FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > terrorism
terrorism
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty is not much of a deterrent against suicide bombers... " . Softie...I say dig erm up beat em up then hang em.. And by an electric rope. Then put them in the fields as scarecrows  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty is not much of a deterrent against suicide bombers... " I know, it was just black humour... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty is not much of a deterrent against suicide bombers... "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty is not much of a deterrent against suicide bombers... . Softie...I say dig erm up beat em up then hang em.. And by an electric rope. Then put them in the fields as scarecrows "You call that namby pamby liberalism punishment ?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty is not much of a deterrent against suicide bombers... I know, it was just black humour..." Oh steady man...... I'd posted my comment before yours appeared on my feed...... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty is not much of a deterrent against suicide bombers... " It is the same thing lol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"roughly how many innocent people would Britain have murdered in the 1970s/80s if they imposed the death penalty for acts of terrorism? It's a ludicrous suggestion really... " Lot's, as mis-carriages of justice and evidence tampering were also much more prevalent. I support the punishment in ultra-clearly provable cases only. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty is not much of a deterrent against suicide bombers... I know, it was just black humour... Oh steady man...... I'd posted my comment before yours appeared on my feed...... "It's them slow mackum cables. Evidence clearly shows mine was first... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty is not much of a deterrent against suicide bombers... It is the same thing lol." Shag you have a unique take on things | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty is not much of a deterrent against suicide bombers... It is the same thing lol. Shag you have a unique take on things "Yes I do and it would be less tax to pay too lol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty is not much of a deterrent against suicide bombers... I know, it was just black humour... Oh steady man...... I'd posted my comment before yours appeared on my feed......
It's them slow mackum cables. Evidence clearly shows mine was first..."Cables cables? what cables .... I have little man relaying messages by semaphore | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty is not much of a deterrent against suicide bombers... It is the same thing lol. Shag you have a unique take on things Yes I do and it would be less tax to pay too lol." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. " No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business." it is: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." unlawful is the only dubious bit about what i said really. as of now the death penalty is unlawful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business." So would you support the death penalty in cases of British soldiers carrying out state sponsored terrorism? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"roughly how many innocent people would Britain have murdered in the 1970s/80s if they imposed the death penalty for acts of terrorism? It's a ludicrous suggestion really... Lot's, as mis-carriages of justice and evidence tampering were also much more prevalent. I support the punishment in ultra-clearly provable cases only." I agree - like in the case of serial killers where there is undeniable evidence for many of the murders. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business. it is: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." unlawful is the only dubious bit about what i said really. as of now the death penalty is unlawful." Of course, the death penalty is currently illegal, the question was about legalising it for this crime. The two are still not linked in any way. The death penalty is a punishment against an individual who has committed murder of completely innocent people. Punishing them is not terrorism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business. So would you support the death penalty in cases of British soldiers carrying out state sponsored terrorism?" I think this is going to send the thread on a tangent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain" What's the point? They are willing to die while carrying out the terrorist activity? This way either they die in the blast, or subsequently upon conviction. Still a martyr in their perverse understanding. And will be spared jail, lol! Such legislation will be used against law abiding people as it usually happens with all draconian laws. Fewer laws, better life. Fuck all criminals and their counterparts, Governments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty is not much of a deterrent against suicide bombers... . Softie...I say dig erm up beat em up then hang em.. And by an electric rope. Then put them in the fields as scarecrows
You call that namby pamby liberalism punishment ?
". Punishment?.. Oh I thought we were just talking about weekend fun things to do  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business. it is: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." unlawful is the only dubious bit about what i said really. as of now the death penalty is unlawful. Of course, the death penalty is currently illegal, the question was about legalising it for this crime. The two are still not linked in any way. The death penalty is a punishment against an individual who has committed murder of completely innocent people. Punishing them is not terrorism." it's an act of vengeance. it's also known that violent crimes go up in a population when someone is excuted, therefore it now is a threat of terrorism to all people of a society because of this link. killing people produces an effect more than just getting rid of someone who commits crimes, it validates violence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Absolutely but not just for terrorist but for any crime that involves death or harm to children! " This. For murderers too, not only in the UK but across Europe too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business. it is: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." unlawful is the only dubious bit about what i said really. as of now the death penalty is unlawful." Terrorising the terrorists you say? Death penalty is a punishment for terrorism, not being the same as terrorism. Of course, provided that the law contained such a provision. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business. So would you support the death penalty in cases of British soldiers carrying out state sponsored terrorism? I think this is going to send the thread on a tangent." Well there is many proven cases of units such as the MRF murdering unarmed civilians in Northern Ireland... While some are finally being prosecuted for murder, their sentences will no doubt be unduly lenient... My point is there is different levels of terrorism and if you impose the death penalty for "acts of terrorism" then it should apply to ALL acts of terrorism. I guarantee the majority of Britain would be outraged if they tried to impose the death penalty on a soldier regardless of how callous his acts were... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"roughly how many innocent people would Britain have murdered in the 1970s/80s if they imposed the death penalty for acts of terrorism? It's a ludicrous suggestion really... Lot's, as mis-carriages of justice and evidence tampering were also much more prevalent. I support the punishment in ultra-clearly provable cases only. I agree - like in the case of serial killers where there is undeniable evidence for many of the murders." Nothing is ultra clearly probable . All evidence can be fabricated. Everyone can be framed at any time for any crime. Don't count on anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"roughly how many innocent people would Britain have murdered in the 1970s/80s if they imposed the death penalty for acts of terrorism? It's a ludicrous suggestion really... Lot's, as mis-carriages of justice and evidence tampering were also much more prevalent. I support the punishment in ultra-clearly provable cases only." the problem is how many of those have were "ultra-provable" at the time, but would be not the case now..... for example... you could use the case of marine a, where i could be said that he clearly murdered someone because of camera footage taken at the time showed him doing it.... 
not a popular sentence... but absolutely provable....
but the sentence ended up being manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibilty.. and that was years later....
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business. it is: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." unlawful is the only dubious bit about what i said really. as of now the death penalty is unlawful. Terrorising the terrorists you say? Death penalty is a punishment for terrorism, not being the same as terrorism. Of course, provided that the law contained such a provision. " you're not terrorising anyone that is prepared to die for their cause. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business. it is: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." unlawful is the only dubious bit about what i said really. as of now the death penalty is unlawful. Terrorising the terrorists you say? Death penalty is a punishment for terrorism, not being the same as terrorism. Of course, provided that the law contained such a provision. you're not terrorising anyone that is prepared to die for their cause." You said ' the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Instead of new and more laws and regulations, bring back the Wild West. The Americans have lower crime because they are allowed to carry guns. Guns that protect better than police and criminal justice system, even when you don't physically have a gun on you. Britain, on the other hand, has the highest rate per capita of violent crimes in the developed world. Why ? Because you can't carry a toothpick here for personal protection. " quick question.... how many people in the us die each year because of "guns"... either purposefully or accidentally? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Instead of new and more laws and regulations, bring back the Wild West. The Americans have lower crime because they are allowed to carry guns. Guns that protect better than police and criminal justice system, even when you don't physically have a gun on you. Britain, on the other hand, has the highest rate per capita of violent crimes in the developed world. Why ? Because you can't carry a toothpick here for personal protection. " in the US more people are killed by toddlers using their parents gun than by terrorists... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Instead of new and more laws and regulations, bring back the Wild West. The Americans have lower crime because they are allowed to carry guns. Guns that protect better than police and criminal justice system, even when you don't physically have a gun on you. Britain, on the other hand, has the highest rate per capita of violent crimes in the developed world. Why ? Because you can't carry a toothpick here for personal protection. quick question.... how many people in the us die each year because of "guns"... either purposefully or accidentally?" I've just finished a degree in criminology, I can tell you that I can even break it down into specific categories as defined by the FBI.
It's LOTS!
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"roughly how many innocent people would Britain have murdered in the 1970s/80s if they imposed the death penalty for acts of terrorism? It's a ludicrous suggestion really... Lot's, as mis-carriages of justice and evidence tampering were also much more prevalent. I support the punishment in ultra-clearly provable cases only." Who decides what is "provable". Death penalty is a black n white / open n shut debate....either for it or agin it..... can't have a half way option. Just like you can't be a little bit dead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business. it is: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." unlawful is the only dubious bit about what i said really. as of now the death penalty is unlawful. Terrorising the terrorists you say? Death penalty is a punishment for terrorism, not being the same as terrorism. Of course, provided that the law contained such a provision. you're not terrorising anyone that is prepared to die for their cause. You said ' the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism'" it is. like i said violence in a society goes up when people are executed. therefore the death penalty is a threat to all of our safety for that reason alone. and you US is safer than the UK is a myth based on biased information as we don't record violent crime the same way as the US does. many more lesser crimes are classed as violent here than over there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Instead of new and more laws and regulations, bring back the Wild West. The Americans have lower crime because they are allowed to carry guns. Guns that protect better than police and criminal justice system, even when you don't physically have a gun on you. Britain, on the other hand, has the highest rate per capita of violent crimes in the developed world. Why ? Because you can't carry a toothpick here for personal protection. " That's not actually true. It is very difficult to judge because different countries count different things as violent crime. For example in the US R*** is not counted as a violent crime, whereas here it obviously is... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Instead of new and more laws and regulations, bring back the Wild West. The Americans have lower crime because they are allowed to carry guns. Guns that protect better than police and criminal justice system, even when you don't physically have a gun on you. Britain, on the other hand, has the highest rate per capita of violent crimes in the developed world. Why ? Because you can't carry a toothpick here for personal protection. quick question.... how many people in the us die each year because of "guns"... either purposefully or accidentally?" Easy answer. And to make it even easier for you, I'm prepared to accept that 100% of all deaths in US are from gun shots. No one dies because of car crashes,old age and so on. Everyone who ever lived and died in US was murdered by a gunman or shot in accident. Now, your turn to answer. If it wasn't for the guns would all those people have lived till today?   
Find the Answer below ( as I gotta go):
People kill people. Not guns,poisonm not cars, ropes, knives, bricks, sticks, baseball bats, dildos or whatever one may use to kill and injure others.
