Anyone care to explain why the UK seems so fucked up?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-pay-2-000-say-squatters-finally-evicted.html

 

Who the hell did they think that story was going to convince? Either they're all fucking idiots or they think the rest of us are. Neither option speaks well of them.

 

Oh that is just too rich!

First they are mad that "We came to England for help. This is how England helps us!" and that they "applied 'for all the benefits we are entitled to'" but when England tries to help and give them the benefits they are "entitled" to they turn down the council's housing needs assessment to place them somewhere.

It got even better when she admits to having relatives (assumed nearby) that she can stay with while complaining they are going to be out on the streets.

And the sheer audacity that the home owner should pay squatters to get their own home back?! HA!

I wonder how long until we hear from these lovely people again, since they are now apparently squatting in a house that actually is for sale.

 

Were I in this situation, I may not have actually shot anyone. But I assure you, I would have made someone believe they were going to die if they didn't move their ass. It's called 'show of force' and is usually followed by compliance or death.

 

This is for Japes:

By the way, as you people see, the law was perfectly capable of solving the problem for the English family, and with the exact method I proposed too. State evicts Romanians, offers them housing as per human rights. It is their problem/stupidity now that they've rejected it, and I am sure a repetition of the crime would consider it. No need to act all barbaric.

 

You are a fuckin' idiot.

 

And why is that so?

 

Lots of reasons why that could be so. Dropped on your head at birth, mother took dope during pregnancy, you watch too much Al-Jazeera..... the list goes on and on. I really can't determine the source of your idiocy.

When you can explain to me why the Eastern groups that the Western countries are fighting use RPGs on infantry, hide among civilians, refuse to wear uniforms, cut the heads off of prisoners of war, THEN you can talk to me about the damn Geneva convention.

 

Yes, because the damn easterners are all the same, right? I still have a few questions for you to ponder:

1- What the fuck are those Western troops doing in those Eastern countries at the beginning anyways?

**Hint**: Bringing democracy or bringing civilization is not the answer.

2- Can you show me how the Guam Bay fits in this? The troops situated there do not face active combat.

3- Can you tell me how does the U.S. backing coups made by anti-communist generals who do not have any regard for human rights fit in this? This is not about any guerilla group, it's about an economical system U.S. does not want.

4- Does the killings made by the Eastern groups make it right to kill Eastern civilians? There is something called reprisal, but it's forbidden to commit one on prizoners of war or civilians.

5- Can you tell me how could the bombing of Baghdad be justified by your claims? That was a war against a state the U.S. did not like in power, and Iraq did not directly support any extremist group - nor did it have any weapons of mass destruction. It was just submission bombing.

6- Comment on the usage of White Phosphorus bombs and... Wait, the U.S. actually refused to sign that protocol. How is it civilized to

7- What about the U.S. shooting places where the media was in? Mind you, the building had ONLY media personnel in it. How is it civilized to fire on a place unrelated with any side of the battle?

Come with me with a convincing answer for all, and I might consider that my comment might have been faulty. Until then, I'll just ignore the "idiot" comment from the guy who picked "Retard" as his username.

 

1.RPGs on infantry-They're more effective than rocks.
2.hide among civilians-They're more effective than rocks.
3.refuse to wear uniforms-renders the effectiveness of 2. irrelevant.
4.cut the heads off of prisoners of war-resource management.
Geneva Convention-An ineffectual universal doctrine that attempts to ascribe inherent value to life without quantifying what that value is. An idea that provides no evidence can equally be dismissed without evidence. Obviously, that means whenever it's convenient it will be upheld and when it's not, it won't be.

Of course, I'll get shit for my sense of humor and actively taking quotes out of context. But, as I tell other first cause proponents, pointing fingers only provides more fingers to get bit.

 

Western power means governments and standing armies - as in parties connected directly to the state's war effort. Defending ignoring the Genevian Conventions advocates use of force against any "eastern" target, civilian or not.

I've committed no hypocrisy here, and I'm not here to only blame. In fact, as you might've noticed, I've actually been protecting the English law, not the Romanians, in this thread. You did say the statement came from your sense of humor though, so I'll take it that you weren't trying to prove something.

P.S. I've this gut feeling that when Xiao reads the new responses to the thread, she'll just post the "Internet is for Porn" thing again.

 

Pretty much, which is why I also included the bit of me taking the qoutes out of context.
I got to it FIRST! Originals are my favorite.

 

Looks better than the WoW version. Then again, almost anything looks better than WoW.

I didn't know it was a puppet act though. It looks much more fun when staged.

 

You missed a piece here, Magikot: the two husbands were seen casing a place a few houses down, that had a for-sale sign out front. Their "relatives nearby" means an empty house they'll live in until evicted again.

 

Great. You telegraphed it and now I have to wait for the next great big shining 'Opportunity Here' sign. Fucker.

 

No I didn't.

