Can violation of human rights be justified?

turbonium · Post by **turbonium** » Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:29 pm

Where I live there is an occasional conflict between Hindus and Sikhs. Mostly a radical very small minority, who revel in antagonistic behavior. Of course, it was the British Empire who worked their sinister "divide and conquer" technique in India to perfection. They managed to create a wedge between the two groups, by splintering the Sikhs away from traditional Hindu practices and beliefs. They are still in opposing groups to this day.

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:22 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: How do you define extremist Hindus and are there extremist Hindus in your country?
What did the Hindu monk say to the NYC hotdog vendor??

"Make me one with everything." :wah:

But seriously, what is an extremist Hindu? One that eats at McD's and has a Double QuarterPounder with Cheese?

C'mon.

turbonium · Post by **turbonium** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 8:08 pm

Wolverine wrote: What did the Hindu monk say to the NYC hotdog vendor??

"Make me one with everything." :wah:

But seriously, what is an extremist Hindu? One that eats at McD's and has a Double QuarterPounder with Cheese?

C'mon.
LOL Wolverine!! :wah:

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:59 pm

Wolverine wrote: What did the Hindu monk say to the NYC hotdog vendor??

"Make me one with everything." :wah:

But seriously, what is an extremist Hindu? One that eats at McD's and has a Double QuarterPounder with Cheese?

C'mon.

You have not answered my question.

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:08 am

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend,it was just getting a little too serious in here.

Yes, to answer your question, Human rights violations can be justified. And Justice can be dictated.

these violations are an unfortunate side-effect of war. casualties are a fact of war. The only way to bring about effective change in almost anything is through FORCE. That is the only language the basic human being understands.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Thu Jun 23, 2005 3:48 am

starlight wrote: Any kind of violations of human rights will never be justified no matter how you want to put it. ...........

I agree with you that no human rights violation (HRV) can be jusified. But the main point is that human rights activists and also many nations are classifying various incidents as HRV (or no-HRV) as per their convenience.

A terrorist throws a bomb at a school and many children are killed. Police open fire and kill the terrorist. Now which is HRV, killing of children or terririst? There are many HR activists who keep silent about killing of children and shout at police for violating human rights of the terrorist. A country's police open fires at people demonstrating on some issue and calls it a law and order problem, but shouts HRV if any such incident happens in another country. A country supplies arms to terrorists active in another country but when terrorists armed by some other country strikes in its own country then it shouts HRV.

These double standards are the main cause of HRV.

anaiyost · Post by **anaiyost** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:53 pm

[QUOTE=Suresh Gupta]Many innocent human beings have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.[QUOTE]

And many were killed in NYC. The point of Afghanistan and Iraq was not to violate human rights, but to liberate people from the oppression of terrorism.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:17 pm

Suresh Gupta wrote: Many innocent human beings have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many more are under threat if Iran is attacked. Can such senseless killings be justified?

Hi Suresh! Long time, no see!:D

I certainly hate war, Suresh. Even though I trained men to be aerial killers, I've never liked it. But I did it, for another reason. War is a waste of materials, resources, and worst of all, human life. And human life is irreplaceable and unique.

So what about going to war to stop a worse waste of human life? Every one agrees that Adolf Hitler was a horrible threat to mankind, and that even if the price of stopping him was thousands of lives, it was worth it.

I'd put Afghanistan and Iraq in the same league. Taliban-trained terrorists killed thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11, Saddam used chemical weapons on his people, a practice abhorred by the civilized world and rightly so. That makes them a threat that is worth lives to stop.

Iran and North Korea are both nuclear powers now, or shortly will be. Totalitarian Dictatorships are notoriously unstable. They often keep power over their people by exaggerating the threat of outside countries.

Ask yourself this: If Adolf Hitler had gotten the atomic bomb first in WWII, do you think he would have used it?

(And by the way, it was a very, very close thing, see: The Heros of Telemark)

Why would we think that a modern tyrannical dictatorship such as North Korea would act any differently than the Third Reich?

