Clive is so naive

April 4, 2005
Singapore Democrats

This post is at least a year old. Some of the links in this post may no longer work correctly.

4 April 2005

Before I begin, I would like to express my regret that the respondant found some of my comments offensive. However, I do not think I should be
apologetic about that and once again I’ve highlighted his ‘casual’ style
kind of argument.

I would like to inform the respondant that I had watch Michael Moore’s
trademark ‘biased documentary’ “Bowling For Columbine” and some of his
notorious propaganda ‘documentaries’ notably the recent “Farenheit 9-11”.
Perhaps I should reciprocate by suggesting that you read some of the
feedbacks and ‘professional movie reviews and commentaries’ about the nature of Michael Moore and how he’s ‘skilfull’ enough to ‘convice’ his viewers, unfortunately I believe Mr Clive was one of them.

I do not wish to deliberate further with the respondant on the issue of the death penalty as he could only just express distrust on a country’s legal system, the remote possibility that an innoncent person might be executed wrongfully and ‘other reasons’ that he chose to withold. How unfortunate, or perhaps it is fortunate as that would spare us from the respondant’s litany of complaints and distrust.

“More than half of the countries in the world no longer have the death
penalty and the sooner the rest follow the better” is one of those
statements I found to be pretty hollow much least convincing. Just because half of the world practiced certain things, doesn’t mean its correct and should be practice by the rest of the world! Apart from that, I just wonder how my respondant came up with the statistic that more than half of the countries in the world do no have the death penalty!

As for his question as to when Singapore was last occupied or what are the possibilities that Singapore would be invaded, I would like to take the honor to recommend my respondant to read the book titled ‘Defending the Lion City: The Armed Forces of Singapore’ by Huxley, Tim. Hope that would assist and further reinforced my position of having a credible and effective armed forces as a deterrant and clear some of the doubts my respondant may have.

Lastly, as for the comment that my respondant found extremely offensive and his subsequent reply, all I could say is that it really reaffirmed my belief that my respondant is really ‘hollow’ in his comment that ‘it was his government’s decision and not his’! What a JOKE, and unbelievable one too! Doesn’t he know the basic of what’s a representative democratic government is all about?? It’s supposed to represent the will of the people! And your government was elected democratically, right!

But what REALLY and TRUELY troubled and saddened me was that my respondant who’s living in a FREE country was against his own government’s and the U.S as well as other countries in the ‘coalition of the willing’ efforts to liberate a country that was before ruled cruelly by a notorious DICTATOR who was known to have GASSED his own people and deprived his own people of basic human rights!! My respondant was AGAINST the liberation effort to free the Iraqi community!! What an irony that a person who is against the death penalty on the grounds that someone may eventually be wrongfully executed, is against an honorable military operation against freeing the innoncent Iraqi majority (Shiites) and minority (Kurds) from the ‘death sentence’ meted by Saddam Hussein when he was in power!!! What an unbelievable contradiction which really makes me doubt the moral credibility of my respondant.

Finally, its not my idea or thought that a sovereign nation such as the United Kingdom could be the 51st state of America at all! Its both ludicrous and unfathomable!

Perhaps I should just correct my thanksgiving statement and thanked the U.K EXCLUDING my respondant instead, for lending a hand and shoulder as a true friend might, to help give a chance and save the innoncent Iraqi civilians from their ‘death penalty’!

Hope that would alleviate my respondant from some of my ‘offensiveness’.