Man Beheaded in the street in Woolwich (1 Viewer)

[Colonel Mustard]

Freedom of speech is fine, murder however isn't.

You are contradicting yourself, Nick. In the post quoted you were against freedom of speech (nabbing people for 'radicalised' views) and for murder (the 'disappearance' of such individuals).

 

---

[Nick]

You are contradicting yourself, Nick. In the post quoted you were against freedom of speech (nabbing people for 'radicalised' views) and for murder (the 'disappearance' of such individuals).

Sorry, what I meant was if there was a hell of a lot of evidence and it was pretty bang on that they were going to do something then they should disappear, not just a man in the street shouting stuff.

I'm not fussed if it is against human rights, rather have had 2 fellas floating in a river than the Boston Bombings etc..

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Sorry, what I meant was if there was a hell of a lot of evidence and it was pretty bang on that they were going to do something then they should disappear, not just a man in the street shouting stuff.

They already do that. Plenty of would-be terrorists have been arrested, charged and jailed for planning attacks.

I'm not fussed if it is against human rights, rather have had 2 fellas floating in a river than the Boston Bombings etc..

If it is the price to pay for freedom, so be it. It is madness to endorse a police state because one person was killed ... or even if 1000 people were killed. That is not only endangering ourselves and reducing our own rights, but selling out everything that this country stands for.

 

[Nick]

I am not only saying it because 1 person was killed.

Things probably do go on behind the scenes and people already do probably disappear anyway.

I am not saying that people shouldn't be able to have their own views and opinions but they shouldn't be able to hack people to death in the street and then probably live the life of luxury with protection from other inmates in prison costing thousands per year.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

I am not saying that people shouldn't be able to have their own views and opinions but they shouldn't be able to hack people to death in the street and then probably live the life of luxury with protection from other inmates in prison costing thousands per year.

That is a different matter altogether: the subject of legal punishment.

But if you are for freedom of speech and a liberal democracy, then you must understand that there is no place criminalising viewpoints or murdering those who have not committed a crime.

 

[bigfatronssba]

If these terrorists were shot without trial then I wouldn't really care less. However the problem with that is it starts going down the road of letting the government shoot whoever they like.

Best way to treat this is change the sentences. Capital punishment for anyone found guilty of terrorism after a fair trial I think.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Best way to treat this is change the sentences. Capital punishment for anyone found guilty of terrorism after a fair trial I think.

Other than capital punishment being a discredited method, the problem there is that the country would be making martyrs of them ... exactly what they would want, and a surefire way to stoke up foreign and domestic radicalism.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Other than capital punishment being a discredited method, the problem there is that the country would be making martyrs of them ... exactly what they would want, and a surefire way to stoke up foreign and domestic radicalism.

Discredited method in what way? If their dead they can't do it again.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Discredited method in what way? If their dead they can't do it again.

Margin for error in killing innocents; doesn't act as a deterrent; ethical conflict with society, etc.

But they can be dismissed out of hand when you consider the martyrdom factor, which ought to be a sufficient reason to view the punishment as injudicious.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Margin for error in killing innocents; doesn't act as a deterrent; ethical conflict with society, etc.

But they can be dismissed out of hand when you consider the martyrdom factor, which ought to be a sufficient reason to view the punishment as injudicious.

I don't disagree that there is the martyrdom factor, but there is also the moral factor. Not punishing someone because of what might happen is giving in to terrorism. They want us to be scared.

My principles tell me that those to men deserve to die for what they did, if that upsets a few Muslim extremists then so be it.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

I don't disagree that there is the martyrdom factor, but there is also the moral factor. Not punishing someone because of what might happen is giving in to terrorism. They want us to be scared.

The moral factor is being satisfied: they will be punished by the laws of this country. As for fear, you can see on this thread that many patriots want to undermine the values of the UK -- that is fear in action. That is why it is worth reiterating the importance of absorbing this kind of thing. Stiff upper lip and all that.

My principles tell me that those to men deserve to die for what they did, if that upsets a few Muslim extremists then so be it.

I doubt it would upset the extremists, who seem to believe in exactly the same eye-for-an-eye principle.

 

[Grendel]

Margin for error in killing innocents; doesn't act as a deterrent; ethical conflict with society, etc.

But they can be dismissed out of hand when you consider the martyrdom factor, which ought to be a sufficient reason to view the punishment as injudicious.

Martyrdom has often been cited but is it really a factor? Bobby sands death was met mostly with derision. It did nothing to further the cause. The death of bin laden certainly proves this is an argument with questionable foundation.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Martyrdom has often been cited but is it really a factor? Bobby sands death was met mostly with derision. It did nothing to further the cause. The death of bin laden certainly proves this is an argument with questionable foundation.

