Printable View
Ok i don't want to get too much off the point here so i'll make this response brief. I mean obviously nearly everybody in the world thinks that he's a criminal (including me). But unless you have witnessed the entirity of something firsthand you cannot be 100% sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prosperity
Going by that then you'd agree that:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eoin247
- Adolf Hitler isn't responsible for the holocaust?
- Joseph Stalin weren't responsible for the holodomor?
- Al Capone wasn't a gangster?
- The Mafia isn't a criminal organization?
Also "entirity" isn't a word. ;)
You're totally missing my point, read over my posts again and try to understand because i can't really explain any further without repeating myself. Whilst you read the posts also think about what this debate is about before you post again, and apply that to what i've been saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prosperity
Are you for real? We're debating torture and your rebuttal involves a typo? Never a better way to show a weak argument when people decide to go nitpicking to such a level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prosperity
Ahh how silly of me! i foolishly mistook Bin Laden for a lovely man who spends his time dancing with bunny rabbits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eoin247
The TV show '24' which is starred by Jack Bauer (who does most of the torturing) has lead me to believe that it is acceptable in some situations.
For example - if torturing someone is going to result in the ability to stop something such as a terrorist attack, I believe that it is acceptable. Decisions have to be made though to ensure that the person who is being tortured are actually witholding information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snatter
I agree, if you could save many peoples lifes by hurting one, it should be alloud.
While Saddam Hussein was a harsh dictator, the offical story which we are often fed of a nasty man who waged war on Iran for no reason, then attacked innocent Kuwait for no reason of which the U.S. had to go and heroically liberateQuote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
along with the man having WMD/harbouring terroristscoupled with the random gassing of the Kurds.
The real picture however is this; Iran had for years been calling for Saddam to be overthrown (and were no doubt funding militant groups in Iraq wanting to establish an Islamic Republic) of which Hussein reacted towards much like the western world behaves especially the United States when it invades countries which 'threaten national security' - and believe me, Iran was much more of a threat to Iraq than any of the 'threats' the United States has faced. All of this not forgetting the fact the United States supported the Ba'ath regime in the Iran-Iraq war.
Then we get to the issue of Kuwait - in a way, Iraq was left with no choice but to invade Kuwait due to Kuwait slant drilling into Iraqi oil reserves and of course, Kuwait had the backing of the international community so Iraq was left more or less alone. Hussein told the United States he was preparing action, and the United States gave him the green light - Hussein invaded and the United States then went back on its word and joined the war on the side of Kuwait.
Of course there is then the issue of the gassing of the Kurds - yes, gassing is terrible and only a despot like Hussein would consider it (same scenes we are witnessing in Libya today with machine guns being used on the people) but it if often painted as though it was a random attack on the Kurds when infact it was a reaction by Iraqi armed forces to rioting and an assassination attempt on Hussein himself. I myself support the creation of a Kurdistan, but there was a reason why Hussein reacted the way he did which is often left out of the picture.
While it is ideal for the Middle East to be democratic (as we are seeing now), I would much rather live under Saddam Hussein than say the US-supported Saudi regime which still uses barbaric Sharia Law and the same for Iran.
Did you even read the post you quoted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
I think we can be 100% sure, otherwise he wouldn't be binding away for years, he would be fighting that he isnt guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eoin247
Read what you quoted more carefully please. After that read the rest of the posts on this thread and the thread title before you post again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bisusz
Quote:
But unless you have witnessed the entirity of something firsthand you cannot be 100% sure.