 

@Mesteut: Regarding the criminal nature of threatening people; that's why you have to convince them that if they go to the law, they are going to die

Regarding your asinine comments about the U.S. and Geneva:

1. Whatever we want. They started it.

2. I assume you mean Guantanamo Bay? What does active combat have to do with anything?

3. Since when have communist powers been concerned with human rights?

4. There's something called collateral damage. It happens. Especially when you hang around people that like to kill Americans.

5. It worked like a charm. Again, a shame about that collateral damage.

6. White Phosphorus is an anti-materiel weapon. It's good at destroying things.

7. No idea what you're talking about, but it sure sounds like a case of poor battlefield awareness. Not the U.S.-sanctioned killing of media personnel.

If you ask me, it has been pretty big of us to even apply the Geneva Conventions to areas rife with terrorists, thereby placing our fighting forces in harms way, instead of just carpet bombing.

 

Oh, but convincing them so is criminal too. Then again, they might never learn =P.

On the points:

1- Last I checked, it was the British and the French that used the Middle East like a colony, with backing from a U.S. led League of Nations. You go there, you mock them while taking advantage of the oil, you're bound to receive resistance. Especially when your government is allied with the Saudi Royal Family which spread Vahhabism (the sect of Islam which argued that infidels must be faced in battle) all in Arabia.

2- Let us quote wikipedia:

So, Retard first said he could justify using force against people who threw bombs around and hid behind civilians. The prisoners in Guam are in no condition to pose a threat. They are prisoners of war or civilian prisoners, against whom using torture is criminal.

3- Umm... You're mixing Communist powers with Communist groups. Salvator Allende's democratic rule (which got wiped by U.S. backed Pinochet) cannot be equated to the Bolshevik rule in USSR, or Mao's rule in PRC. Socialist groups, especially student groups, are quite concerned with human rights - in fact, it's usually the reason they become socialists. I have here the coup in 12th September 1980, when General Kenan Evren, with U.S. backing, crushed the leftists and promoted Turko-Islamic Sythesis in Turkey. I wouldn't call supporting these coups very human rights friendly.

4/5- You were a soldier, right? I hope you get shot by some angry guy who lost his relatives as collateral damage, so you understand. Better, a suicide bomber or a terrorist should kill YOUR relatives, friends and/or anyone you care about while attacking a U.S. outpost/base/government building. Because only then you'll get it through you thick head that KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IS WRONG. IT BEING COLLATERAL DAMAGE DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY MORE HUMANE.

**edit** This is meant to spark empathy, and still it might be an overly emotional response. I apologize if it offends you, but try to look at the things from the perspective of the Iraqi citizen, who has been getting oppressed by the dictatorship. And then the expected saviors carelessly throw bombs around and kill his son. How would it make you feel if it happened to you? That's why it is inhumane.

6- Yes, and the flame cannot be extinguished. White Phosphorus is only used (by civilized norms) as a marking tool for aircraft, because of the thick smoke it produces. Using it against personnel is INHUMANE.

7- http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq ... lists.html

I don't expect the U.S. Army to announce they attacked the hotel on purpose, but the message given is clear.

Also, if you think U.S. had been big to not just bomb everywhere, then you just prove my point - You're without civilized values in war. That has been my comment in the first place, and Retard told me I was an idiot. I then showed how the U.S. ignored the Geneva Conventions by asking rhetorical questions (as it is impossible to answer them both logically and in a way that supports the U.S.), and you call them asinine. You then go around saying how treating Eastern civilians with force is right. =\

P.S. I'm not saying stop doing those in war. War itself is inhumane, and things happen in war. Just be honest about it and don't pretend the U.S. (or any country in the west) is on a holy mission where it's always doing the things in the civilized way. The original comment that sparked the discussion wasn't even about a specific country.

 

War is hell. Get over it. I'm not going to claim that the U.S. has done everything right, but I certainly feel like we've done a far cry better than your precious Eastern powers/nations/people groups/ideologies would have in the same tactical situations.

 

Well, US has done stuff wrong, and has not considered the Geneva Conventions. Like some other Western powers (not all have gone to a conflict since the Conventions actually passed through). That was my argument from the beginning, which Retard called me an idiot for. Thus I am right. Thanks. =\

About the Eastern power thing, you doing stuff better doesn't mean much. I mean, how many viable countries are here anyways? Let us see:

- Israel: "Hardcore" methods to break Palestinian resistance. Regular bombardment of Palestinian enclaves, settlements etc.
- Arabic countries: Not worth mentioning. With all the beheading and such.
- Iran: Huge competition for the US in human rights... not.
- Turkey: Half-civilized militarist capitalist semi-democratic country that requires "balance checks" made by the secularist army every now and then to ensure the country doesn't fall into Islamism. Oh, and we have the JITEM too. And repression on minorities, although not as bad as Israel.

It's a sad sad situation when a region's leading human rights defenders are Turkey and Israel. While an Israeli Operation could go genocidal, Turkey could do a better job in Iraq, depending entirely on how the Arabs would react to Turkey.

P.S. Iraqi War is actually one of the better examples of a Western Power ignoring human rights. Read up on what the dumbfucks in the Dutch Army did about the Bosnians they had to protect in the Srebrenica Massacre