Most contemporary religions would not have continued to exist into the 21st century without a history of martyrdom; you only need look at the most powerful, ubiquitous symbol of the past 2000 years -- the crucifix -- to see the far-reaching impact of martyrdom. We can even look to our own recent, somewhat more secular culture to see how it energises the believers (General Gordon of Khartoum for the Victorians; Captain Scott for WW1 recruits).

The self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, which initiated the Arab Spring, is perhaps the best recent example of the broad, gamechanging impact a martyr can have. It is wildly unpredictable, so there's no guarantee that the state slaying of a terrorist would alter the statistics one way or another, but: a) it is not a risk worth taking; and b) surely we should reject the eye-for-an-eye policy they adopt; c) it is surely not in the people's interest to give a terrorist the send-off they would wish for; and d) it would risk poor treatment of our soldiers and civilians working in hot zones.

 

[Grendel]

Just answer this:



Of course it exists, I wasn't saying it doesn't, I said it'll push young Muslims to extremism, therefore it'll only intensify the problem!

I don't get why you've brought anarchism into it, it's irrelevant. But I may as well answer you anyway - read Noam Chomsky's work, proposes use of direct democracy, which is 'true democracy' in communities, so I don't know where you've got from, ignorance?

Since you seem to be a champion of true democracy, I guess you'd happily concede that the UK isn't really a true democracy, but rather a 'parliamentary dictatorship', since we have no codified constitution, no elected Head of State, no elected 2nd chamber, and the whip system makes the Commons 'dictatorial' - you know the coalition hasn't been defeated in the Commons yet!? Where's the check on Government!?

There is no question there - just a rather pointless rambling rather dull diatribe.

The anarchy point is wholly relevant. Do you think the ALF have any interest in animal welfare? No they don't. The EdF and these latest terrorists have no goal but to create anarchy. One of these oppressed murderes was in fact a middle class catholic. He had no axe to grind but was doing this ultimately to reap havoc.

Pati Hearst is a real example of someone who perpetuated acts of terror without no regard for "the cause".

Read max Hastings article in the daily mail on this topic he is a better historian than you or I. Read and learn.

 

[Tad]

Throw them in a cell with nothing but four walls. Don't give them death. That's what they are ready for and want. They see the passing into the next life as a good thing as they believe they will go to heaven.

There is a real issue with this religion and it needs to get sorted out.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

f##k human rights, only seems to work if you murder 400 people or when another country wants to question somebody on terror charges. never do you hear on the news of innocent people benefitting from human rights

completley agree with nick, if found get rid

You never hear about the good people who benefit from Human Rights because it doesn't make good news, the media choose what they want to say or not to their readers.

Most innocent people in the UK benefit massively from Human Rights, read this link and you'll see that you benefit from the Human Rights Act.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Throw them in a cell with nothing but four walls. Don't give them death. That's what they are ready for and want. They see the passing into the next life as a good thing as they believe they will go to heaven.

There is a real issue with this religion and it needs to get sorted out.

No their isn't, the Qur'an, the bible and the Torah all teach similar things, but every religion has its extremists, look at the Norwegian Brievik, Christian fundamentalist, killed 60 odd people in cold blood, that doesn't mean Christianity is a bad religion, there's also a problem with Chrisitian fundamentalism in the USA.

Just want to make a point that I don't think has been made,

I can't believe the people who either just stared or walked past the victim, they are contemptible.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

There is no question there - just a rather pointless rambling rather dull diatribe.

The anarchy point is wholly relevant. Do you think the ALF have any interest in animal welfare? No they don't. The EdF and these latest terrorists have no goal but to create anarchy. One of these oppressed murderes was in fact a middle class catholic. He had no axe to grind but was doing this ultimately to reap havoc.

Pati Hearst is a real example of someone who perpetuated acts of terror without no regard for "the cause".

Read max Hastings article in the daily mail on this topic he is a better historian than you or I. Read and learn.

No, you just don't have a real comeback, again.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

No their isn't, the Qur'an, the bible and the Torah all teach similar things, but every religion has its extremists, look at the Norwegian Brievik, Christian fundamentalist, killed 60 odd people in cold blood, that doesn't mean Christianity is a bad religion, there's also a problem with Chrisitian fundamentalism in the USA.

Just want to make a point that I don't think has been made,

I can't believe the people who either just stared or walked past the victim, they are contemptible.

In fairness - at least some of these "contemptible" people would not want to go near the poor victim whilst there are still two bloodied knife & machete wielding attackers around for fear of then being attacked themselves? Unless faced with some of these situations it's hard to know how we would react ourselves.

 

[Sick Boy]

Best way to treat this is change the sentences. Capital punishment for anyone found guilty of terrorism after a fair trial I think.