I guess the question is this:

A man with a gun pulls it out on the street and aims it at you. He is yelling hate-speech and is very agitated. Do you:

1. Wait to see if he shoots at you then, assuming you live through the process, fire back?

2. or do you assume he will fire and shoot him first before he can kill you?

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:27 pm

[QUOTE=anaiyost][QUOTE=Suresh Gupta]Many innocent human beings have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And many were killed in NYC. The point of Afghanistan and Iraq was not to violate human rights, but to liberate people from the oppression of terrorism.

The perception my dear is the key. If my actions result in killing of innocent people then it is liberating them from oppression of terrorism, and if your actions are responsible for such killings then it is violation of human rights. In my country, Pakistan sponsored terrorists and also Pakistan government say that they are fihting a war for freedom and to give freedom to Kashmiris they are killing their women and children. And whenever Indian security personnel kill these terrorists it is violation of human rights.

No dear, no killing of innocent people can be justified on any grounds whatsoever.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 9:37 pm

Hello Jives,

Nice to read your views. To a large extent I will agree with you. In Mahabharata, Lord Krishna tried every way to avoid the war between Kauravas and Pandavas, but when every effort failed He asked Pandavas to go for war to correct the wrong.

What I believe is that UN should have been asked to be the judge like Lord Krishna. The war against Afganistan and Iraq should have been faught, if all efforts had failed, under the instrument of UN.

I also believe that one has a responsibility to defend his life. Depending on circumstances where one's life is at a serious threat one has to take appropriate action to defend oneself.

Adam Zapple · Post by **Adam Zapple** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:55 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: Many innocent human beings have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many more are under threat if Iran is attacked. Can such senseless killings be justified?

Many innocent human beings were being killed in Afghanistan (under the Taliban government) and Iraq (under Saddam's Baathist regime). Were it not for the continued bombings of civilians by the so-called "insurgents" I would suggest that Afghani and Iraqi citizens would be quite safe today. Had the Taliban and Saddam survived, the killings would have continued endlessly and unless the terrorists are defeated, the killings will continue endlessly.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:58 pm

Adam Zapple wrote: Many innocent human beings were being killed in Afghanistan (under the Taliban government) and Iraq (under Saddam's Baathist regime). Were it not for the continued bombings of civilians by the so-called "insurgents" I would suggest that Afghani and Iraqi citizens would be quite safe today. Had the Taliban and Saddam survived, the killings would have continued endlessly and unless the terrorists are defeated, the killings will continue endlessly.Its time that Africa were left to their own devices.

Suresh Gupta · Post by **Suresh Gupta** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 9:33 pm

Adam Zapple wrote: Many innocent human beings were being killed in Afghanistan (under the Taliban government) and Iraq (under Saddam's Baathist regime). Were it not for the continued bombings of civilians by the so-called "insurgents" I would suggest that Afghani and Iraqi citizens would be quite safe today. Had the Taliban and Saddam survived, the killings would have continued endlessly and unless the terrorists are defeated, the killings will continue endlessly.

Innocent human beings were being killed in Afghanistan (under the Taliban government) and Iraq (under Saddam's Baathist regime). Innocent human beings are still being killed when Taliban and Saddam have been removed. A wrong can not be corrected by another wrong.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 5:02 am

Suresh Gupta wrote: Many innocent human beings have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many more are under threat if Iran is attacked. Can such senseless killings be justified?

Sorry I'm late. Suresh, nice to meet ya.

I could not agree with you more about the senseless killings in Afghanistan and Iraq. That's why I am so glad that the US and our allies are going in there to do something about it.

Wouldn't it be marvelous if the terrorists would be more sensible and civilized and realize the pain and suffering their senseless killings have brought upon their fellow Muslim? But instead of that, there they go continuing to hide among their victims and kill them.

Amazingly, the shepherd is being blamed for slaughtering the sheep! I'm glad not everyone is distracted from recognizing the real murderers. :-6

:yh_flag