29
   

Should human rights be taken away from someone if they are diagnosed with schizophrenia?

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 May, 2013 02:09 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
I am not aware of any examples of people or peoples who do not belong to at least one country. some of the Palestinians almost qualify but my understanding is that the nationless ones have been adopted by a nation, though I dont pay a lot of attention to the situation.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 May, 2013 02:11 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
peter jeffrey cobb wrote:

So should they be alowed to survive?

you are aware that survivial is always a temporary condition, correct?
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  4  
Reply Tue 28 May, 2013 02:41 pm
@hawkeye10,
Ok I'm wast dint know you werent aware.
The Rohingya people right now is an example of a human group that are not alowed citizen ship to any country.
They are not alowed to work because they dont belong to any Country.
I posted several sites in previos posts.
Should people that are not alowed to have a Country therefore not alowed to work and have income to feed themselfs or their families.
Should they be alowed to have a way to feed to themselfs and their families?
reasoning logic
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 May, 2013 04:17 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
Quote:
I posted several sites in previos posts.


You know Peter you handled that way better than I would have and I think that hawkeye10 does deserve that kind of respect but at the same time, I do think that he should try a little harder in the future to read what you share. Idea
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 May, 2013 10:17 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
Jesus! What did these people do to get everyone so pissed at them?
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 May, 2013 10:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
Ehhh is not a matter of what they did. Im sure is not something popular or the whole world wouldnt be turning their backs on them.
Is a matter of should they be alowed to survive just because their humans?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 May, 2013 10:50 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
Quote:
On the other hand, the Burmese central government refused to grant a separate Muslim state in the Mayu region where two townships (Buthidaung and Maungdaw) lie. As a consequence, the Mujahids from Northern Arakan declared jihad on Burma.[6] The Mujahid militants began their insurgent activities in the Buthidaung and Maungdaw townships (Mayu region) of Burma that lies on Burma-East Pakistan border. A long-term criminal and major rice-smuggler named Abdul Kassem was the leader of the Mujahid insurgency.[7]
Within a few years, Mujahid rebels made rapid progress and banished the Arakanese villages. The Arakanese inhabitants of Buthidaung and Maungdaw were forced to leave their homes. In June 1949, government's control was reduced to Akyab city only, while the Mujahids were in possession of all of northern Arakan. The Burmese government accused the Mujahids of encouraging illegal immigration into Arakan of thousands of Bengali people from over-populated Eastern Bengal (then East Pakistan).[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_conflict_in_Western_Burma

Oh, they are terrorists. Until and unless they renounce terrorism **** them.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 May, 2013 11:06 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
British armed Muslim groups in northern Arakan to create a buffer zone from the Japanese invasion when they retreated [38] and Muslims were promised by the British that if they supported the Allies they would be given their own "national area".[39]
However, as a consequence of acquiring arms, Rohingyas tried to destroy the Arakanese villages instead of resisting against the Japanese during World War II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_conflict_in_Western_Burma

no doubt the cause of the Brits washing their hands of these people......
0 Replies
 
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 May, 2013 11:10 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hmmm I see your point. In 1949 some of the leaders spoke out and declared war. Wow how many decades has it been? Are their children still liable for this? At what age should you be held liable for what your ancestor did? 10 years old? 6 years old? 2 years old? At what age should we impose the death sentence?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 May, 2013 11:28 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
Quote:
The Muslims from the other parts
of Arakan kept themselves aloof from the Rohingya cause as well.
Thus the cause of Rohingyas finds a little support outside their
own community, and their claims of an earlier historical tie to
Burma are insupportable.

http://www.soas.ac.uk/sbbr/editions/file64388.pdf

they must be some messed up mother fuckers since even local muslims refuse to support them. Me thinks that an attitude adjustment might be in order. Lying is not a step in the right direction either.
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 12:03 am
@hawkeye10,
If you live in a place were you cant work.
Therefore cant supply food for yourself and your family.
Is it consired a Concetration camp?
Should there be age limits when the world decides to have concetration camps?
If youre 4 years old, should the world alow you to live in a concetration camp?
2 years old?
Whats the age limit?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 01:24 am
@peter jeffrey cobb,
Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan threaten Myanmar over Rohingya
By AFP Published: July 26, 2012