Britain,with it's tough laws on guns and knives, still has the highest crime in the developed countries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Instead of new and more laws and regulations, bring back the Wild West. The Americans have lower crime because they are allowed to carry guns. Guns that protect better than police and criminal justice system, even when you don't physically have a gun on you. Britain, on the other hand, has the highest rate per capita of violent crimes in the developed world. Why ? Because you can't carry a toothpick here for personal protection. That's not actually true. It is very difficult to judge because different countries count different things as violent crime. For example in the US R*** is not counted as a violent crime, whereas here it obviously is... " That's not true. While there are small variety in terminology, the result ranges between 2 and 3 times higher crime in UK than US,depending on what's included as a violent crime. PS. 4000 rap*s in London alone Every year. Reported once. Estimated : times more never reported . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"roughly how many innocent people would Britain have murdered in the 1970s/80s if they imposed the death penalty for acts of terrorism? It's a ludicrous suggestion really... Lot's, as mis-carriages of justice and evidence tampering were also much more prevalent. I support the punishment in ultra-clearly provable cases only. Who decides what is "provable". Death penalty is a black n white / open n shut debate....either for it or agin it..... can't have a half way option. Just like you can't be a little bit dead." I mean where it is a 100% fact. i.e in the case of terrorists apprehended at the scene in sight of witnesses. And as a poster above mentioned in cases against crimes against children where the perpetrator has video'd themselves. Lots of these crimes aren't like a murder mystery with convoluted evidence they are sickeningly clear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business. it is: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." unlawful is the only dubious bit about what i said really. as of now the death penalty is unlawful. Terrorising the terrorists you say? Death penalty is a punishment for terrorism, not being the same as terrorism. Of course, provided that the law contained such a provision. you're not terrorising anyone that is prepared to die for their cause. You said ' the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism' it is. like i said violence in a society goes up when people are executed. therefore the death penalty is a threat to all of our safety for that reason alone. and you US is safer than the UK is a myth based on biased information as we don't record violent crime the same way as the US does. many more lesser crimes are classed as violent here than over there." Of course not. The yankees are the most horrible criminals in the world. We, Brits are gentle like baby bums. It's a fantasy you live in, right? (I lived in US, safer that anywhere else) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You said ' the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism' it is. like i said violence in a society goes up when people are executed. " two points. 1. regardless of the death penalty , your logic also applies to any punishment of a terrorist. Punishments to convicted criminals is not terrorism. 2. Violence does not do up in in countries with the death penalty. Murder rates might be higher - USA for example. True. But, you are concluding the cause and effect. There is also legal gun ownership etc etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Instead of new and more laws and regulations, bring back the Wild West. The Americans have lower crime because they are allowed to carry guns. Guns that protect better than police and criminal justice system, even when you don't physically have a gun on you. Britain, on the other hand, has the highest rate per capita of violent crimes in the developed world. Why ? Because you can't carry a toothpick here for personal protection. in the US more people are killed by toddlers using their parents gun than by terrorists... "There you go, this is how toddlers learn there, my dear. I admire the sacrificies American parents are prepared to make for their children's education. And you here complain about the high university fees!?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business. it is: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." unlawful is the only dubious bit about what i said really. as of now the death penalty is unlawful. Terrorising the terrorists you say? Death penalty is a punishment for terrorism, not being the same as terrorism. Of course, provided that the law contained such a provision. you're not terrorising anyone that is prepared to die for their cause. You said ' the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism' it is. like i said violence in a society goes up when people are executed. therefore the death penalty is a threat to all of our safety for that reason alone. and you US is safer than the UK is a myth based on biased information as we don't record violent crime the same way as the US does. many more lesser crimes are classed as violent here than over there. Of course not. The yankees are the most horrible criminals in the world. We, Brits are gentle like baby bums. It's a fantasy you live in, right? (I lived in US, safer that anywhere else)" well i found this online and gonna go with it coz they cited soucres that look legit: While it becomes clear that certain types of offences are marginally higher in the UK than in the US (robbery and knife crime being more likely in the UK by an order of 1.1x and 1.27x respectively) a number of other, more serious offenses, are both marginally and substantially higher in the US. R*pe of a female is 1.02x more likely in the US, while theft of a vehicle is 1.29x more likely. More disturbingly, burglary is significantly higher at 1.52x more likely to occur in the US. However, it is at the considerably more, well, violent crimes that America really supersedes England and Wales into its own class. In the United States, you are 6.9x more likely to be the victim of aggravated assault resulting in serious injury than in the UK. You are 4.03x more likely to be murdered than in the UK. And more staggeringly (though not surprising) you are 35.2x more likely to be shot dead in the Unites States than in the UK. i did have a nosey on the US official stats site for crimes (bjs.gov) also but they don't compare rates there i think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You said ' the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism' it is. like i said violence in a society goes up when people are executed. two points. 1. regardless of the death penalty , your logic also applies to any punishment of a terrorist. Punishments to convicted criminals is not terrorism. 2. Violence does not do up in in countries with the death penalty. Murder rates might be higher - USA for example. True. But, you are concluding the cause and effect. There is also legal gun ownership etc etc" most of the studies have been going on in america, because we haven't had the death penalty for a long while and they have states that do and don't support the death penalty. so have a pool of different sources to garner information from. so they do not look at the country as a whole but more the areas in it. the timing is what makes it so there is a strong correlation. but i have seen (hardly any) studies that support crime goes down. this could be because the studies made are by people biased against the death penalty, but there's a lot more evidence to not support it than there is to support it as of now. i'm also biased as i don't believe violence is the best way, i don't support terrorism for that reason also. i'm aware of ways the government can traumatise their own people and they do that for their own means also. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business. it is: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." unlawful is the only dubious bit about what i said really. as of now the death penalty is unlawful. Terrorising the terrorists you say? Death penalty is a punishment for terrorism, not being the same as terrorism. Of course, provided that the law contained such a provision. you're not terrorising anyone that is prepared to die for their cause. You said ' the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism' it is. like i said violence in a society goes up when people are executed. therefore the death penalty is a threat to all of our safety for that reason alone. and you US is safer than the UK is a myth based on biased information as we don't record violent crime the same way as the US does. many more lesser crimes are classed as violent here than over there. Of course not. The yankees are the most horrible criminals in the world. We, Brits are gentle like baby bums. It's a fantasy you live in, right? (I lived in US, safer that anywhere else) well i found this online and gonna go with it coz they cited soucres that look legit: While it becomes clear that certain types of offences are marginally higher in the UK than in the US (robbery and knife crime being more likely in the UK by an order of 1.1x and 1.27x respectively) a number of other, more serious offenses, are both marginally and substantially higher in the US. R*pe of a female is 1.02x more likely in the US, while theft of a vehicle is 1.29x more likely. More disturbingly, burglary is significantly higher at 1.52x more likely to occur in the US. However, it is at the considerably more, well, violent crimes that America really supersedes England and Wales into its own class. In the United States, you are 6.9x more likely to be the victim of aggravated assault resulting in serious injury than in the UK. You are 4.03x more likely to be murdered than in the UK. And more staggeringly (though not surprising) you are 35.2x more likely to be shot dead in the Unites States than in the UK. i did have a nosey on the US official stats site for crimes (bjs.gov) also but they don't compare rates there i think." Rule number ONE of doing research : do it properly ! Googling quickly here and there is worse than no research at all. Take about a week of your time, full time. And then report back. Good luck ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. In cases where it's later found that a person is innocent then there's no going back after a death penalty. In such cases as the Lee Rigby murder, where there is irrefutable proff that those two were the culprits, all you do by executing them is turning them in to martyrs in the eyes of the very deranged few. Better to lock them away in a very dark hole for the rest of their lives." Obviously the debate centers on whether it's better to lock these guys up forever at a cost to the taxpayer or just bury them... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" i'm also biased as i don't believe violence is the best way, i don't support terrorism for that reason also. i'm aware of ways the government can traumatise their own people and they do that for their own means also." I agree with you on this, 3somequeen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" like i said violence in a society goes up when people are executed. two points. 1. regardless of the death penalty , your logic also applies to any punishment of a terrorist. Punishments to convicted criminals is not terrorism. 2. Violence does not do up in in countries with the death penalty. Murder rates might be higher - USA for example. True. But, you are concluding the cause and effect. There is also legal gun ownership etc etc most of the studies have been going on in america, because we haven't had the death penalty for a long while and they have states that do and don't support the death penalty. so have a pool of different sources to garner information from. so they do not look at the country as a whole but more the areas in it. the timing is what makes it so there is a strong correlation. but i have seen (hardly any) studies that support crime goes down. this could be because the studies made are by people biased against the death penalty, but there's a lot more evidence to not support it than there is to support it as of now. i'm also biased as i don't believe violence is the best way, i don't support terrorism for that reason also. i'm aware of ways the government can traumatise their own people and they do that for their own means also." US states either have or don't have the death penalty, I don't think any have brought it in recently, to get any data on its effect. Basically there is no clear data either way, for either opinion My support for it isn't just deterrent based anyway. I don't think someone guilty of killing innocent people or murdering and sexually assaulting children should be alive. I don't see that as government subjugation. Yes, it is violent, but we already accept state violence when we ask British forces to attach targets and kill people for the safety of our country. I consider the two to be closely linked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business. it is: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." unlawful is the only dubious bit about what i said really. as of now the death penalty is unlawful. Terrorising the terrorists you say? Death penalty is a punishment for terrorism, not being the same as terrorism. Of course, provided that the law contained such a provision. you're not terrorising anyone that is prepared to die for their cause. You said ' the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism' it is. like i said violence in a society goes up when people are executed. therefore the death penalty is a threat to all of our safety for that reason alone. and you US is safer than the UK is a myth based on biased information as we don't record violent crime the same way as the US does. many more lesser crimes are classed as violent here than over there. Of course not. The yankees are the most horrible criminals in the world. We, Brits are gentle like baby bums. It's a fantasy you live in, right? (I lived in US, safer that anywhere else) well i found this online and gonna go with it coz they cited soucres that look legit: While it becomes clear that certain types of offences are marginally higher in the UK than in the US (robbery and knife crime being more likely in the UK by an order of 1.1x and 1.27x respectively) a number of other, more serious offenses, are both marginally and substantially higher in the US. R*pe of a female is 1.02x more likely in the US, while theft of a vehicle is 1.29x more likely. More disturbingly, burglary is significantly higher at 1.52x more likely to occur in the US. However, it is at the considerably more, well, violent crimes that America really supersedes England and Wales into its own class. In the United States, you are 6.9x more likely to be the victim of aggravated assault resulting in serious injury than in the UK. You are 4.03x more likely to be murdered than in the UK. And more staggeringly (though not surprising) you are 35.2x more likely to be shot dead in the Unites States than in the UK. i did have a nosey on the US official stats site for crimes (bjs.gov) also but they don't compare rates there i think. Rule number ONE of doing research : do it properly ! Googling quickly here and there is worse than no research at all. Take about a week of your time, full time. And then report back. Good luck !" i have done. i used to discuss this with people on other sites and learned a lot from them. unfortunately you cannot cite sources on here so most debates are low quality on here really, unless you copy and paste reams of information instead. like all i could quote was some uselss .gov site and not even the pages you can find useful information on...i need to get more creative with my links i think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let the family members who lost loved ones get creative and make the punishments.." I believe they have something similar in Japan?? (Open to correction on this) Whereby the family of the victim decides between incarceration or death. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business. it is: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." unlawful is the only dubious bit about what i said really. as of now the death penalty is unlawful. Terrorising the terrorists you say? Death penalty is a punishment for terrorism, not being the same as terrorism. Of course, provided that the law contained such a provision. you're not terrorising anyone that is prepared to die for their cause. You said ' the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism' it is. like i said violence in a society goes up when people are executed. therefore the death penalty is a threat to all of our safety for that reason alone. and you US is safer than the UK is a myth based on biased information as we don't record violent crime the same way as the US does. many more lesser crimes are classed as violent here than over there. Of course not. The yankees are the most horrible criminals in the world. We, Brits are gentle like baby bums. It's a fantasy you live in, right? (I lived in US, safer that anywhere else) well i found this online and gonna go with it coz they cited soucres that look legit: While it becomes clear that certain types of offences are marginally higher in the UK than in the US (robbery and knife crime being more likely in the UK by an order of 1.1x and 1.27x respectively) a number of other, more serious offenses, are both marginally and substantially higher in the US. R*pe of a female is 1.02x more likely in the US, while theft of a vehicle is 1.29x more likely. More disturbingly, burglary is significantly higher at 1.52x more likely to occur in the US. However, it is at the considerably more, well, violent crimes that America really supersedes England and Wales into its own class. In the United States, you are 6.9x more likely to be the victim of aggravated assault resulting in serious injury than in the UK. You are 4.03x more likely to be murdered than in the UK. And more staggeringly (though not surprising) you are 35.2x more likely to be shot dead in the Unites States than in the UK. i did have a nosey on the US official stats site for crimes (bjs.gov) also but they don't compare rates there i think. Rule number ONE of doing research : do it properly ! Googling quickly here and there is worse than no research at all. Take about a week of your time, full time. And then report back. Good luck ! i have done. i used to discuss this with people on other sites and learned a lot from them. unfortunately you cannot cite sources on here so most debates are low quality on here really, unless you copy and paste reams of information instead. like all i could quote was some uselss .gov site and not even the pages you can find useful information on...i need to get more creative with my links i think." No need, 3some. Let's just meet in person and discuss it face to face. Or the other way round, 69  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It costs more to put someone on death row than it does to imprison them for life." death row is prison, 10-20 years in some cases. