Colonel Mustard
New Member
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).
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).
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!?
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
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.
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 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.
Best way to treat this is change the sentences. Capital punishment for anyone found guilty of terrorism after a fair trial I think.
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.
There is a real issue with this religion and it needs to get sorted out.
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!
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?
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.
You sound like an extremist to me. :wave:
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?