow, "fighting with your hands tied behind your back" Your complete and utter lack of moral fibre shows at every turn.

When those in their comfortable beds thousands of miles away accept the worst case scenario everytime, thereby giving succour and sustinence to the enemy.

No,... you are using the word WE again, WE are not in agreement and I quote my "So it is not "We" as I never agreed with a single thing you've said"

Are you crazy - if my opinion on a particular point and your opinion on a particular happen to be the same - then we are in agreement on that. Nothing we can do about it unless one of us turns away from that opinion.

Please don't run away with the odd concept of my being comfortable to hold the same opinions as yourself- I can assure you that the opposite is true, so rest on that thought.

Tosh to you because you are morally vacuous.

Aah -there we go again with the insults. From the great judge of morals; the man with the monopoly of moral fibre. The man who has never even met me but is in a position to judge me and carry out his routine character assassination just because he cannot get his own way ; he can have his opinion, but I am not entitled to mine. The pedestal-mounter, the witchfinder general, the man who wishes to monopolise the high moral ground, Senojekips has spoken.

One word for that, - Hypocrite.

No-one who supports abortion, the greatest holocaust visited on man-kind, the greatest 'war'-crime of all time, the greatest abuse of human rights ever seen, can claim the high moral ground.

Delboy, the only time you ever "offer your hand" is when you are on your back foot.

Senojekips - Another absolutely false claim that you could not possibly back up - proving just what a hypocrite you really are.

Fortunately for me, I have yet to be caught on the back foot, but that is because I lead with my face & look folk straight in eye. I don't adhere to the crafty slug approach.

I refer you my post above.

Off again, back again, it makes no difference. I wouldn't believe you if you were to tell me that the Pope is Catholic. You'll be back, like last time, but certainly not at my bidding.

So sorry - I forgot to ask your permission to post, or to post at your bidding. Why would I wish to ask you to believe me - who are ya?

Nothing but an overblown ego with vicous streak and I am delighted that I have turned over the right stone just in time. Thank you for the pre-view.

 

[senojekips]

Ahh, Back yet again. I'm off!, I'm back.

More curtain calls than Dame Nellie Melba.

Are you feeling better now you've had your little tantrum? Denials, more denials but not one skerrick of evidence.

 

[tomtom22]

Gentlemen, Gentlemen, Please.

Let's tone down the sarcasm, please.

2nd Warning!

 

[senojekips]

As you may have guessed from my last rather curt reply, I'm out of it Tomtom, and thanks for your forebearance, lesser men would have given the thread the hammer some time ago.

 

[Del Boy]

Ahh, Back yet again. I'm off!, I'm back.

More curtain calls than Dame Nellie Melba.

Are you feeling better now you've had your little tantrum? Denials, more denials but not one skerrick of evidence.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????. Read my posts . Ruffled feathers there? What denials? What tantrum?

Acknowledged tom-tom. Thank you.

 

[senojekips]

You just have no comprehension do you? You don't read your own posts, nor mine, nor those of the moderators. Now you see why you get in the poo.

Yes,... I am going to abide by the moderators ruling, you do as you wish.

 

[Del Boy]

You just have no comprehension do you? You don't read your own posts, nor mine, nor those of the moderators. Now you see why you get in the poo.

Yes,... I am going to abide by the moderators ruling, you do as you wish.

We-ell - I think I might jus' join ya there ol' buddy. At the moment I'm jus' sitting on the dock of the bay. Nice.

 

[A Can of Man]

That's what I always say. Human rights is a privilege. Just like air is. Both can be taken away like that.

Brother, I said the same thing years ago.
Human rights is a privilege.
Freedom of speech is an illusion.
Human rights are the privilege we have for living in an advanced, democratic society with a working set of laws (kind of) and an economy to support our way of life. But when the gloves are off, the gloves are off. Name the last time any of our enemies treated their American prisoners according to any kind of agreement. Surprisingly I think we'd have to go back to World War I.

World War I - possibly the Germans.
World War II - Germans executed any Jews captured. Japanese ... let's not even go there.
Korean War - Brainwashing and torture of American troops by North Koreans.
Vietnam War - The Hanoi Hilton was... err... not a hotel.
Gulf War I - TV parading of prisoners and statement making under duress.
Gulf War II - No need to remind anybody.

I say screw it. Do not lecture about human rights. It's about as elusive as world peace.

 

[senojekips]

Do not lecture about human rights. It's about as elusive as world peace.

You are pretty much correct in your views I feel, however, the fact that human rights and freedoms can be elusive is no reason that we should allow them to disappear.

No one is completely free, not even those who repress us, we all answer to someone. The idea is not to have someone unnecessarily limit the freedoms we need to live a worthwhile life.

 

[Del Boy]

.

Denials, more denials but not one skerrick of evidence.

?? - Evidence of what? What do you want evidence of?

 

[Redleg]

Thread locked for review.