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It costs more to put someone on death row than it does to imprison them for life." thats not necessarily true. Yes the judicial process costs more but if someone is on Death row for 15 years before execution, a person serving 60 years in Gen. Pop will cost the taxpayer more overall | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" like i said violence in a society goes up when people are executed. two points. 1. regardless of the death penalty , your logic also applies to any punishment of a terrorist. Punishments to convicted criminals is not terrorism. 2. Violence does not do up in in countries with the death penalty. Murder rates might be higher - USA for example. True. But, you are concluding the cause and effect. There is also legal gun ownership etc etc most of the studies have been going on in america, because we haven't had the death penalty for a long while and they have states that do and don't support the death penalty. so have a pool of different sources to garner information from. so they do not look at the country as a whole but more the areas in it. the timing is what makes it so there is a strong correlation. but i have seen (hardly any) studies that support crime goes down. this could be because the studies made are by people biased against the death penalty, but there's a lot more evidence to not support it than there is to support it as of now. i'm also biased as i don't believe violence is the best way, i don't support terrorism for that reason also. i'm aware of ways the government can traumatise their own people and they do that for their own means also. US states either have or don't have the death penalty, I don't think any have brought it in recently, to get any data on its effect. Basically there is no clear data either way, for either opinion My support for it isn't just deterrent based anyway. I don't think someone guilty of killing innocent people or murdering and sexually assaulting children should be alive. I don't see that as government subjugation. Yes, it is violent, but we already accept state violence when we ask British forces to attach targets and kill people for the safety of our country. I consider the two to be closely linked." yeah it's not all recent research, it goes over decades. and that is why i believe in it, but i am biased also and want to believe in it. i don't support the army either, when we are not being invaded. you might think that is a simplistic comment but it is based on many things. i'm not sure if we would be invaded if we were not using our army to interfere in other countries and killing people there, i suspect we would not be but as you see there are attacks (like the one this week, and the london attack not long back) that do happen occasionally. i think now the world is connected, the internet and other such communications, that using an army is not the best way now. anyone is this country has the potential to empathise with their people being attacked elsewhere and to act based on how they feel. by their people i mean any group that they feel affiliation with. i am a pacifist at heart as i know the personal effects of violence on people, i am biased to believe we are only a violent species because we are taught it is ok to be violent in many forms. i do not support any form of legal violence upon anyone or anything sentient. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, it is violent, but we already accept state violence when we ask British forces to attach targets and kill people for the safety of our country. I consider the two to be closely linked." We haven't asked them this since WW2, yet they still go on doing it.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, it is violent, but we already accept state violence when we ask British forces to attach targets and kill people for the safety of our country. I consider the two to be closely linked. We haven't asked them this since WW2, yet they still go on doing it. "Ignorance is bliss... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business. it is: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." unlawful is the only dubious bit about what i said really. as of now the death penalty is unlawful. Terrorising the terrorists you say? Death penalty is a punishment for terrorism, not being the same as terrorism. Of course, provided that the law contained such a provision. you're not terrorising anyone that is prepared to die for their cause. You said ' the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism' it is. like i said violence in a society goes up when people are executed. therefore the death penalty is a threat to all of our safety for that reason alone. and you US is safer than the UK is a myth based on biased information as we don't record violent crime the same way as the US does. many more lesser crimes are classed as violent here than over there. Of course not. The yankees are the most horrible criminals in the world. We, Brits are gentle like baby bums. It's a fantasy you live in, right? (I lived in US, safer that anywhere else) well i found this online and gonna go with it coz they cited soucres that look legit: While it becomes clear that certain types of offences are marginally higher in the UK than in the US (robbery and knife crime being more likely in the UK by an order of 1.1x and 1.27x respectively) a number of other, more serious offenses, are both marginally and substantially higher in the US. R*pe of a female is 1.02x more likely in the US, while theft of a vehicle is 1.29x more likely. More disturbingly, burglary is significantly higher at 1.52x more likely to occur in the US. However, it is at the considerably more, well, violent crimes that America really supersedes England and Wales into its own class. In the United States, you are 6.9x more likely to be the victim of aggravated assault resulting in serious injury than in the UK. You are 4.03x more likely to be murdered than in the UK. And more staggeringly (though not surprising) you are 35.2x more likely to be shot dead in the Unites States than in the UK. i did have a nosey on the US official stats site for crimes (bjs.gov) also but they don't compare rates there i think. Rule number ONE of doing research : do it properly ! Googling quickly here and there is worse than no research at all. Take about a week of your time, full time. And then report back. Good luck ! i have done. i used to discuss this with people on other sites and learned a lot from them. unfortunately you cannot cite sources on here so most debates are low quality on here really, unless you copy and paste reams of information instead. like all i could quote was some uselss .gov site and not even the pages you can find useful information on...i need to get more creative with my links i think. No need, 3some. Let's just meet in person and discuss it face to face. Or the other way round, 69 "never had a debate end like this.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let the family members who lost loved ones get creative and make the punishments.. I believe they have something similar in Japan?? (Open to correction on this) Whereby the family of the victim decides between incarceration or death." According to wiki, that is 1 criteria of 9 which determine the punishment. The main one being number of victims. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let the family members who lost loved ones get creative and make the punishments.. I believe they have something similar in Japan?? (Open to correction on this) Whereby the family of the victim decides between incarceration or death. According to wiki, that is 1 criteria of 9 which determine the punishment. The main one being number of victims." Thanks for clarifying! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, it is violent, but we already accept state violence when we ask British forces to attach targets and kill people for the safety of our country. I consider the two to be closely linked. We haven't asked them this since WW2, yet they still go on doing it. "What do you mean? British troops have been engaged in numerous conflicts since then, and currently are... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. MrB (except for suicide bombers)" That is favouritism for the suicide bombers - Mrs. J - | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. i quite like how we could create a more equal and fair society and let people make their own moral decision based on that. by making people feel included rather than rejecting them and saying they are wrong for existing." What complete and absolute tosh. Blaming society for creating these monsters rather than acknowledging that some people are simply evil to the bone. Dreaming of some unattainable utopia whilst our children are murdered. I wonder if you'd be so quick to blame society if it was one of your loved ones murdered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Righto I'm assuming the death penalty for terrorism will be for Islamic extremists, as that's the terrible problem we face. The death penalty must be for the ones who didn't die in the act of terrorism. These evil men believe with every fibre of their being that they will ascend to paradise and be surrounded by beautiful virgins when they die. So they fail in the act, then we go and do exactly what they want to happen - dying a martyr's death at the hands of the enemy. Nah - far better let them spend years bemoaning their failure to fully complete their mission and the fact they're stuck in prison rather than a never-ending celestial orgy. "
And then when they do finally die, they'll find out how very wrong they were in their false belief
- Mrs. J - | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Righto I'm assuming the death penalty for terrorism will be for Islamic extremists, as that's the terrible problem we face. The death penalty must be for the ones who didn't die in the act of terrorism. These evil men believe with every fibre of their being that they will ascend to paradise and be surrounded by beautiful virgins when they die. So they fail in the act, then we go and do exactly what they want to happen - dying a martyr's death at the hands of the enemy. Nah - far better let them spend years bemoaning their failure to fully complete their mission and the fact they're stuck in prison rather than a never-ending celestial orgy.
And then when they do finally die, they'll find out how very wrong they were in their false belief
- Mrs. J -"Unfortunately, they won't find out. If just one could and could report back, this nonsense would wither away. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business. it is: "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." unlawful is the only dubious bit about what i said really. as of now the death penalty is unlawful. Terrorising the terrorists you say? Death penalty is a punishment for terrorism, not being the same as terrorism. Of course, provided that the law contained such a provision. you're not terrorising anyone that is prepared to die for their cause. You said ' the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism' it is. like i said violence in a society goes up when people are executed. therefore the death penalty is a threat to all of our safety for that reason alone. and you US is safer than the UK is a myth based on biased information as we don't record violent crime the same way as the US does. many more lesser crimes are classed as violent here than over there. Of course not. The yankees are the most horrible criminals in the world. We, Brits are gentle like baby bums. It's a fantasy you live in, right? (I lived in US, safer that anywhere else) well i found this online and gonna go with it coz they cited soucres that look legit: While it becomes clear that certain types of offences are marginally higher in the UK than in the US (robbery and knife crime being more likely in the UK by an order of 1.1x and 1.27x respectively) a number of other, more serious offenses, are both marginally and substantially higher in the US. R*pe of a female is 1.02x more likely in the US, while theft of a vehicle is 1.29x more likely. More disturbingly, burglary is significantly higher at 1.52x more likely to occur in the US. However, it is at the considerably more, well, violent crimes that America really supersedes England and Wales into its own class. In the United States, you are 6.9x more likely to be the victim of aggravated assault resulting in serious injury than in the UK. You are 4.03x more likely to be murdered than in the UK. And more staggeringly (though not surprising) you are 35.2x more likely to be shot dead in the Unites States than in the UK. i did have a nosey on the US official stats site for crimes (bjs.gov) also but they don't compare rates there i think. Rule number ONE of doing research : do it properly ! Googling quickly here and there is worse than no research at all. Take about a week of your time, full time. And then report back. Good luck ! i have done. i used to discuss this with people on other sites and learned a lot from them. unfortunately you cannot cite sources on here so most debates are low quality on here really, unless you copy and paste reams of information instead. like all i could quote was some uselss .gov site and not even the pages you can find useful information on...i need to get more creative with my links i think. No need, 3some. Let's just meet in person and discuss it face to face. Or the other way round, 69
never had a debate end like this. "It's just the beginning... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, it is violent, but we already accept state violence when we ask British forces to attach targets and kill people for the safety of our country. I consider the two to be closely linked. We haven't asked them this since WW2, yet they still go on doing it.
What do you mean? British troops have been engaged in numerous conflicts since then, and currently are..."I fully agree with you. I keep telling my neighbor's children to stop fighting, but they won't listen. Fighting over what? Oh, well! Kids... They'll grow up one day! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty has no place in a modern, civilised country, in my opinion "Exactly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain" no | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain" I'm not sure about death penalty. However as our punishment involves putting them into a prison with access to many things that many free law abiding citizens of the country don't have is very wrong. Such as dental, eyes, education if they desire, health care, three square meals a day and probably they have their religious requirements adhered to as well. I am not sure but probably wifi and satellite TV? Its hardly a deterrent is it? There has to be a suitable punishment that is fit for the crime committed? Perhaps their own religion would have a suitable punishment in its writings for crimes of equal atrocity committed against them? Assuming that the act of terrorism in question was in the name of religion? Let's face it most are. But how can you punish someone who isn't afraid of dying or being incarcerated for their cause? Perhaps a more barbaric way would be to punish the ones they love, but that's a whole other can of worms opened. I honestly don't know, but these are difficult time's and sooner or later difficult decisions will be required. Because let's face it, the systems set in place as a deterrent are not working. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's their big obsession with virgins anyway?? If it was a Heaven full of experienced horny milfs I might understand it a bit more!" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. i quite like how we could create a more equal and fair society and let people make their own moral decision based on that. by making people feel included rather than rejecting them and saying they are wrong for existing. What complete and absolute tosh. Blaming society for creating these monsters rather than acknowledging that some people are simply evil to the bone. Dreaming of some unattainable utopia whilst our children are murdered. I wonder if you'd be so quick to blame society if it was one of your loved ones murdered. " i'm not an emotionless monster, of course if someone i cared for was affected then so would i be. i would still see the way society shapes people, the way it forms biases and steroetypes because it doesn't understand things on a deeper basis. i understand sociopathy also, on the level that psychologists understand it. you don't understand political activism, that's all. terrorists feelings are so strong they actually feel motivated to do something about them and they find a group they connect with to do that. their actions are evil but done with the intent of changing things and think that extreme action is needed to make that change, and you can say this about many things done to further a cause. you could say this about people who killed scientists who experiment on animals because they wanted animal experimentation to end as it is cruel. when an act of evil is done to better something i can see that a person might not be inherently evil for doing so. i do not condone these actions at all, i understand on some level why they are committed. i don't think acts of violence help anyone but can see throughout or whole history where they actually helped causes to further themselves and the violent people 'won' the battle for what they were fighting for. it's sad more than anything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. i quite like how we could create a more equal and fair society and let people make their own moral decision based on that. by making people feel included rather than rejecting them and saying they are wrong for existing. What complete and absolute tosh. Blaming society for creating these monsters rather than acknowledging that some people are simply evil to the bone. Dreaming of some unattainable utopia whilst our children are murdered. I wonder if you'd be so quick to blame society if it was one of your loved ones murdered. " my brother was murdered, and i don't believe his killer was born evil, or with a want to kill. society does play a big big part in creating it's own problems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" .. Because let's face it, the systems set in place as a deterrent are not working. " And it will never work. Evil will exist till life exists. It's part & parcel of what we have. Nothing will ever be enough of a deterrent to determined on doing evil people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" .. Because let's face it, the systems set in place as a deterrent are not working. And it will never work. Evil will exist till life exists. It's part & parcel of what we have. Nothing will ever be enough of a deterrent to determined on doing evil people. " Does that mean we should just give up and let them have whatever it is they are killing innocent people for? That we flick the" fuck it what's the point" button? