How dare you suggest the actions of our armed forces are murder and in in any way similar to coldly beheading someone with a small knife! He was not even a combatant, but a peaceful big hearted man trying to do some good in the world.
I know the conversation has moved on but I'd just like to clear something up - I'm not calling the actions of our armed forces in legal wars murder. I was mainly referring to drone strikes that the US carry out (especially in countries that we (the West) aren't legally at war with) where civilians are killed through either intelligence mistakes or through trigger happy operators. In particular the eye opening news that the definition of a non-combatant drone strike death has been reclassified specifically to allow us to avoid reporting these deaths.
Your point regarding him not being a combatant is exactly mine - neither are many, many of the dead killed through Western air strikes - and the fact that these play no small part in helping the likes of ISIS recruit even more young men to join them.
You talked about the press failing to question " our role in murdering civilians". Fairly straightforward language really. Glad that is not what you meant.
I think the very limited involvement our forces have had is in Iraq and has been confined to close ground support - which is guided onto Isis fighters in a battle situation. Personally I don't have any problem with many of them are killed. The more the better really.
Doing nothing is not an option and dredging up vague storires about civilians casualties from previous wars is niether relevant or appropriate given the enomotity of what ISIS is doing to civilians.
How dare you suggest the actions of our armed forces are murder and in in any way similar to coldly beheading someone with a small knife! He was not even a combatant, but a peaceful big hearted man trying to do some good in the world.
I know the conversation has moved on but I'd just like to clear something up - I'm not calling the actions of our armed forces in legal wars murder. I was mainly referring to drone strikes that the US carry out (especially in countries that we (the West) aren't legally at war with) where civilians are killed through either intelligence mistakes or through trigger happy operators. In particular the eye opening news that the definition of a non-combatant drone strike death has been reclassified specifically to allow us to avoid reporting these deaths.
Your point regarding him not being a combatant is exactly mine - neither are many, many of the dead killed through Western air strikes - and the fact that these play no small part in helping the likes of ISIS recruit even more young men to join them.
No one would argue that then death of an innocent civilian caught up in conflict is to be regretted but what point are you making by suggesting equivalence between the unintended deaths of civilians choosing to associate with terrorists, and the cold blooded pre-meditated murder of civilians abducted whilst providing humanitarian relief?
This is probably not the appropriate thread to vent your obsession with anti US sentiments.
I can't say I'm very trusting of Turkey in this mess; for a country which borders directly on some of the violence - they seem to be keeping well and truly quiet. I do understand their Parliament voted recently to get involved in action against ISIS, but I can't help but get the impression that they would rather watch them fight the Kurds first.
It reminds me of the photos that the British men who went to fight with ISIS posted on Instagram - where they found the Turkish border laughably insecure and said the Turkish troops let them go through as long as they didn't take their vehicle with them.
How dare you suggest the actions of our armed forces are murder and in in any way similar to coldly beheading someone with a small knife! He was not even a combatant, but a peaceful big hearted man trying to do some good in the world.
I know the conversation has moved on but I'd just like to clear something up - I'm not calling the actions of our armed forces in legal wars murder. I was mainly referring to drone strikes that the US carry out (especially in countries that we (the West) aren't legally at war with) where civilians are killed through either intelligence mistakes or through trigger happy operators. In particular the eye opening news that the definition of a non-combatant drone strike death has been reclassified specifically to allow us to avoid reporting these deaths.
Your point regarding him not being a combatant is exactly mine - neither are many, many of the dead killed through Western air strikes - and the fact that these play no small part in helping the likes of ISIS recruit even more young men to join them.
No one would argue that then death of an innocent civilian caught up in conflict is to be regretted but what point are you making by suggesting equivalence between the unintended deaths of civilians choosing to associate with terrorists, and the cold blooded pre-meditated murder of civilians abducted whilst providing humanitarian relief?
This is probably not the appropriate thread to vent your obsession with anti US sentiments.
I agree, the choice of words was pretty poor, and apparently very misleading, ("our role in murdering civilians") but given @LeaburnForEngland has apologised there's not a great deal more to be said.
