Activism Change

Survival rights or human rights – for Tony

Question:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:55:32 GMT, Tonyjeffs <iraq[remove]@tonyjeffs.com> wrote: >> BTW, I didn’t see an answer to my question. What is more important to >> you? Is it "survival rights" or "human rights"? >There’s no conflict of interest between the two.

I have outlined where there clearly is a difference and why. Are you up to the challenge of telling us why the two cannot be in conflict? >Do you consider the detainees at Camp X-Ray to be non-human because they >are Muslims?

First off, I consider muslims to be pagan worshipers who have been deceived as their allah is a fabrication; and a bad one at that. But to answer your question, they are humans. I do not believe in an untermeschen (sp?). But if you pressed me to make a hierarchy based upon civilizations, they currently would be ranked quite low. People who live in the 7th century and want the rest of the world to aren’t high on my list of primates. Martin and Darwin – only the strong survive Borders…Language…Culture

Response:

Tony,      What is more important? Are "survival rights" more important than "human rights"? When the Geneva convention was signed, there was no capability of a small group of men killing millions of non-combatants.     So which is more important of the two? Our intel has told us that this is real and we can expect to be hit. Rogue nations are trying to get nuclear weapons. 20,000 cargo containers hit the port of Miami each day, as an example of how porous our borders are. Less than 1% are inspected. A simple telephone call can now trigger a nuclear weapon hidden in a container. Do I think we’ll see something like it in our lifetime? Yes, I do. Martin Borders…Language…Culture

Response:

Martin <oh_brother_where_art_t…@yahoo.com> wrote in news:m3th2v015e8m3o82nm0c5vg3ginvpq4vgs@4ax.com: >When the Geneva convention was signed, there was no > capability of a small group of men killing millions of non-combatants.

HIROSHIMA, Aug 6 1945   this was 3 years before the GENEVA CONVENTION  Aug 19 1948 VISIT: http://www.exploratorium.edu/nagasaki/journey/journey3.html (The latter is a class site, and worth a visit regardless of your views on human rights) Tony

Response:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 08:30:21 GMT, Tonyjeffs <iraq[remove]@tonyjeffs.com> wrote: >>When the Geneva convention was signed, there was no >> capability of a small group of men killing millions of non-combatants. >HIROSHIMA, Aug 6 1945   >this was 3 years before the >GENEVA CONVENTION  Aug 19 1948

Tone, why would you intentionally mislead like that? You are speaking of the 4th Geneva Convention. You are also wrong because you are implying there was no Geneva convention covering prisoners during WW II. The one applying to WWII would have been the third convention, in 1929, which protected prisoners of war. It legislated that prisoners of war were not criminals and should be treated humanely and released at the end of  hostilities. The bombing of Hiroshima save American lives. It was clear that the Japanese would not have surrendered as people were going as far as throwing themselves off cliffs. They would not surrender. So, we were supposed to lose another 250,000 lives [a small estimate of history] or were we to end the war? BTW, I didn’t see an answer to my question. What is more important to you? Is it "survival rights" or "human rights"? And why do you feel animals should be extended the courtesy you apparently feel they deserve. Martin Borders…Language…Culture

Response:

"Martin" wrote > Tone, why would you intentionally mislead like that? You are speaking > of the 4th Geneva Convention. You are also wrong because you are > implying there was no Geneva convention covering prisoners during WW > II. The one applying to WWII would have been the third convention, in > 1929, which protected prisoners of war. It legislated that prisoners > of war were not criminals and should be treated humanely and released > at the end of  hostilities.

Why are you bothered about any Geneva convention when the US continue to break it? > The bombing of Hiroshima save American lives.

So, that;s all righ then? No matter that Japanese folk are still dying from this horrendous terrorist act? > BTW, I didn’t see an answer to my question. What is more important to > you? Is it "survival rights" or "human rights"? And why do you feel > animals should be extended the courtesy you apparently feel they > deserve.

What are "survival rights" ?   There are no survival rights – just the survival of the fittest, or most powerful.  Why shouldn’t animals be given rights?  What "right" has man to decide it’s okay to torture primates for so-called research?    None of the research has, or ever will be, the slightest bit of good as we are different.  Human rights are very important – note how the USA is totally ignoring the rights of many innocent men in Camp X-ray. Never mind if they are innocent, they look the right colour?   And, Bush couldn’t catch Bin Laden, so anyone else will do, including Saddam.

Response:

Martin <oh_brother_where_art_t…@yahoo.com> wrote in news:4j7i2v4a74gkui9v33hj5kroojfv4hg5or@4ax.com: > BTW, I didn’t see an answer to my question. What is more important to > you? Is it "survival rights" or "human rights"?

There’s no conflict of interest between the two. >And why do you feel > animals should be extended the courtesy you apparently feel they > deserve.

Do you consider the detainees at Camp X-Ray to be non-human because they are Muslims? Tony

Response:

On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:36:59 -0000, "fcuk.off" <fcuk….@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> The bombing of Hiroshima save American lives. >So, that;s all righ then? No matter that Japanese folk are still dying from >this horrendous terrorist act?

Yes..absolutely, more-on. If what you say is true, it is unfortunate. But it was war. And in war you must embrace horror and be willing to dispense horror. Why? Because your enemy has and you will die if you don’t. >What are "survival rights" ? There are no survival rights – just the >survival of the fittest, or most powerful.

You answered your own question and you don’t even know it, more-on. One has the right to survive. It supersedes another’s rights in the final analysis. Is it Darwinian> Yes, I guess it is. >Why shouldn’t animals be given rights?  

Who said they shouldn’t? >What "right" has man to decide it’s okay to torture primates for >so-called research?  

I think you use the word "torture" a bit too freely. >None of the research has, or ever will be, the slightest bit of good as we are different.<<

Prove it. >Human rights are very important – note how the USA is totally ignoring the rights of many innocent >men in Camp X-ray.

The discussion, more-on, is whether the right to survive – survival rights – pre-empts human rights. I say it does. It is the way the animal kingdom works. >Never mind if they are innocent, they look the right colour?  

They are enemy combatants who tried to kill US citizens. End of story. Historically speaking, they are lucky they aren’t in slave labor camps or had been summarily executed. >And, Bush couldn’t catch Bin Laden, so anyone else will do, >including Saddam.

Dollars to doughnuts that Bin Laden is dead. Martin Borders…Language…Culture

Response:

Filed under: Human Rights

Related Posts

• Indonesia - 250 burned alive
• Is Bono tryin' to throw his arms around the world?
• it just keeps getting better and better, don't it?
• OT: Going to Chile in July
• Qaradawi Threatens Legal Action Against French Hijab Ban
• why so much about sex here?
• Ex? OSA attempts to manipulate the Freezone.
• CUBAN FOREIGN MINISTER SAYS...........
• Male and female relationship abuse
• AMERICAN GOVT (aka FBI) is full of SADISTS and PERVERTS