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain" Absolutely, We should also include terrorist sympathisers, people who promote terrorism and people who dont come forward when they know of planned attacks, The only way to fight fire is with fire. In the case of the Rigby killers they have been given life inside of an institute well renowned for recruiting terrorists. Imo this is a stupid idea and will only add to the number of extremists on the streets of britain in future years. This should go for far right extremists too. Maybe the chance of execution before committing the act in the first place is the only way to reduce attacks or planned attacks as these people will not become martyr's | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain" The guildford four say hello. Preposterous idea | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. i quite like how we could create a more equal and fair society and let people make their own moral decision based on that. by making people feel included rather than rejecting them and saying they are wrong for existing. What complete and absolute tosh. Blaming society for creating these monsters rather than acknowledging that some people are simply evil to the bone. Dreaming of some unattainable utopia whilst our children are murdered. I wonder if you'd be so quick to blame society if it was one of your loved ones murdered. i'm not an emotionless monster, of course if someone i cared for was affected then so would i be. i would still see the way society shapes people, the way it forms biases and steroetypes because it doesn't understand things on a deeper basis. i understand sociopathy also, on the level that psychologists understand it. you don't understand political activism, that's all. terrorists feelings are so strong they actually feel motivated to do something about them and they find a group they connect with to do that. their actions are evil but done with the intent of changing things and think that extreme action is needed to make that change, and you can say this about many things done to further a cause. you could say this about people who killed scientists who experiment on animals because they wanted animal experimentation to end as it is cruel. when an act of evil is done to better something i can see that a person might not be inherently evil for doing so. i do not condone these actions at all, i understand on some level why they are committed. i don't think acts of violence help anyone but can see throughout or whole history where they actually helped causes to further themselves and the violent people 'won' the battle for what they were fighting for. it's sad more than anything." Muslim terrorists do not commit atrocities to try to change the world for the better. They commit these acts to try and further muslim supremacy across the globe in accordance with the quran and the teachings of Mohammed. These people are of the belief that christians and jews are supposed to be subservient to them and will try to achieve this with blood, There is no psychological explanation apart from forced adhesion to an extreme form of religious practise and belief. I know that most muslims are good people. The terrorists and extremist would force these people to submit to them also. Over the last 10 years I have seen the local area be split and divided into areas that are british, muslim and eastern European, this is one of the fundamental problems with combating extremism in any form and it is happening nation wide. And for those terrorists born and raised in britain the death penalty could still be implemented for treason, the government are just too afraid of being called racists or causing further racial tensions to implement it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" .. Because let's face it, the systems set in place as a deterrent are not working. And it will never work. Evil will exist till life exists. It's part & parcel of what we have. Nothing will ever be enough of a deterrent to determined on doing evil people. Does that mean we should just give up and let them have whatever it is they are killing innocent people for? That we flick the" fuck it what's the point" button? " Of course not. So what do you propose we do since the current system is failing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering that Jihadists want to die as martyrs, and that sucide bombers die in the process (obviously) - the death penalty would achieve absolutely nothing. The only way to deter this type of crime is full Islamic reform. " Many believe that only death by holy jihad will allow entry to heaven, the death penalty for planning such attacks would help as they would be dead before the act of jihad therefore no entry to heaven. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. i quite like how we could create a more equal and fair society and let people make their own moral decision based on that. by making people feel included rather than rejecting them and saying they are wrong for existing. What complete and absolute tosh. Blaming society for creating these monsters rather than acknowledging that some people are simply evil to the bone. Dreaming of some unattainable utopia whilst our children are murdered. I wonder if you'd be so quick to blame society if it was one of your loved ones murdered. i'm not an emotionless monster, of course if someone i cared for was affected then so would i be. i would still see the way society shapes people, the way it forms biases and steroetypes because it doesn't understand things on a deeper basis. i understand sociopathy also, on the level that psychologists understand it. you don't understand political activism, that's all. terrorists feelings are so strong they actually feel motivated to do something about them and they find a group they connect with to do that. their actions are evil but done with the intent of changing things and think that extreme action is needed to make that change, and you can say this about many things done to further a cause. you could say this about people who killed scientists who experiment on animals because they wanted animal experimentation to end as it is cruel. when an act of evil is done to better something i can see that a person might not be inherently evil for doing so. i do not condone these actions at all, i understand on some level why they are committed. i don't think acts of violence help anyone but can see throughout or whole history where they actually helped causes to further themselves and the violent people 'won' the battle for what they were fighting for. it's sad more than anything. Muslim terrorists do not commit atrocities to try to change the world for the better. They commit these acts to try and further muslim supremacy across the globe in accordance with the quran and the teachings of Mohammed. These people are of the belief that christians and jews are supposed to be subservient to them and will try to achieve this with blood, There is no psychological explanation apart from forced adhesion to an extreme form of religious practise and belief. I know that most muslims are good people. The terrorists and extremist would force these people to submit to them also. Over the last 10 years I have seen the local area be split and divided into areas that are british, muslim and eastern European, this is one of the fundamental problems with combating extremism in any form and it is happening nation wide. And for those terrorists born and raised in britain the death penalty could still be implemented for treason, the government are just too afraid of being called racists or causing further racial tensions to implement it." they think their way is better. i don't agree either as i don't believe in forcing people to be something they don't want to be but what you gonna do in a world that accepts violence as a valid option. as far as they're concerned they're implementing their own death penalty on people who do not confirm to their laws. and so we consider treating them in the same way now as a way to end it. it won't end anything, you cannot kill them all and neither can they kill all of us. the people killing themselves (and others) there are other psychologies going on, it's way more complicated than religion. hate for people is so much more than that, forcing people to do things against their will is also more. is the threat of killing people who are prepared to die already even going to stop them? is there no better way than this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering that Jihadists want to die as martyrs, and that sucide bombers die in the process (obviously) - the death penalty would achieve absolutely nothing. The only way to deter this type of crime is full Islamic reform. Many believe that only death by holy jihad will allow entry to heaven, the death penalty for planning such attacks would help as they would be dead before the act of jihad therefore no entry to heaven." It would still be considered Jihad though, unless they peacefully gave themselves up to the police before being executed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain" I was surprised to learn recently France had only stopped using the guillotine as an execution method in the late 70s! Regarding the op.. I'm not sure it ever acted as an effective deterrent against crime, just a cheap way to dispose of certain criminals who were probably the byproduct of their environment which will continue to exist and yield the same criminality. Also, How would the threat of death at the hands of the state discourage someone who intends to effectively kill themselves anyway (in the case of the Manchester bomber) serve as a deterrent? It was never effective as a method of crime prevention when it was employed.. certainly I can understand the emotive nature of certain crimes makes the death penality seem attractive.. but beyond that it really is useless as a deterrent or punishment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering that Jihadists want to die as martyrs, and that sucide bombers die in the process (obviously) - the death penalty would achieve absolutely nothing. The only way to deter this type of crime is full Islamic reform. Many believe that only death by holy jihad will allow entry to heaven, the death penalty for planning such attacks would help as they would be dead before the act of jihad therefore no entry to heaven. It would still be considered Jihad though, unless they peacefully gave themselves up to the police before being executed. " Many extremists believe that they must kill infidels for jihad to be fulfilled, the death penalty is extreme but when dealing with people who only want blood what other choice is there? If just one would be terrorist is discouraged then that's good enough reason for me, It would also stand to prove that those in charge were actively trying to stop these attacks atm as a country we appear weak, partly because of the government allowing political correctness to rule over progress of the country, tensions are already high and it wont take much for the public to try take action themselves. This would be a travesty and imo the only way to stop this in the future is a response as serious as the act of terrorism itself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering that Jihadists want to die as martyrs, and that sucide bombers die in the process (obviously) - the death penalty would achieve absolutely nothing. The only way to deter this type of crime is full Islamic reform. Many believe that only death by holy jihad will allow entry to heaven, the death penalty for planning such attacks would help as they would be dead before the act of jihad therefore no entry to heaven. It would still be considered Jihad though, unless they peacefully gave themselves up to the police before being executed. Many extremists believe that they must kill infidels for jihad to be fulfilled, the death penalty is extreme but when dealing with people who only want blood what other choice is there? If just one would be terrorist is discouraged then that's good enough reason for me, It would also stand to prove that those in charge were actively trying to stop these attacks atm as a country we appear weak, partly because of the government allowing political correctness to rule over progress of the country, tensions are already high and it wont take much for the public to try take action themselves. This would be a travesty and imo the only way to stop this in the future is a response as serious as the act of terrorism itself." Problem is, I don't think the death penalty would discourage even a single potential Jihad from carrying out an attack. Those that subscribe to radical Islam have absolute belief in what they are doing. You could threaten to kill their child, or their mum, and they would still not be deterred - because their faith is concrete and unshakable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
- Mrs. J - | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes. MrB (except for suicide bombers)" Bit pointless for them lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The death penalty is not much of a deterrent against suicide bombers... " Yes but would save money as keeping them in prison costs a fortune | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Considering that Jihadists want to die as martyrs, and that sucide bombers die in the process (obviously) - the death penalty would achieve absolutely nothing. The only way to deter this type of crime is full Islamic reform. Many believe that only death by holy jihad will allow entry to heaven, the death penalty for planning such attacks would help as they would be dead before the act of jihad therefore no entry to heaven. It would still be considered Jihad though, unless they peacefully gave themselves up to the police before being executed. Many extremists believe that they must kill infidels for jihad to be fulfilled, the death penalty is extreme but when dealing with people who only want blood what other choice is there? If just one would be terrorist is discouraged then that's good enough reason for me, It would also stand to prove that those in charge were actively trying to stop these attacks atm as a country we appear weak, partly because of the government allowing political correctness to rule over progress of the country, tensions are already high and it wont take much for the public to try take action themselves. This would be a travesty and imo the only way to stop this in the future is a response as serious as the act of terrorism itself. Problem is, I don't think the death penalty would discourage even a single potential Jihad from carrying out an attack. Those that subscribe to radical Islam have absolute belief in what they are doing. You could threaten to kill their child, or their mum, and they would still not be deterred - because their faith is concrete and unshakable. " Point taken, however it would show that the british government were at least doing something to try to fight these people, at the moment they appear weak and useless, because they are. So bring in soldiers to guard potential targets and more armed police on the street? The main problem with this is that terrorist especially suicide bombers do not go round shouting that they have a bomb. How do you identify an innocent student or someone on their way to work as opposed to a cold blooded extremist with a fucked up ideology? You cant all the deterrents put in place only provide a smoke screen to try to make the public feel safe, it does not even try to address the problem at hand. As a country we need to seem strong in the face of these attacks, show that any form of radicalisation will be met with the strongest reaction possible according to law. The last time I checked that was hanging for high treason. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"would it be possible to bring into their society all the things we did here to stop hate crimes? something that makes people accepted despite being not of the perceived norm. even the KKK don't lynch anyone any more, they still preach their shit but something worked. i know that's the US but i'm too knackered to think of a UK equivalent." I understand where you coming however, we need to understand that the vast majority of these people are not born in britain, they do not hold the same moral standards as us.those that are raised here are brainwashed by local leaders of their faith to believe that we are the enemy, Throw into the equation that thousands of refugees arrive every year from war torn countries that are being bombed by nato as well as being persecuted by their own governments and watching family members die, the line between friend an enemy becomes very blurred. In the case of the kkk and other such organisations that were mostly operating within one country or one principality to create civil unrest to further there goals, this is a war that stretches past borders and oceans, its a fundamental belief system that spreads to hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world and as such must be fought in such a manner as a war and the people who commit atrocities in the name of any religion should be ddlt with as qar criminals | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do the public actually feel unsafe? I don't. Genuine question. " I don't have fear for myself but for those I love. I fear more little girls piling out of a concert, screaming with nails and shards of glass and grit in their faces and bodies because of some immigrant family. His dad (Libyan immigrant) was caught posting shit too. He's been arrested. You feel safe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain" no just deportation | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain no just deportation " Where do we deport British born terrorists to ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do the public actually feel unsafe? I don't. Genuine question. I don't have fear for myself but for those I love. I fear more little girls piling out of a concert, screaming with nails and shards of glass and grit in their faces and bodies because of some immigrant family. His dad (Libyan immigrant) was caught posting shit too. He's been arrested. You feel safe?" I feel safe... realistically, however horrendous the terror attacks have been they are still VERY rare. Yes they're terrifying at the time and genuinely deeply upsetting for millions of us that feel the loss. BUT do I walk through the street looking suspiciously at every guy with a beard and a ruck-sack... No. One of the main aims of the SCUM who call themselves I.S. is to unite the non-muslim world against Islam, because the would unite the whole Islamic faith against the rest of the world... then you'd have a World War on a whole different scale. The truth is though that the Islamic Faith as a whole, is just as appalled as the rest of us and deeply wounded by this continued affront to their beliefs. Cal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You feel safe?" Yes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Tbh here people you can't stop it WHY BECAUSE Britian has to help everyone that comes into the country. Hello here's a house your money everyone else will pay. Man runs into store with S.I.E.D we would still give money to the family. Now call me what you want. We are trying to be to politically correct and by the books in wars do you think we let Jerry or Ruskis enter the country, they were a threat at the time ...rant over this is winding me up for than 2nd independence ref" When did the 'Ruskis' try to enter the country ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do the public actually feel unsafe? I don't. Genuine question. " I think that depends on what your asking, people as a general rule do not fear that they themselves are at high risk but people are generally concerned that more innocent people will be killed in the name of islam. This fear is hightend due to segrigation (self imposed in many cases by the muslim comunity) and the fact that for the most part many radicalized muslims hide themselves very well within society. The real danger in british society today is the far left views of the government and a majority of citizens, whereby mearly speaking out about cultural issues is often met with comdemnation and people being labelled as racist, fascist or worse. Therefore things will continue as they are violent crime will begin to rise, many officers will still be afraid to carry firearms when working (making them targets.) And the country will remain to scared to try to instigate any form of change. We as a nation will continue to be a conentrated population of victims just how the government like us to be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This fear is hightend due to segrigation (self imposed in many cases by the muslim comunity) and the fact that for the most part many radicalized muslims hide themselves very well within society. The real danger in british society today is the far left views of the government and a majority of citizens, whereby mearly speaking out about cultural issues is often met with comdemnation and people being labelled as racist, fascist " I agree with most of what you've said but to call the current government far left beggars belief. I consider my own politics to be a smidgen left of centre and the tory government is only far left if your frame of reference is Mussolini. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This fear is hightend due to segrigation (self imposed in many cases by the muslim comunity) and the fact that for the most part many radicalized muslims hide themselves very well within society. The real danger in british society today is the far left views of the government and a majority of citizens, whereby mearly speaking out about cultural issues is often met with comdemnation and people being labelled as racist, fascist I agree with most of what you've said but to call the current government far left beggars belief. I consider my own politics to be a smidgen left of centre and the tory government is only far left if your frame of reference is Mussolini." There are parties further to the left I agree, however our current government is still more tied up with protecting political correctness than sorting the countries affairs, theresa may herself openly commented that sex offenders including those who have commited crimes against children should be allowed to work with kids as its they're human right to do whatever work they choose ffs. On top of this the tories played a major part with labour in disarming the british people and reforming self defence laws so that you can be prosecuted for defended yourself and your family. In my eyes these things make them a far left movement as well as continued pressure to silence the press, we currently have no party that is trying to protect our freedom or liberty only trying to subdue us even further | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain" They kind of finish themselves off anyway before any punishment can be given. I'd like to sit with them in a room and talk to them to find out where their views came from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business." I don't aim to offend but to play devils advocate and offer a viewpoint for context I suppose, is the church not reliant upon a form of terrorism and extremism? The church (most religions) state do this, live like that or live in fear of if you don't... That's threatening and invoking fear. I accept that it isn't imposed directly but most if not all of our laws are based upon the church, our legal system and courts display "et dieu mon droit" or "by god my right" implying divine right so indirectly it is imposed whether we choose to Believe or not. As for the death penalty - no - let them rot and don't give them any hope of dying a martyr for their cause. My opinion over, I stress no offence meant, just a viewpoint. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain They kind of finish themselves off anyway before any punishment can be given. I'd like to sit with them in a room and talk to them to find out where their views came from. " Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says ... He was born in England and I was reading there are lots like him they know about in the uk with his views . If they know even if born here they should send them over there to live. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain They kind of finish themselves off anyway before any punishment can be given. I'd like to sit with them in a room and talk to them to find out where their views came from. Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says ... He was born in England and I was reading there are lots like him they know about in the uk with his views . If they know even if born here they should send them over there to live." That's what I mean, I'd want to talk to them. Say right you've killed a load of children at a pop concert because the armed forces have bombed Syria, yeah makes perfect sense. Why not go after the armed forces then, the actual people that are doing the things they don't like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business. I don't aim to offend but to play devils advocate and offer a viewpoint for context I suppose, is the church not reliant upon a form of terrorism and extremism? The church (most religions) state do this, live like that or live in fear of if you don't... That's threatening and invoking fear. I accept that it isn't imposed directly but most if not all of our laws are based upon the church, our legal system and courts display "et dieu mon droit" or "by god my right" implying divine right so indirectly it is imposed whether we choose to Believe or not. As for the death penalty - no - let them rot and don't give them any hope of dying a martyr for their cause. My opinion over, I stress no offence meant, just a viewpoint. " . The battle has been going since Darwin. Theocracy v democracy .. Its like trump v Clinton, whoever wins your fucked anyhow | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"the death penalty in itself is an act of terrorism. No it's not. It's a punishment for an gross, illegal act against completely un-involved parties. Terrorism is the murder of innocent people going about their everyday business. I don't aim to offend but to play devils advocate and offer a viewpoint for context I suppose, is the church not reliant upon a form of terrorism and extremism? The church (most religions) state do this, live like that or live in fear of if you don't... That's threatening and invoking fear. I accept that it isn't imposed directly but most if not all of our laws are based upon the church, our legal system and courts display "et dieu mon droit" or "by god my right" implying divine right so indirectly it is imposed whether we choose to Believe or not. As for the death penalty - no - let them rot and don't give them any hope of dying a martyr for their cause. My opinion over, I stress no offence meant, just a viewpoint. " No one is arguing that other religions dont rule through fear or that people use these religions as a way of justifying evil. After all we see this in Palestine now and it wasn't that long ago that the IRA were at full force. All terrorists that seek to destroy people should be held accountable and dealt with in line wit the severity of their actions wether commited or planned. We do keep terrorists and people who aid them in prison, but the only thing this achieves is conversion to extremism on a mass scale inside of the prison industry as well as putting extra strain on an already strained economy. All of this and the government allow terrorists and sympathisers to demonstrate and intimidate the country, they are allowing sharia courts to pop up across the country, they help with segregation by allowing muslims to do things any other citizen cannot. For example if I go to my local shopping mall I have to remove my hood or hat if I choose to wear one, while a muslim woman may walk around in a full burka.or take for example that any public or private school cannot refuse a student because of race or belief, except for muslims who have many muslim only schools. There are areas of this country that police are afraid to go due to the violent muslim majority, if you look at my local area most of the drug dealers and pimps are muslims. Children are scared to go to schools with a high muslim population due to mass bullying, not to mention that most students wont speak english outside of lessons. Look at all of these things closely and its not too hard to see why a minority of muslims believe that they are above the law. Say any of this in public though and you can be arrested for racism or insighting hatred. Its not hard to see why a minority of muslims believe the are above the law and buy into muslim superiority, even those born in britain. Drastic action needs to be taken, we need mass reform, and we need to make a stand against terrorism in all its forms, the death penalty would surely be a place to start, at the very least it shows that we will take a stand and fight back for once | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain" ..........Obviously......in fact inthis case I would agreemto temporary sharia law....anyone guilty of this plot get to meet the relatives of victims who are armed with stones...Let them see how they like sharia punishment.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain They kind of finish themselves off anyway before any punishment can be given. I'd like to sit with them in a room and talk to them to find out where their views came from. Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says ... He was born in England and I was reading there are lots like him they know about in the uk with his views . If they know even if born here they should send them over there to live. That's what I mean, I'd want to talk to them. Say right you've killed a load of children at a pop concert because the armed forces have bombed Syria, yeah makes perfect sense. Why not go after the armed forces then, the actual people that are doing the things they don't like. " He new there was kids and people all ages there and it was for him a easy target to make his mark to show his gods he cared ..... No ones safe with people like this around and there are loads here in the uk and some they know . Something has to be done I am just not sure what .? Death Penalty would make them gods to some and be look up too. So I think for some its a easy way out of this world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain They kind of finish themselves off anyway before any punishment can be given. I'd like to sit with them in a room and talk to them to find out where their views came from. Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says ... He was born in England and I was reading there are lots like him they know about in the uk with his views . If they know even if born here they should send them over there to live. That's what I mean, I'd want to talk to them. Say right you've killed a load of children at a pop concert because the armed forces have bombed Syria, yeah makes perfect sense. Why not go after the armed forces then, the actual people that are doing the things they don't like. " This one is quite simple I think, this man and his parents fled syria they will use the excuse that innocents are killed by nato forces, this is a major problem we face in the future anyone with half a brain can see this. We allow thousands upon thousands of refugees from a war torn area while we are in an ongoing conflict in that area, to many of these refugees especially the poorer parts we are the enemy, many of these people have family and friends that have died or been maimed in this conflict, all alot of these refugees need is a nudge in the wrong direction by some fundamentalist group and bingo potential terrorist. Again not all refugees will become terrorists but a small percentage will. And they will justify their crimes with retaliation and religion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lighting candles and sayin we will not be defeated is a lovely sentiment but action is needed....paul nuttall ukip " ukip No the world need to get together to sort this as a risk to everyone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lighting candles and sayin we will not be defeated is a lovely sentiment but action is needed....paul nuttall ukip ukip No the world need to get together to sort this as a risk to everyone." Yep | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lighting candles and sayin we will not be defeated is a lovely sentiment but action is needed....paul nuttall ukip ukip No the world need to get together to sort this as a risk to everyone." When people try to sort it the world turns against the ref Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. I don't support the death penalty." Same here. I don't support the death penalty under any circumstances. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lighting candles and sayin we will not be defeated is a lovely sentiment but action is needed....paul nuttall ukip ukip No the world need to get together to sort this as a risk to everyone. When people try to sort it the world turns against the ref Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin" Both should be part of this but its now bigger them them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No, the death penalty should never be reinstated. Personally, it goes against every principle I have, and my principles will not be turned by a group of thick, violent thugs who believe in sky fairies and wizards. " Very well said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lighting candles and sayin we will not be defeated is a lovely sentiment but action is needed....paul nuttall ukip ukip No the world need to get together to sort this as a risk to everyone. When people try to sort it the world turns against the ref Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin Both should be part of this but its now bigger them them." It has been for a very long time, but nobody else seems to want to do anything about it, we all seem all to happy to stand back and allow others to fight our battles for us and watch as more people in our own country and across europe are converted to extreme islam. All while the islamic state are trying to develop more sophisticated methods to kill the rest of us. Apparently the world does not learn from history. Its a dam good job they aren't better funded and equiped. They seem to have the blood lust of the hutu government, Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi (rwanda genocide 1994) but with the ambition of the nazis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lighting candles and sayin we will not be defeated is a lovely sentiment but action is needed....paul nuttall ukip ukip No the world need to get together to sort this as a risk to everyone. When people try to sort it the world turns against the ref Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin Both should be part of this but its now bigger them them. It has been for a very long time, but nobody else seems to want to do anything about it, we all seem all to happy to stand back and allow others to fight our battles for us and watch as more people in our own country and across europe are converted to extreme islam. All while the islamic state are trying to develop more sophisticated methods to kill the rest of us. Apparently the world does not learn from history. Its a dam good job they aren't better funded and equiped. They seem to have the blood lust of the hutu government, Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi (rwanda genocide 1994) but with the ambition of the nazis." I hope to god the world sort this I really do as I can see like you do it will not stop. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"would it be possible to bring into their society all the things we did here to stop hate crimes? something that makes people accepted despite being not of the perceived norm. even the KKK don't lynch anyone any more, they still preach their shit but something worked. i know that's the US but i'm too knackered to think of a UK equivalent. I understand where you coming however, we need to understand that the vast majority of these people are not born in britain, they do not hold the same moral standards as us.those that are raised here are brainwashed by local leaders of their faith to believe that we are the enemy, Throw into the equation that thousands of refugees arrive every year from war torn countries that are being bombed by nato as well as being persecuted by their own governments and watching family members die, the line between friend an enemy becomes very blurred. In the case of the kkk and other such organisations that were mostly operating within one country or one principality to create civil unrest to further there goals, this is a war that stretches past borders and oceans, its a fundamental belief system that spreads to hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world and as such must be fought in such a manner as a war and the people who commit atrocities in the name of any religion should be ddlt with as qar criminals " glad you understood, i fiund that hard to type. i do think killing them gives them reasons to justify what they're doing, and the emotions to propel them into action. i guess all that will happen is they stop letting refugees in and carry on as we are? i highly doubt that we, as a supposed civilised country, will bring back corporal punishment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain They kind of finish themselves off anyway before any punishment can be given. I'd like to sit with them in a room and talk to them to find out where their views came from. Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says ... He was born in England and I was reading there are lots like him they know about in the uk with his views . If they know even if born here they should send them over there to live. That's what I mean, I'd want to talk to them. Say right you've killed a load of children at a pop concert because the armed forces have bombed Syria, yeah makes perfect sense. Why not go after the armed forces then, the actual people that are doing the things they don't like. " because coalition bombs have killed hundreds of innocent civilians over there, far more than they've done here. nobody here seems that fussed about them though.....long as the victims are brown and poor and far away