You do realise that there has been several terrorism cases where the suspects were found guilty, but were eventually acquitted?

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

 

[Sick Boy]

Martyrdom has often been cited but is it really a factor? Bobby sands death was met mostly with derision. It did nothing to further the cause. The death of bin laden certainly proves this is an argument with questionable foundation.

After the death of Sands there was believed to have been a surge in IRA recruitment and activity.

 

[Sick Boy]

There is a real issue with this religion and it needs to get sorted out.

I think you mean all religion.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

In fairness - at least some of these "contemptible" people would not want to go near the poor victim whilst there are still two bloodied knife & machete wielding attackers around for fear of then being attacked themselves? Unless faced with some of these situations it's hard to know how we would react ourselves.

Fair comment, my gut reaction is that I'd try and do something, but there was one person who literally stood over the victim (that weren't the killers) and just watched, if he or she (pretty sure it was a women) was that concerned about being attacked, I think she would've just walked on sharpishly!

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Fair comment, my gut reaction is that I'd try and do something, but there was one person who literally stood over the victim (that weren't the killers) and just watched, if he or she (pretty sure it was a women) was that concerned about being attacked, I think she would've just walked on sharpishly!

I know it looks bad on her, & it is possible she was just getting some weird morbid voyeuristic pleasure...but shock & the associated bewilderment does strange things to people.

 

[bigfatronssba]

After the death of Sands there was believed to have been a surge in IRA recruitment and activity.

And? Should we have just let him go?

 

[Sick Boy]

And? Should we have just let him go?

No, but the hunger strikes and his death were a very dark period. I believe Britain has learnt a lot from them. Outside of the UK, we didn't have a lot of sympathy regarding the situation.

 

[bigfatronssba]

No, but the hunger strikes and his death were a very dark period. I believe Britain has learnt a lot from them. Outside of the UK, we didn't have a lot of sympathy regarding the situation.

Well fortunately he did the right thing in the end.

 

[Sick Boy]

Well fortunately he did the right thing in the end.

You sound like an extremist to me. :wave:

 

[bigfatronssba]

You sound like an extremist to me. :wave:

If wanting terrorists taken out of decent society makes me that then yes I am.

 

[Grendel]

No, you just don't have a real comeback, again.

In other words you have no argument against the points I made.

Your own theory of democracy is frankly ludicrous. To suggest our system is no democratic is an absurdity. For a start the parliament act will always be used to put a bill through regardless of any protest from a second chamber.

Crudely if everyone voted for one party that party could excercise its powers regardless of a second chamber.

We also have a free and varied press - unlike your friend Chavez.

 

[sw88]

Send them to Afghanistan and let our soldiers spend an hour with them. One by one. See how they act around soldiers then. Armed soldiers. Ones who know what they have done to a fellow colleague.

Only real justice I can see!

Oh and they have to fly easy jet or Ryanair too! No private jets!

Haven't they been reported as being Brit born? So not like they can be deported. No prison sentence for these will make up for the life lost. Mainly because they'll be out in a private, protected prison cell where no other in mates can get to them.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

In other words you have no argument against the points I made.

Your own theory of democracy is frankly ludicrous. To suggest our system is no democratic is an absurdity. For a start the parliament act will always be used to put a bill through regardless of any protest from a second chamber.

Crudely if everyone voted for one party that party could excercise its powers regardless of a second chamber.

We also have a free and varied press - unlike your friend Chavez.

Which has been used 4 times, but more importantly, there's no check on government power because the Lords is powerless whereas in democracies such as Venezeula, USA and France there is true scrutiny, therefore in theory, better legislation is passed.

Our system is flexible, I give you that, but then again, the most flexible government has unlimited powers.

I was under the impression that the Venezuelan press is largely controlled by right-wing opposition, that is surely providing opposition to Government and therefore, freedom of the press does exist in Venezuela, there's one thing I can confirm is that you're not an expert on Venezuela, or even have a balanced opinion on them. This journo even suggests that

According to these guys, Venezuela have the fairest electoral laws - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x54044

Someone who knows better than the 2 of us - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/04/venezuela-media-freedom-chavez

 

[Nick]

Politics is boring! X I do love a good mass debate though!

 

[wingy]

Politics is boring! X I do love a good mass debate though!

I don't mind if it keeps em out of the SiSu lovers debate !!:facepalm:

Listen lads in all honesty could'nt you start a new thread for this and give Soldier Rigby the respect he deserves.

 

[kg82]

I don't mind if it keeps em out of the SiSu lovers debate !!:facepalm:

Listen lads in all honesty could'nt you start a new thread for this and give Soldier Rigby the respect he deserves.

Exactly this.