[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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.

How have these two 'fulfilled the quota of being a human being' exactly?

I used to watch an American documentary series called 'Circuit 11 Miami' which was a Criminal Court in Miami which had allowed TV cameras into the courthouse during murder cases.

One case involved a 79-year-old (or so)ex-WW2 war hero - an ordinary working class old man - who lived alone.

Two total scumbags broke into his home and roughed him up so that he would give up any valuables or money which he might have had.

He INSTANTLY told them where he kept his few dollars he had but they tortured him and beat him to a pulp anyway - for fun.

The Crime Scene photos were graphic and horrific, but the program showed them.

They left him broken, bleeding, and battered beyond recognition, but before they left - just for more fun - they inserted biro pens in his ears and KICKED them deep into the old man's head.

I'm sorry, but I REFUSE to accept these bastards as 'Fulfilling ANY Human Quota'

Ditto these two terrorists.

Ditto Thompson and Venables if I'm being honest.

Ditto Brady and Hindley - ESPECIALLY Hindley who lived the 'High Life' in her boutique Hotel of a 'prison'.

Sorry.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

How have these two 'fulfilled the quota of being a human being' exactly?

I used to watch an American documentary series called 'Circuit 11 Miami' which was a Criminal Court in Miami which had allowed TV cameras into the courthouse during murder cases.

One case involved a 79-year-old (or so)ex-WW2 war hero - an ordinary working class old man - who lived alone.

Two total scumbags broke into his home and roughed him up so that he would give up any valuables or money which he might have had.

He INSTANTLY told them where he kept his few dollars he had but they tortured him and beat him to a pulp anyway - for fun.

The Crime Scene photos were graphic and horrific, but the program showed them.

They left him broken, bleeding, and battered beyond recognition, but before they left - just for more fun - they inserted biro pens in his ears and KICKED them deep into the old man's head.

I'm sorry, but I REFUSE to accept these bastards as 'Fulfilling ANY Human Quota'

Ditto these two terrorists.

Ditto Thompson and Venables if I'm being honest.

Ditto Brady and Hindley - ESPECIALLY Hindley who lived the 'High Life' in her boutique Hotel of a 'prison'.

Sorry.

You're not getting it.

A human is a human, you can't lose that status, you are always a human regardless of your actions. Human Rights are not based on merit or lack thereof. You are either for human rights for all or you are completely against human rights. There is no in between, no middle ground. It's black and white.

Responding with acts of violence with more acts of violence as retribution does not make whoever believes that to be true, right, it makes them the same as the people they condemn.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You're not getting it.

A human is a human, you can't lose that status, you are always a human regardless of your actions. Human Rights are not based on merit or lack thereof. You are either for human rights for all or you are completely against human rights. There is no in between, no middle ground. It's black and white.

Responding with acts of violence with more acts of violence as retribution does not make whoever believe that to be true, right, it makes them the same as the people they condemn.

Ugh this is great. I’ve tried so many times to explain this and nobody really understands what I’m saying when I do try, but this explains how I feel about the opposing argument perfectly.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You're not getting it.

A human is a human, you can't lose that status, you are always a human regardless of your actions. Human Rights are not based on merit or lack thereof. You are either for human rights for all or you are completely against human rights. There is no in between, no middle ground. It's black and white.

Responding with acts of violence with more acts of violence as retribution does not make whoever believes that to be true, right, it makes them the same as the people they condemn.

Oh no - 'I do get it' but don't agree with 'it' and NEVER will.

As far as I am concerned:

'A human is a human' until he/she becomes INHUMAN by virtue of his/her inhuman acts.

Then they remain 'Human' purely in terms of Anatomy and Physiology and belonging to the genus 'Homo'. NOTHING more.

I am familiar with the 'Human Rights Act' but will never accept that its authors INTENDED it to be exploited and used to protect the 'RIGHTS' of inhuman bastards such as these and those others listed in my post.

I am sorry, but I will ask again;

What about the 'Human Rights ' of 'Humanitarian' Alan Henning and the other innocent victims and their families?

There is NO GREATER 'Human Right' than the 'RIGHT TO LIFE' and those guilty of intentionally depriving INNOCENT people of theirs - especially in the most depraved and INHUMAN of manners - SHOULD lose any rights they once enjoyed as 'Humans' including 'Human Rights', just as surely as their innocent victims lost their Right to Life.