none of it is right, but we don't have any moral high ground here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain" Ah but then you're turned a criminal into a martyr. Which further fuels extremist beliefs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain They kind of finish themselves off anyway before any punishment can be given. I'd like to sit with them in a room and talk to them to find out where their views came from. Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says ... He was born in England and I was reading there are lots like him they know about in the uk with his views . If they know even if born here they should send them over there to live. That's what I mean, I'd want to talk to them. Say right you've killed a load of children at a pop concert because the armed forces have bombed Syria, yeah makes perfect sense. Why not go after the armed forces then, the actual people that are doing the things they don't like. because coalition bombs have killed hundreds of innocent civilians over there, far more than they've done here. nobody here seems that fussed about them though.....long as the victims are brown and poor and far away
none of it is right, but we don't have any moral high ground here. "True. I wasn't shocked by Manchester's incident in the slightest. I guess it's a thing we will have to get used to, if we are going to continue to reduce other countries to shells. Saying that, the war against Islam has been going on for almost a thousand years, yet people think this is some new recent phenomenon. I can't see anything changing anytime soon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain They kind of finish themselves off anyway before any punishment can be given. I'd like to sit with them in a room and talk to them to find out where their views came from. Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says ... He was born in England and I was reading there are lots like him they know about in the uk with his views . If they know even if born here they should send them over there to live. That's what I mean, I'd want to talk to them. Say right you've killed a load of children at a pop concert because the armed forces have bombed Syria, yeah makes perfect sense. Why not go after the armed forces then, the actual people that are doing the things they don't like. because coalition bombs have killed hundreds of innocent civilians over there, far more than they've done here. nobody here seems that fussed about them though.....long as the victims are brown and poor and far away
none of it is right, but we don't have any moral high ground here. "I dont think anybody believes that loss of innocent life is right in any circumstance, thoisands of innocents have died ans its terrible. I would however emphasise that there is a difference between casualyties of war and actively seeking out to destroy innovent lives. Wether or not the conflict in syria is right or the wars that led up to it with Afghanistan and iraq were justified is irrelevant in the case of extremism. Fundamentalist muslims are trying to take over the western world in a third and final caliphate, in accordance with the teachings of mohammed that outline the way to give muslims supremacy across the globe and to subjugate and enslave christians and jews. Innocent blood being a motivator is convenient but not the true reason for extremism in islam. It is however worth pointing out that not all muslims follow this train of thought obviously, but enough that terrorism is a massive threat on a global scale. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain They kind of finish themselves off anyway before any punishment can be given. I'd like to sit with them in a room and talk to them to find out where their views came from. Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says ... He was born in England and I was reading there are lots like him they know about in the uk with his views . If they know even if born here they should send them over there to live. That's what I mean, I'd want to talk to them. Say right you've killed a load of children at a pop concert because the armed forces have bombed Syria, yeah makes perfect sense. Why not go after the armed forces then, the actual people that are doing the things they don't like. because coalition bombs have killed hundreds of innocent civilians over there, far more than they've done here. nobody here seems that fussed about them though.....long as the victims are brown and poor and far away
none of it is right, but we don't have any moral high ground here.
I dont think anybody believes that loss of innocent life is right in any circumstance, thoisands of innocents have died ans its terrible.
I would however emphasise that there is a difference between casualyties of war and actively seeking out to destroy innovent lives.
Wether or not the conflict in syria is right or the wars that led up to it with Afghanistan and iraq were justified is irrelevant in the case of extremism.
Fundamentalist muslims are trying to take over the western world in a third and final caliphate, in accordance with the teachings of mohammed that outline the way to give muslims supremacy across the globe and to subjugate and enslave christians and jews.
Innocent blood being a motivator is convenient but not the true reason for extremism in islam.
It is however worth pointing out that not all muslims follow this train of thought obviously, but enough that terrorism is a massive threat on a global scale. "Would you be saying it's irrelevant if your family and home had been blown to bits in an air strike? I'm not condoning these fanatics at all, but I can see where the hatred for the Western world as we know it, comes from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain They kind of finish themselves off anyway before any punishment can be given. I'd like to sit with them in a room and talk to them to find out where their views came from. Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says ... He was born in England and I was reading there are lots like him they know about in the uk with his views . If they know even if born here they should send them over there to live. That's what I mean, I'd want to talk to them. Say right you've killed a load of children at a pop concert because the armed forces have bombed Syria, yeah makes perfect sense. Why not go after the armed forces then, the actual people that are doing the things they don't like. because coalition bombs have killed hundreds of innocent civilians over there, far more than they've done here. nobody here seems that fussed about them though.....long as the victims are brown and poor and far away
none of it is right, but we don't have any moral high ground here.
I dont think anybody believes that loss of innocent life is right in any circumstance, thoisands of innocents have died ans its terrible.
I would however emphasise that there is a difference between casualyties of war and actively seeking out to destroy innovent lives.
Wether or not the conflict in syria is right or the wars that led up to it with Afghanistan and iraq were justified is irrelevant in the case of extremism.
Fundamentalist muslims are trying to take over the western world in a third and final caliphate, in accordance with the teachings of mohammed that outline the way to give muslims supremacy across the globe and to subjugate and enslave christians and jews.
Innocent blood being a motivator is convenient but not the true reason for extremism in islam.
It is however worth pointing out that not all muslims follow this train of thought obviously, but enough that terrorism is a massive threat on a global scale. "as we sit here all civilised and discuss it, yes, there's a difference between casualties of war and deliberate killing of civilians but to the guy digging pieces of his wife and children out of the rubble of what was once their home, there's no difference...he's not gonna be like 'oops! those butterfingered brits' would you chalk your wife and kids up to just 'collateral damage'? they still died, families still wrecked and mangled.. both sides of this are complete dicks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain They kind of finish themselves off anyway before any punishment can be given. I'd like to sit with them in a room and talk to them to find out where their views came from. Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says ... He was born in England and I was reading there are lots like him they know about in the uk with his views . If they know even if born here they should send them over there to live. That's what I mean, I'd want to talk to them. Say right you've killed a load of children at a pop concert because the armed forces have bombed Syria, yeah makes perfect sense. Why not go after the armed forces then, the actual people that are doing the things they don't like. because coalition bombs have killed hundreds of innocent civilians over there, far more than they've done here. nobody here seems that fussed about them though.....long as the victims are brown and poor and far away
none of it is right, but we don't have any moral high ground here.
I dont think anybody believes that loss of innocent life is right in any circumstance, thoisands of innocents have died ans its terrible.
I would however emphasise that there is a difference between casualyties of war and actively seeking out to destroy innovent lives.
Wether or not the conflict in syria is right or the wars that led up to it with Afghanistan and iraq were justified is irrelevant in the case of extremism.
Fundamentalist muslims are trying to take over the western world in a third and final caliphate, in accordance with the teachings of mohammed that outline the way to give muslims supremacy across the globe and to subjugate and enslave christians and jews.
Innocent blood being a motivator is convenient but not the true reason for extremism in islam.
It is however worth pointing out that not all muslims follow this train of thought obviously, but enough that terrorism is a massive threat on a global scale.
Would you be saying it's irrelevant if your family and home had been blown to bits in an air strike?
I'm not condoning these fanatics at all, but I can see where the hatred for the Western world as we know it, comes from."Im not saying that the deaths of innocents are irrelevant just pointing out that even if these people were not being killed terrorism would still be a massive issue. This is irrefutable as far as I can see when you look at the mindset of the fanatics themselves, they blindly follow their religious beliefs (as many others do today and have done throughout history.) They follow the teachings of someone they believe to be a slaver, hate preacher and paedophile. Just look at how the middle east has always been with christians and jews being sold as slaves their women and children being rap_ed and killed, people forced to acknowledge muslims as superior to themselves. Not to mention the last two caliphates which saw the greater part of the middle east violently converted to islam when it started off just a small following in saudi arabia. Again the murder of innocent people is abhorrent regardless of who is doing it but to think that this is why we have terrorists and fanatics is just plain stupid | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain They kind of finish themselves off anyway before any punishment can be given. I'd like to sit with them in a room and talk to them to find out where their views came from. Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says ... He was born in England and I was reading there are lots like him they know about in the uk with his views . If they know even if born here they should send them over there to live. That's what I mean, I'd want to talk to them. Say right you've killed a load of children at a pop concert because the armed forces have bombed Syria, yeah makes perfect sense. Why not go after the armed forces then, the actual people that are doing the things they don't like. because coalition bombs have killed hundreds of innocent civilians over there, far more than they've done here. nobody here seems that fussed about them though.....long as the victims are brown and poor and far away
none of it is right, but we don't have any moral high ground here.
I dont think anybody believes that loss of innocent life is right in any circumstance, thoisands of innocents have died ans its terrible.
I would however emphasise that there is a difference between casualyties of war and actively seeking out to destroy innovent lives.
Wether or not the conflict in syria is right or the wars that led up to it with Afghanistan and iraq were justified is irrelevant in the case of extremism.
Fundamentalist muslims are trying to take over the western world in a third and final caliphate, in accordance with the teachings of mohammed that outline the way to give muslims supremacy across the globe and to subjugate and enslave christians and jews.
Innocent blood being a motivator is convenient but not the true reason for extremism in islam.
It is however worth pointing out that not all muslims follow this train of thought obviously, but enough that terrorism is a massive threat on a global scale.
Would you be saying it's irrelevant if your family and home had been blown to bits in an air strike?
I'm not condoning these fanatics at all, but I can see where the hatred for the Western world as we know it, comes from.
Im not saying that the deaths of innocents are irrelevant just pointing out that even if these people were not being killed terrorism would still be a massive issue.
This is irrefutable as far as I can see when you look at the mindset of the fanatics themselves, they blindly follow their religious beliefs (as many others do today and have done throughout history.)
They follow the teachings of someone they believe to be a slaver, hate preacher and paedophile.
Just look at how the middle east has always been with christians and jews being sold as slaves their women and children being rap_ed and killed, people forced to acknowledge muslims as superior to themselves.
Not to mention the last two caliphates which saw the greater part of the middle east violently converted to islam when it started off just a small following in saudi arabia.
Again the murder of innocent people is abhorrent regardless of who is doing it but to think that this is why we have terrorists and fanatics is just plain stupid"This has been going on since The Crusades in medieval times though. It's not some new 'fad', just because the newspapers have labelled it 'terrorism' or a 'suicide bombing'. I don't really take kindly to people saying my opinion is just 'plain stupid' because you don't agree either. I do know that if my family and home were destroyed it an air strike, I wouldn't give two hoots about extracting my revenge on those I deemed responsible either. It's a perfectly valid reason for someone caring so little about others, that they'd blow themselves up in the process. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain They kind of finish themselves off anyway before any punishment can be given. I'd like to sit with them in a room and talk to them to find out where their views came from. Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says ... He was born in England and I was reading there are lots like him they know about in the uk with his views . If they know even if born here they should send them over there to live. That's what I mean, I'd want to talk to them. Say right you've killed a load of children at a pop concert because the armed forces have bombed Syria, yeah makes perfect sense. Why not go after the armed forces then, the actual people that are doing the things they don't like. because coalition bombs have killed hundreds of innocent civilians over there, far more than they've done here. nobody here seems that fussed about them though.....long as the victims are brown and poor and far away
none of it is right, but we don't have any moral high ground here.
I dont think anybody believes that loss of innocent life is right in any circumstance, thoisands of innocents have died ans its terrible.
I would however emphasise that there is a difference between casualyties of war and actively seeking out to destroy innovent lives.
Wether or not the conflict in syria is right or the wars that led up to it with Afghanistan and iraq were justified is irrelevant in the case of extremism.