Purposely beheading someone you've held captive for weeks, so they die a slow and painful death as they bleed out, is in no way comparable to accidentally killing civilians by bomb; a bomb targeting those responsible for the type of aforementioned atrocities and based on prior intelligence and visuals. I don't actually think it was LFE's intention to try and equate them however.
The three men arrested just before Rememberence Day were planning a beheading, one of which had purchased an 18 inch knife in the days before they were brought in:
The three men arrested just before Rememberence Day were planning a beheading, one of which had purchased an 18 inch knife in the days before they were brought in:
Either bring back the death penalty for these scumbags, or lock them up for life in solitary (so they cant spread any of their bollocks to anyone else!)
The three men arrested just before Rememberence Day were planning a beheading, one of which had purchased an 18 inch knife in the days before they were brought in:
The online news source The Onion has nailed it with its coverage of the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the perpetrator of the Boston Marathon bomb. Its story is just a picture of Tsarnaev with the chilling headline:
Tsarnaev Death Penalty A Warning To Any Other Religious Fanatics Hoping To Be Martyred
Tsarnaev will have years of appeals before he's executed, so the cell should have pictures of the young boy he murdered, Plus the other Poor folk who died or were maimed. Every 4 hours he should be shown DVD's of the above people being free and watching them laugh with their families. Seeing this cretin put two fingers up to the camera in his cell, means that he needs to be educated in the ways of the light not the dark. (i'm an atheist, so nothing to do with our god is better than yours) If in years to come he shows any Remorse, this might be a smidgen of comfort to the families before he is given his lethal injection. The Jury were more upset than he was, so he is still winning the war.
As it is 100% certain that Tsarnaev is guilty, he must Forfeit his Life.
If a terrorist believes martyrdom is his ultimate objective, isn't execution the least effective deterrent?
If he knows he's gonna die on a certain day at a certain time, I reckon he'll be cackin his overalls by the time he's led to the chamber or chair, whether he thinks he's gonna get the virgins or not. Also, if they don't report the fact he's been executed, the whole martyrdom thing will be totally lost.
If a terrorist believes martyrdom is his ultimate objective, isn't execution the least effective deterrent?
If he knows he's gonna die on a certain day at a certain time, I reckon he'll be cackin his overalls by the time he's led to the chamber or chair, whether he thinks he's gonna get the virgins or not. Also, if they don't report the fact he's been executed, the whole martyrdom thing will be totally lost.
If a terrorist believes martyrdom is his ultimate objective, isn't execution the least effective deterrent?
it's a bit late for a deterrent for the people he killed and maimed.
Yes. But, to extend that argument to its natural conclusion, whatever you do as a punishment, it's too late for the victims, so you might as well let him go. I'm not suggesting that.
If a punishment is, in part, supposed to deter other people from committing the same criminal acts, then, in the case of radicalised, extreme terrorists looking to be martyred, execution is exactly the wrong sentence.
If a terrorist believes martyrdom is his ultimate objective, isn't execution the least effective deterrent?
If Martyrdom was his aim why did he try to escape and give a defense that he was under the influence of his older brother. This guy is a deluded coward, and to think he gets fed while millions around the world starve.
If a terrorist believes martyrdom is his ultimate objective, isn't execution the least effective deterrent?
If he knows he's gonna die on a certain day at a certain time, I reckon he'll be cackin his overalls by the time he's led to the chamber or chair, whether he thinks he's gonna get the virgins or not. Also, if they don't report the fact he's been executed, the whole martyrdom thing will be totally lost.
Are you suggesting secret executions?
Well seeing how you now mentioned it; and it's gonna be in secret, why not torcher him a few times before he's finally put down. Great shout Chizz
If a terrorist believes martyrdom is his ultimate objective, isn't execution the least effective deterrent?
If he knows he's gonna die on a certain day at a certain time, I reckon he'll be cackin his overalls by the time he's led to the chamber or chair, whether he thinks he's gonna get the virgins or not. Also, if they don't report the fact he's been executed, the whole martyrdom thing will be totally lost.
Are you suggesting secret executions?