To me, the 'Human Rights Act' has been exploited by Criminals, Murderers, Terrorists, and Subversives, just as surely as the Benefits System, The NHS, The Legal Aid System and a host of other 'Well-Meaning' innovations have been similarly exploited and abused.

I'm afraid we will have to 'Agree To Disagree' on this subject.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Oh no - 'I do get it' but don't agree with 'it' and NEVER will.

As far as I am concerned:

'A human is a human' until he/she becomes INHUMAN by virtue of his/her inhuman acts.

Then they remain 'Human' purely in terms of Anatomy and Physiology and belonging to the genus 'Homo'. NOTHING more.

I am familiar with the 'Human Rights Act' but will never accept that its authors INTENDED it to be exploited and used to protect the 'RIGHTS' of inhuman bastards such as these and those others listed in my post.

I am sorry, but I will ask again;

What about the 'Human Rights ' of 'Humanitarian' Alan Henning and the other innocent victims and their families?

There is NO GREATER 'Human Right' than the 'RIGHT TO LIFE' and those guilty of intentionally depriving INNOCENT people of theirs - especially in the most depraved and INHUMAN of manners - SHOULD lose any rights they once enjoyed as 'Humans' including 'Human Rights', just as surely as their innocent victims lost their Right to Life.

To me, the 'Human Rights Act' has been exploited by Criminals, Murderers, Terrorists, and Subversives, just as surely as the Benefits System, The NHS, The Legal Aid System and a host of other 'Well-Meaning' innovations have been similarly exploited and abused.

I'm afraid we will have to 'Agree To Disagree' on this subject.

great post Kirk, they will be tried where they are, by the law of the land they chose to go to, no one is baying for blood lust, far from it, they made their bed, now they can lie in it.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Oh no - 'I do get it' but don't agree with 'it' and NEVER will.

As far as I am concerned:

'A human is a human' until he/she becomes INHUMAN by virtue of his/her inhuman acts.

Then they remain 'Human' purely in terms of Anatomy and Physiology and belonging to the genus 'Homo'. NOTHING more.

I am familiar with the 'Human Rights Act' but will never accept that its authors INTENDED it to be exploited and used to protect the 'RIGHTS' of inhuman bastards such as these and those others listed in my post.

I am sorry, but I will ask again;

What about the 'Human Rights ' of 'Humanitarian' Alan Henning and the other innocent victims and their families?

There is NO GREATER 'Human Right' than the 'RIGHT TO LIFE' and those guilty of intentionally depriving INNOCENT people of theirs - especially in the most depraved and INHUMAN of manners - SHOULD lose any rights they once enjoyed as 'Humans' including 'Human Rights', just as surely as their innocent victims lost their Right to Life.

To me, the 'Human Rights Act' has been exploited by Criminals, Murderers, Terrorists, and Subversives, just as surely as the Benefits System, The NHS, The Legal Aid System and a host of other 'Well-Meaning' innovations have been similarly exploited and abused.

I'm afraid we will have to 'Agree To Disagree' on this subject.

Then you are opposed to Human Rights, that's the long and short of it.

Human Rights for everyone or Human Rights for no one, you can't pick and choose.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Then you are opposed to Human Rights, that's the long and short of it.

Human Rights for everyone or Human Rights for no one, you can't pick and choose.

Which Human Rights would be violated by not bring IS terrorists here?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Which Human Rights would be violated by not bring IS terrorists here?

I'm interested in the response to this also

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Which Human Rights would be violated by not bring IS terrorists here?

I'll refer you back to my previous reply to a similar question you asked.

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I brought up the human rights angle, not in response to this case but to the worrying fantasising and bloodlust of people who hope for executions without due course without realising that it's an attitude that's common with the enemy.

My view on this pair has not changed. I believe British criminals should face a British court of law for their crimes, it's what I've said for other crimes when they've been discussed on here and it would be hypocritical for me to deviate from that point of view and make exceptions in this case. I'd rather terrorists face life imprisonment and be seen as a failure by their peers than be made martyrs through execution.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'll refer you back to my previous reply to a similar question you asked.

So nothing particular then. Your apparent love of Human Rights is incidental to you thinking they should be tried in the UK. Gotcha.