Fundamentalist muslims are trying to take over the western world in a third and final caliphate, in accordance with the teachings of mohammed that outline the way to give muslims supremacy across the globe and to subjugate and enslave christians and jews.
Innocent blood being a motivator is convenient but not the true reason for extremism in islam.
It is however worth pointing out that not all muslims follow this train of thought obviously, but enough that terrorism is a massive threat on a global scale.
Would you be saying it's irrelevant if your family and home had been blown to bits in an air strike?
I'm not condoning these fanatics at all, but I can see where the hatred for the Western world as we know it, comes from.
Im not saying that the deaths of innocents are irrelevant just pointing out that even if these people were not being killed terrorism would still be a massive issue.
This is irrefutable as far as I can see when you look at the mindset of the fanatics themselves, they blindly follow their religious beliefs (as many others do today and have done throughout history.)
They follow the teachings of someone they believe to be a slaver, hate preacher and paedophile.
Just look at how the middle east has always been with christians and jews being sold as slaves their women and children being rap_ed and killed, people forced to acknowledge muslims as superior to themselves.
Not to mention the last two caliphates which saw the greater part of the middle east violently converted to islam when it started off just a small following in saudi arabia.
Again the murder of innocent people is abhorrent regardless of who is doing it but to think that this is why we have terrorists and fanatics is just plain stupid
This has been going on since The Crusades in medieval times though. It's not some new 'fad', just because the newspapers have labelled it 'terrorism' or a 'suicide bombing'.
I don't really take kindly to people saying my opinion is just 'plain stupid' because you don't agree either.
I do know that if my family and home were destroyed it an air strike, I wouldn't give two hoots about extracting my revenge on those I deemed responsible either. It's a perfectly valid reason for someone caring so little about others, that they'd blow themselves up in the process.
"I find your views to be repugnant but more offensive is your ignorance of the history of Islam and Mohammed. Was it western bombs that made Mohammed (in person) slit the throats of all the males of the Jewish Banu Quraiza tribe? What caused the Muslims to take 2/3s of Spain? That happened before any crusade. The Qu'ran addresses me directly and it tells us to submit to the will of Allah and his final Prophet or to be subdued and pay the Jizya - if we are lucky and have a particularly merciful Caliph. Polytheists do not have this luxury. So maybe if you'd actually Read the Islamic material and stop blaming the white man for the world's evil, you'd look far less silly. So before you keep | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain They kind of finish themselves off anyway before any punishment can be given. I'd like to sit with them in a room and talk to them to find out where their views came from. Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says ... He was born in England and I was reading there are lots like him they know about in the uk with his views . If they know even if born here they should send them over there to live. That's what I mean, I'd want to talk to them. Say right you've killed a load of children at a pop concert because the armed forces have bombed Syria, yeah makes perfect sense. Why not go after the armed forces then, the actual people that are doing the things they don't like. because coalition bombs have killed hundreds of innocent civilians over there, far more than they've done here. nobody here seems that fussed about them though.....long as the victims are brown and poor and far away
none of it is right, but we don't have any moral high ground here.
I dont think anybody believes that loss of innocent life is right in any circumstance, thoisands of innocents have died ans its terrible.
I would however emphasise that there is a difference between casualyties of war and actively seeking out to destroy innovent lives.
Wether or not the conflict in syria is right or the wars that led up to it with Afghanistan and iraq were justified is irrelevant in the case of extremism.
Fundamentalist muslims are trying to take over the western world in a third and final caliphate, in accordance with the teachings of mohammed that outline the way to give muslims supremacy across the globe and to subjugate and enslave christians and jews.
Innocent blood being a motivator is convenient but not the true reason for extremism in islam.
It is however worth pointing out that not all muslims follow this train of thought obviously, but enough that terrorism is a massive threat on a global scale.
Would you be saying it's irrelevant if your family and home had been blown to bits in an air strike?
I'm not condoning these fanatics at all, but I can see where the hatred for the Western world as we know it, comes from.
Im not saying that the deaths of innocents are irrelevant just pointing out that even if these people were not being killed terrorism would still be a massive issue.
This is irrefutable as far as I can see when you look at the mindset of the fanatics themselves, they blindly follow their religious beliefs (as many others do today and have done throughout history.)
They follow the teachings of someone they believe to be a slaver, hate preacher and paedophile.
Just look at how the middle east has always been with christians and jews being sold as slaves their women and children being rap_ed and killed, people forced to acknowledge muslims as superior to themselves.
Not to mention the last two caliphates which saw the greater part of the middle east violently converted to islam when it started off just a small following in saudi arabia.
Again the murder of innocent people is abhorrent regardless of who is doing it but to think that this is why we have terrorists and fanatics is just plain stupid
This has been going on since The Crusades in medieval times though. It's not some new 'fad', just because the newspapers have labelled it 'terrorism' or a 'suicide bombing'.
I don't really take kindly to people saying my opinion is just 'plain stupid' because you don't agree either.
I do know that if my family and home were destroyed it an air strike, I wouldn't give two hoots about extracting my revenge on those I deemed responsible either. It's a perfectly valid reason for someone caring so little about others, that they'd blow themselves up in the process.
"Im sorry saying that your opinion is stupid it wasn't meant as an insult to you more the train of thought many people are that its our doing. the manchester bomber could have been motivated by the bombings in syria, it is however extremely unlikely that it is the sole motivator based on the fact that did it in the name of islamic state, an organisation that is trying to enforce muslim superiority throughout the world in the name of mohammed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain They kind of finish themselves off anyway before any punishment can be given. I'd like to sit with them in a room and talk to them to find out where their views came from. Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says ... He was born in England and I was reading there are lots like him they know about in the uk with his views . If they know even if born here they should send them over there to live. That's what I mean, I'd want to talk to them. Say right you've killed a load of children at a pop concert because the armed forces have bombed Syria, yeah makes perfect sense. Why not go after the armed forces then, the actual people that are doing the things they don't like. because coalition bombs have killed hundreds of innocent civilians over there, far more than they've done here. nobody here seems that fussed about them though.....long as the victims are brown and poor and far away
none of it is right, but we don't have any moral high ground here.
I dont think anybody believes that loss of innocent life is right in any circumstance, thoisands of innocents have died ans its terrible.
I would however emphasise that there is a difference between casualyties of war and actively seeking out to destroy innovent lives.
Wether or not the conflict in syria is right or the wars that led up to it with Afghanistan and iraq were justified is irrelevant in the case of extremism.
Fundamentalist muslims are trying to take over the western world in a third and final caliphate, in accordance with the teachings of mohammed that outline the way to give muslims supremacy across the globe and to subjugate and enslave christians and jews.
Innocent blood being a motivator is convenient but not the true reason for extremism in islam.
It is however worth pointing out that not all muslims follow this train of thought obviously, but enough that terrorism is a massive threat on a global scale.
Would you be saying it's irrelevant if your family and home had been blown to bits in an air strike?
I'm not condoning these fanatics at all, but I can see where the hatred for the Western world as we know it, comes from.
Im not saying that the deaths of innocents are irrelevant just pointing out that even if these people were not being killed terrorism would still be a massive issue.
This is irrefutable as far as I can see when you look at the mindset of the fanatics themselves, they blindly follow their religious beliefs (as many others do today and have done throughout history.)
They follow the teachings of someone they believe to be a slaver, hate preacher and paedophile.
Just look at how the middle east has always been with christians and jews being sold as slaves their women and children being rap_ed and killed, people forced to acknowledge muslims as superior to themselves.
Not to mention the last two caliphates which saw the greater part of the middle east violently converted to islam when it started off just a small following in saudi arabia.
Again the murder of innocent people is abhorrent regardless of who is doing it but to think that this is why we have terrorists and fanatics is just plain stupid
This has been going on since The Crusades in medieval times though. It's not some new 'fad', just because the newspapers have labelled it 'terrorism' or a 'suicide bombing'.
I don't really take kindly to people saying my opinion is just 'plain stupid' because you don't agree either.
I do know that if my family and home were destroyed it an air strike, I wouldn't give two hoots about extracting my revenge on those I deemed responsible either. It's a perfectly valid reason for someone caring so little about others, that they'd blow themselves up in the process.
Im sorry saying that your opinion is stupid it wasn't meant as an insult to you more the train of thought many people are that its our doing.
the manchester bomber could have been motivated by the bombings in syria, it is however extremely unlikely that it is the sole motivator based on the fact that did it in the name of islamic state, an organisation that is trying to enforce muslim superiority throughout the world in the name of mohammed."Appreciate that I'm going off topic here, but its unlikely that motivation came from Syria. Syria gets lumped into the whole motivation debate, but most of the time erroneously so. Yes IS/ISIS has a presence in Syria, but by the vast majority of ire is directed against the Assad regime, and now Russia etc. If anything, what is commonly referred to as 'the West' is criticised for not being more involved in the conflict. A conflict that could have been ended some time ago if decisions were taken then. Going off topic so i won't go on about Syria. Should the death penalty be brought back, No, its never justified. yes there are always arguments for it, and i certainly understand those arguments, especially when it is someone directly effected by an act who is making the argument, but, personally, we cannot as a society be 'executioner' as well as judge and jury, unless we seek to predicate our entire legal system on the basis of revenge and retribution, and we stopped doing that a little while ago. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain They kind of finish themselves off anyway before any punishment can be given. I'd like to sit with them in a room and talk to them to find out where their views came from. Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says ... He was born in England and I was reading there are lots like him they know about in the uk with his views . If they know even if born here they should send them over there to live. That's what I mean, I'd want to talk to them. Say right you've killed a load of children at a pop concert because the armed forces have bombed Syria, yeah makes perfect sense. Why not go after the armed forces then, the actual people that are doing the things they don't like. because coalition bombs have killed hundreds of innocent civilians over there, far more than they've done here. nobody here seems that fussed about them though.....long as the victims are brown and poor and far away
none of it is right, but we don't have any moral high ground here.
I dont think anybody believes that loss of innocent life is right in any circumstance, thoisands of innocents have died ans its terrible.
I would however emphasise that there is a difference between casualyties of war and actively seeking out to destroy innovent lives.
Wether or not the conflict in syria is right or the wars that led up to it with Afghanistan and iraq were justified is irrelevant in the case of extremism.
Fundamentalist muslims are trying to take over the western world in a third and final caliphate, in accordance with the teachings of mohammed that outline the way to give muslims supremacy across the globe and to subjugate and enslave christians and jews.
Innocent blood being a motivator is convenient but not the true reason for extremism in islam.
It is however worth pointing out that not all muslims follow this train of thought obviously, but enough that terrorism is a massive threat on a global scale.
Would you be saying it's irrelevant if your family and home had been blown to bits in an air strike?
I'm not condoning these fanatics at all, but I can see where the hatred for the Western world as we know it, comes from.
Im not saying that the deaths of innocents are irrelevant just pointing out that even if these people were not being killed terrorism would still be a massive issue.
This is irrefutable as far as I can see when you look at the mindset of the fanatics themselves, they blindly follow their religious beliefs (as many others do today and have done throughout history.)
They follow the teachings of someone they believe to be a slaver, hate preacher and paedophile.
Just look at how the middle east has always been with christians and jews being sold as slaves their women and children being rap_ed and killed, people forced to acknowledge muslims as superior to themselves.
Not to mention the last two caliphates which saw the greater part of the middle east violently converted to islam when it started off just a small following in saudi arabia.
Again the murder of innocent people is abhorrent regardless of who is doing it but to think that this is why we have terrorists and fanatics is just plain stupid
This has been going on since The Crusades in medieval times though. It's not some new 'fad', just because the newspapers have labelled it 'terrorism' or a 'suicide bombing'.
I don't really take kindly to people saying my opinion is just 'plain stupid' because you don't agree either.
I do know that if my family and home were destroyed it an air strike, I wouldn't give two hoots about extracting my revenge on those I deemed responsible either. It's a perfectly valid reason for someone caring so little about others, that they'd blow themselves up in the process.
I find your views to be repugnant but more offensive is your ignorance of the history of Islam and Mohammed.
Was it western bombs that made Mohammed (in person) slit the throats of all the males of the Jewish Banu Quraiza tribe? What caused the Muslims to take 2/3s of Spain? That happened before any crusade.
The Qu'ran addresses me directly and it tells us to submit to the will of Allah and his final Prophet or to be subdued and pay the Jizya - if we are lucky and have a particularly merciful Caliph. Polytheists do not have this luxury.
