[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

HUMAN RIGHTS? Let's think about that term;

Is the act of BEHEADING a terrified, cowered, outnumbered, unarmed, civilian the ACT of a HUMAN?

NOT in my book.

Thus, bastards such as these have NO 'Human Rights' because when they committed these EVIL atrocities they CEASED being 'Human' - IN MY BOOK.

It beggars belief that callous murderers such as these can carry out cowardly acts as inhuman and totally incomprehensible as these on other INNOCENT human beings and there are people who want to harp on about THEIR 'Human Rights' - what about the 'Human Rights' of all the poor, poor slaughtered VICTIMS and their distraught grieving families?

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, you are, but I'll adhere to mine thank you.

When you pick and choose which humans are worthy of human rights then Human Rights loses all it's meaning and the people that died to preserve those rights died for nothing. It's an all or nothing for deal, you either believe in Human Rights for all or Human Rights for no one. There is no grey area, you are for Human Rights or you are against it and to be against Human Rights is to piss on the sacrifices that was made to make Human Rights a reality.

As long as you fulfill the quota of being a human being then you have the right to Human Rights. Enemies that are taken prisoner in combat are entitled to a trial and justice should be dealt in the right way. If we forget that and start killing everyone regardless then we are no better.

You don't fight extremism with more extremism. Don't give into bloodlust and call it justice.