Well seeing how you now mentioned it; and it's gonna be in secret, why not torcher him a few times before he's finally put down. Great shout Chizz
Amen to that Rob, not a few though loads a long drawn out painful conclusion to his life
If a terrorist believes martyrdom is his ultimate objective, isn't execution the least effective deterrent?
it's a bit late for a deterrent for the people he killed and maimed.
Yes. But, to extend that argument to its natural conclusion, whatever you do as a punishment, it's too late for the victims, so you might as well let him go. I'm not suggesting that.
If a punishment is, in part, supposed to deter other people from committing the same criminal acts, then, in the case of radicalised, extreme terrorists looking to be martyred, execution is exactly the wrong sentence.
Any suggestions? If martrydom is his wish why bother with appeals.
I heard of this way of dealing with perpetrators which might provide an alternative to vengeance in our historically retributive system?: "In this African tribe, when someone does something wrong, they take the person to the centre of the village where the community surrounds the individual and for two days say all the good that they have done. The tribe believes each person is inherently good but sometimes people make mistakes, big and small, which are really cries for help. They unite to reconnect the person with his good nature."
The "deterrent" part of the sentence is aimed, not at the perpetrator of the current crime (a crime which, by definition cannot be undone), but at anyone else considering committing a similar crime. If someone bent on martyrdom sees that a terrorist act will end up with a state-sponsored martyrdom, then the sentence is not a deterrent, it's an incentive.
Leaving this despicable individual in prison for many, many years would be a greater deterrent than by executing him and trumpeting the execution as "justice". It is, of course, nothing of the sort.
Comments
I think the very limited involvement our forces have had is in Iraq and has been confined to close ground support - which is guided onto Isis fighters in a battle situation. Personally I don't have any problem with many of them are killed. The more the better really.
Doing nothing is not an option and dredging up vague storires about civilians casualties from previous wars is niether relevant or appropriate given the enomotity of what ISIS is doing to civilians.
This is probably not the appropriate thread to vent your obsession with anti US sentiments.
It reminds me of the photos that the British men who went to fight with ISIS posted on Instagram - where they found the Turkish border laughably insecure and said the Turkish troops let them go through as long as they didn't take their vehicle with them.
Here's an interesting video where the Turkish police fired two Tear Gas Canisters at a BBC crew; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29498188 I agree, the choice of words was pretty poor, and apparently very misleading, ("our role in murdering civilians") but given @LeaburnForEngland has apologised there's not a great deal more to be said.
Purposely beheading someone you've held captive for weeks, so they die a slow and painful death as they bleed out, is in no way comparable to accidentally killing civilians by bomb; a bomb targeting those responsible for the type of aforementioned atrocities and based on prior intelligence and visuals. I don't actually think it was LFE's intention to try and equate them however.
I think this article explains things very well but it is a chilling read.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/05/isis-islamic-state-bombing
news.sky.com/story/1377046/terror-charges-three-men-planned-a-beheading
Nightmare waiting to happen.
Tsarnaev Death Penalty A Warning To Any Other Religious Fanatics Hoping To Be Martyred
Brilliant, subtle and hard-hitting.
See no reason why making him think about what he did on his own for a very, very, very, very long time isn't preferable to this, for so many reasons
Every 4 hours he should be shown DVD's of the above people being free and watching them laugh with their families.
Seeing this cretin put two fingers up to the camera in his cell, means that he needs to be educated in the ways of the light not the dark. (i'm an atheist, so nothing to do with our god is better than yours)
If in years to come he shows any Remorse, this might be a smidgen of comfort to
the families before he is given his lethal injection.
The Jury were more upset than he was, so he is still winning the war.
As it is 100% certain that Tsarnaev is guilty, he must Forfeit his Life.
If a punishment is, in part, supposed to deter other people from committing the same criminal acts, then, in the case of radicalised, extreme terrorists looking to be martyred, execution is exactly the wrong sentence.
Amen to that Rob, not a few though loads a long drawn out painful conclusion to his life
If martrydom is his wish why bother with appeals.
Leaving this despicable individual in prison for many, many years would be a greater deterrent than by executing him and trumpeting the execution as "justice". It is, of course, nothing of the sort.