Quote:
ISLAMABAD: The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) Thursday threatened to attack Myanmar to avenge crimes against the Muslim Rohingya, unless Pakistan halts all relations with the government and shuts its embassy in Islamabad.
In a rare statement focused on the plight of Muslims abroad, the umbrella TTP group sought to present itself as a defender of Muslim men and women in Myanmar, saying “we will take revenge of your blood”.
Spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan demanded that the Pakistani government halt all relations with Myanmar and close down its embassy in Islamabad.
“Otherwise we will not only attack Burmese interests anywhere but will also attack the Pakistani fellows of Burma one by one,” he said in a statement.
The Myanmar embassy in Islamabad was not immediately reachable for comment.
The TTP frequently claims attacks on security forces in Pakistan but its ability to wage violence in countries further afield has been questioned.
But US officials say there is evidence the group was behind a failed 2010 attempt to bomb Times Square in New York, for which Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad was jailed for life.
TTP leader Hakimullah Mehsud has also been charged in the United States over the killings of seven CIA agents who died when a Jordanian al Qaeda double agent blew himself up at a US base in Afghanistan in December 2009.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/413231/taliban-threaten-myanmar-over-rohingya/

But hey, they are supported by the Pakistani Taliban! Do I really need to know more than that?
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 May, 2013 03:09 am
@hawkeye10,
Wow so is that a side effect of alowing concetration camps?
People are now saying they will take revenge for them?
Hmmm troublesome.
So should the world alow concetration camps?
Are there negative side effects to it?
50 kilos of rice costs $30 over there.
What would be the cheapest of way to stop these people from being use as a propaganda tool of war?
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2013 10:54 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
I Think hopefully we should start seeing more this in the concentration camps.
http://www.unicef.org/emergencies/myanmar_68083.html
Its a good start they are building some toilets. In the close quarter camps.
And they are being able to feed some children when they are under 5 years of age.
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Jul, 2013 09:00 am
@peter jeffrey cobb,
Hmm I wonder why when they murder the children with this policy http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/28/burma-revoke-two-child-policy-rohingya
I wonder why they burn the children after as its show here http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=rohingya+2+child&qpvt=rohingya+2+child&FORM=IGRE
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  2  
Reply Mon 8 Jul, 2013 10:35 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
You know the odd thing is that they are imposing these laws of murdering their children among the many other laws, To a group of people that's not even their citizens.
These people don't belong to any one Country. They don't have sovereignty.
Therefore they are not any single Country's responsibility.
Until the day they are allowed to belong to a single Country, They are the Worlds responsibility.
Should the combined Countries of the World allow these things to happen to a group of people they are responsible for?
reasoning logic
 
  3  
Reply Sun 14 Jul, 2013 04:52 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
Quote:
Should the combined Countries of the World allow these things to happen to a group of people they are responsible for?


No they should not. The sad truth is that there are not enough people out there like yourself to change things all at once. It is good that you have the ability to be aware of these things but please do try to find other things in life that are uplifting to balance out these bad situations.
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jul, 2013 08:12 pm
@reasoning logic,
Ok so the topic is "Should human rights be taken away from someone if they are diagnosed with schizophrenia".
Well from studies it is show that traumatic events trigger mental diseases such as schizophrenia.
Is having your children murdered and burned just enough so the bodies are like the pictures I posted traumatic?
Would it be traumatic if it happened to you?
If it is and if over 1% of the population has diseases such as these.
Should these people have basic human rights?
Or what exactly are you saying?
Is it because they don't belong to a country like you, is that the reason why they should not be allowed to have basic human rights?
Or is it because the color of their eyes? Color of their skin? If they chose to worship God or if they don't?
Is it because they are 98% unable to read or write?
What is it that make these people underserving of human rights?
Again I am not judging I am simply trying to understand your point of view.
So could you take a few minutes to explain why these people do not deserve basic human rights that are given to you?
0 Replies
 
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Jul, 2013 11:42 pm
@reasoning logic,
Oops I misread what you said and I went back and read it again My apologies.
I do also look at many uplifting things in life Smile
I think everything in life is a gift.
I appreciate everyday that I am allowed to spend in this Universe.
These people are not able to speak to the world for themselves. (they cant read or write). I am just trying to understand the Worlds point of view of why these things are being allowed to be done to a population that has no Country.
I keep expecting someone to say it is Ok to allow the murder of kids because of .........
Or It is ok to allow concentration camps because...........
Or its Ok to take away human rights because ............
Well guess I keep expecting someone to say this because it is being allowed right now. I am just trying to understand Why it is being allowed to happen.
Surely there must be reason why the World is sitting back and watching this happen. Is not like any particular Country has the responsibility for them.
Because they don't belong to a Country the responsibility is shared by all Countries.
laughoutlood
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Jul, 2013 02:33 am
@peter jeffrey cobb,
Hello pj
Good to see you again
Email your elected representatives and the ICJ
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 10:06:04