So maybe if you'd actually Read the Islamic material and stop blaming the white man for the world's evil, you'd look far less silly.
So before you keep "I don't want to read Islamic material as I'm not religious in the slightest. As a white woman, I'm not blaming the white man either. I'm saying I can understand why people would be so pissed off they'd want to hit out at our civilised society. Incidentally, I find the tone of your response as equally repugnant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"should we bring back the death penalty for acts of terrorism in britain They kind of finish themselves off anyway before any punishment can be given. I'd like to sit with them in a room and talk to them to find out where their views came from. Salman Abedi 'wanted revenge' for US air strikes in Syria, Manchester bomber's sister says ... He was born in England and I was reading there are lots like him they know about in the uk with his views . If they know even if born here they should send them over there to live. That's what I mean, I'd want to talk to them. Say right you've killed a load of children at a pop concert because the armed forces have bombed Syria, yeah makes perfect sense. Why not go after the armed forces then, the actual people that are doing the things they don't like. because coalition bombs have killed hundreds of innocent civilians over there, far more than they've done here. nobody here seems that fussed about them though.....long as the victims are brown and poor and far away
none of it is right, but we don't have any moral high ground here.
I dont think anybody believes that loss of innocent life is right in any circumstance, thoisands of innocents have died ans its terrible.
I would however emphasise that there is a difference between casualyties of war and actively seeking out to destroy innovent lives.
Wether or not the conflict in syria is right or the wars that led up to it with Afghanistan and iraq were justified is irrelevant in the case of extremism.
Fundamentalist muslims are trying to take over the western world in a third and final caliphate, in accordance with the teachings of mohammed that outline the way to give muslims supremacy across the globe and to subjugate and enslave christians and jews.
Innocent blood being a motivator is convenient but not the true reason for extremism in islam.
It is however worth pointing out that not all muslims follow this train of thought obviously, but enough that terrorism is a massive threat on a global scale.
Would you be saying it's irrelevant if your family and home had been blown to bits in an air strike?
I'm not condoning these fanatics at all, but I can see where the hatred for the Western world as we know it, comes from.
Im not saying that the deaths of innocents are irrelevant just pointing out that even if these people were not being killed terrorism would still be a massive issue.
This is irrefutable as far as I can see when you look at the mindset of the fanatics themselves, they blindly follow their religious beliefs (as many others do today and have done throughout history.)
They follow the teachings of someone they believe to be a slaver, hate preacher and paedophile.
Just look at how the middle east has always been with christians and jews being sold as slaves their women and children being rap_ed and killed, people forced to acknowledge muslims as superior to themselves.
Not to mention the last two caliphates which saw the greater part of the middle east violently converted to islam when it started off just a small following in saudi arabia.
Again the murder of innocent people is abhorrent regardless of who is doing it but to think that this is why we have terrorists and fanatics is just plain stupid
This has been going on since The Crusades in medieval times though. It's not some new 'fad', just because the newspapers have labelled it 'terrorism' or a 'suicide bombing'.
I don't really take kindly to people saying my opinion is just 'plain stupid' because you don't agree either.
I do know that if my family and home were destroyed it an air strike, I wouldn't give two hoots about extracting my revenge on those I deemed responsible either. It's a perfectly valid reason for someone caring so little about others, that they'd blow themselves up in the process.
Im sorry saying that your opinion is stupid it wasn't meant as an insult to you more the train of thought many people are that its our doing.
the manchester bomber could have been motivated by the bombings in syria, it is however extremely unlikely that it is the sole motivator based on the fact that did it in the name of islamic state, an organisation that is trying to enforce muslim superiority throughout the world in the name of mohammed."It's fine, I just despise war of any kind - whatever the reason. Dropping bombs on civilians or blowing up innocent people at a gig - it's all the same outcome and the masses pay the price for government decisions. And I'm not a follower of any religion. I just want everyone to be happy, but that will never happen either! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. We should not have the death penalty here for anything, as this distinguishes a respectful state from those that are not. It is the duty of the state and its citizens to provide a culture that helps elimination of crime and fostering of democracy with equality. They should further seek to rehabilitate and punish appropriately, with emphasis upon rehabilitation and social inclusion, for the benefit of the greater good. Don't chase a race to the bottom, with disrespect for people and life - other regimes and terrorists will beat you. And taking their course puts you amongst what we should be avoiding at all costs. Don't give power to terrorists - starve them of it, including excessive focus upon them. They seek the oxygen of publicity - so restraint of government and media is essential " I agree, they get far too much advertising - which only serves to recruit more followers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Instead of new and more laws and regulations, bring back the Wild West. The Americans have lower crime because they are allowed to carry guns. Guns that protect better than police and criminal justice system, even when you don't physically have a gun on you. Britain, on the other hand, has the highest rate per capita of violent crimes in the developed world. Why ? Because you can't carry a toothpick here for personal protection. " This must be a joke - Gun carrying and ownership in the USA don't automatically lower crime rates. You are 4 or 5 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than UK. And gun use plays a big part there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. We should not have the death penalty here for anything, as this distinguishes a respectful state from those that are not. It is the duty of the state and its citizens to provide a culture that helps elimination of crime and fostering of democracy with equality. They should further seek to rehabilitate and punish appropriately, with emphasis upon rehabilitation and social inclusion, for the benefit of the greater good. Don't chase a race to the bottom, with disrespect for people and life - other regimes and terrorists will beat you. And taking their course puts you amongst what we should be avoiding at all costs. Don't give power to terrorists - starve them of it, including excessive focus upon them. They seek the oxygen of publicity - so restraint of government and media is essential I agree, they get far too much advertising - which only serves to recruit more followers. "
This week we have had countless hours of non-stop TV coverage and angry politicians rhetoric - this is what terrorists want. We must be stupid and being led by the stupid to behave this way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Instead of new and more laws and regulations, bring back the Wild West. The Americans have lower crime because they are allowed to carry guns. Guns that protect better than police and criminal justice system, even when you don't physically have a gun on you. Britain, on the other hand, has the highest rate per capita of violent crimes in the developed world. Why ? Because you can't carry a toothpick here for personal protection. This must be a joke - Gun carrying and ownership in the USA don't automatically lower crime rates. You are 4 or 5 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than UK. And gun use plays a big part there. " I love how much research put into their statements, when miami introduced concealed carry the violent crime rate nearly halved over night. There is significant less gun crime in states that alow open and concealed carry. With the uk gun crime is 600% higher than when carry was banned in the 60s not to mention there is an estimated 1.5 million illegal guns on the streets of the uk and between 2013 and 2017 over 900 children under the age of 16 were arrested for possesion of a firearm, then take into account the massive rise in violent crime in general including ra--pes,muggings and burlery and I ask you again does gun control work? Most gun related crime on the U.S is due to gang violence the same as here. Not to mention in a country with millions of legally held guns they set up gun free zones that only serve to provide deranged individuals a shooting range. Did you know that the west minister attack for example was stopped by an armed civilian (bodyguard to be specific, still not a serving officer). Look into the facts please before making such statements | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Instead of new and more laws and regulations, bring back the Wild West. The Americans have lower crime because they are allowed to carry guns. Guns that protect better than police and criminal justice system, even when you don't physically have a gun on you. Britain, on the other hand, has the highest rate per capita of violent crimes in the developed world. Why ? Because you can't carry a toothpick here for personal protection. This must be a joke - Gun carrying and ownership in the USA don't automatically lower crime rates. You are 4 or 5 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than UK. And gun use plays a big part there. I love how much research put into their statements, when miami introduced concealed carry the violent crime rate nearly halved over night. There is significant less gun crime in states that alow open and concealed carry. With the uk gun crime is 600% higher than when carry was banned in the 60s not to mention there is an estimated 1.5 million illegal guns on the streets of the uk and between 2013 and 2017 over 900 children under the age of 16 were arrested for possesion of a firearm, then take into account the massive rise in violent crime in general including ra--pes,muggings and burlery and I ask you again does gun control work? Most gun related crime on the U.S is due to gang violence the same as here. Not to mention in a country with millions of legally held guns they set up gun free zones that only serve to provide deranged individuals a shooting range. Did you know that the west minister attack for example was stopped by an armed civilian (bodyguard to be specific, still not a serving officer). Look into the facts please before making such statements" But then the government would be even more worried that the populous might stand up to them.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Instead of new and more laws and regulations, bring back the Wild West. The Americans have lower crime because they are allowed to carry guns. Guns that protect better than police and criminal justice system, even when you don't physically have a gun on you. Britain, on the other hand, has the highest rate per capita of violent crimes in the developed world. Why ? Because you can't carry a toothpick here for personal protection. This must be a joke - Gun carrying and ownership in the USA don't automatically lower crime rates. You are 4 or 5 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than UK. And gun use plays a big part there. I love how much research put into their statements, when miami introduced concealed carry the violent crime rate nearly halved over night. There is significant less gun crime in states that alow open and concealed carry. With the uk gun crime is 600% higher than when carry was banned in the 60s not to mention there is an estimated 1.5 million illegal guns on the streets of the uk and between 2013 and 2017 over 900 children under the age of 16 were arrested for possesion of a firearm, then take into account the massive rise in violent crime in general including ra--pes,muggings and burlery and I ask you again does gun control work? Most gun related crime on the U.S is due to gang violence the same as here. Not to mention in a country with millions of legally held guns they set up gun free zones that only serve to provide deranged individuals a shooting range. Did you know that the west minister attack for example was stopped by an armed civilian (bodyguard to be specific, still not a serving officer). Look into the facts please before making such statements But then the government would be even more worried that the populous might stand up to them.." That's why Obama the prick and Hitlery Clinton the Cunt wanted to disarm US citizens. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Instead of new and more laws and regulations, bring back the Wild West. The Americans have lower crime because they are allowed to carry guns. Guns that protect better than police and criminal justice system, even when you don't physically have a gun on you. Britain, on the other hand, has the highest rate per capita of violent crimes in the developed world. Why ? Because you can't carry a toothpick here for personal protection. This must be a joke - Gun carrying and ownership in the USA don't automatically lower crime rates. You are 4 or 5 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than UK. And gun use plays a big part there. I love how much research put into their statements, when miami introduced concealed carry the violent crime rate nearly halved over night. There is significant less gun crime in states that alow open and concealed carry. With the uk gun crime is 600% higher than when carry was banned in the 60s not to mention there is an estimated 1.5 million illegal guns on the streets of the uk and between 2013 and 2017 over 900 children under the age of 16 were arrested for possesion of a firearm, then take into account the massive rise in violent crime in general including ra--pes,muggings and burlery and I ask you again does gun control work? Most gun related crime on the U.S is due to gang violence the same as here. Not to mention in a country with millions of legally held guns they set up gun free zones that only serve to provide deranged individuals a shooting range. Did you know that the west minister attack for example was stopped by an armed civilian (bodyguard to be specific, still not a serving officer). Look into the facts please before making such statements" The Westminster attack was stopped by an armed civilian bodyguard? what intelligence source for you have? Check the facts !!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Instead of new and more laws and regulations, bring back the Wild West. The Americans have lower crime because they are allowed to carry guns. Guns that protect better than police and criminal justice system, even when you don't physically have a gun on you. Britain, on the other hand, has the highest rate per capita of violent crimes in the developed world. Why ? Because you can't carry a toothpick here for personal protection. This must be a joke - Gun carrying and ownership in the USA don't automatically lower crime rates. You are 4 or 5 times more likely to be murdered in the USA than UK. And gun use plays a big part there. I love how much research put into their statements, when miami introduced concealed carry the violent crime rate nearly halved over night. There is significant less gun crime in states that alow open and concealed carry. With the uk gun crime is 600% higher than when carry was banned in the 60s not to mention there is an estimated 1.5 million illegal guns on the streets of the uk and between 2013 and 2017 over 900 children under the age of 16 were arrested for possesion of a firearm, then take into account the massive rise in violent crime in general including ra--pes,muggings and burlery and I ask you again does gun control work? Most gun related crime on the U.S is due to gang violence the same as here. Not to mention in a country with millions of legally held guns they set up gun free zones that only serve to provide deranged individuals a shooting range. Did you know that the west minister attack for example was stopped by an armed civilian (bodyguard to be specific, still not a serving officer). Look into the facts please before making such statements" I spend a few months of the year in both countries and the UK gun levels and approach is my preference, albeit different localities may be outliers or leading progressively. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
