PDA

View Full Version : How to Punish Terrorists 2



Mentor
10-03-2007, 11:33 PM
Well ive created a new version of this thread. As the previous created after coming under fire for there beliefs simply closed the topic and ran away from the issue, rather than respond to the criticisms raised.

I think this is an interesting issue hence have created a new topic for it.

After all, what should be done, with terrorists, do you agree with the new legislation brought in to "protect" us from these terrorists, or is it just power play, as Kymux said "the government likes terrorism, it keeps people scared, and scared people do what theyre told".

Personally my belief, is terrorists should be treated like any other criminals, and prosecuted under the law, Britain has had problems with terrorism before, far more major than they are now, far more bombs, far more death and the problem was far closer to home so it was alot easyer for these people to get in.

So why is it that, although the law was perfectly able to uphold justice before, that now, the government needs the power to arrest and detain people, without reason or charge, or take the issue to caught, which has been one of the most important rights the country is based on.

Post your views and opinions.

GommeInc
10-03-2007, 11:36 PM
I think the idea of killing someone who is planning on killing or has killed, doesn't effect the problem. it either keeps it as bad as it was, or worse. You cannot kill every terrorist, or kill 20-50 and expect terrorism to just fade out and go. If anything, they'll hunt you down or brew anger and terrorise more.

T0M
10-03-2007, 11:36 PM
( i was creator of first thread ) first of all i did not run away, im happy to discuss it and i will discuss it here, just dont see why i should be insulted for what i believe. I wont insult anybody for their choices and belifs so dont expect to be insulted myself.

I belive terrorists should be executed as losing 1 life is better than 50 innocent ones.

hobo
10-03-2007, 11:39 PM
slow and painful execution.

GommeInc
10-03-2007, 11:40 PM
But your just adding to the death count? Let the proper authorities deal with it. They should be locked away. 50 dead is better than one extra, whom killed them "/

T0M
10-03-2007, 11:41 PM
But if we put them all in prison, we pay for them to be there, food clothing bedding etc

hobo
10-03-2007, 11:42 PM
But if we put them all in prison, we pay for them to be there, food clothing bedding etc

exactly.

Mentor
10-03-2007, 11:43 PM
I think the idea of killing someone who is planning on killing or has killed, doesn't effect the problem. it either keeps it as bad as it was, or worse. You cannot kill every terrorist, or kill 20-50 and expect terrorism to just fade out and go. If anything, they'll hunt you down or brew anger and terrorise more.
Indeed, i dont believe terrorism is a separate issue from that of the rest of the legal system, hence i hold the same view here as i do with all capital punishment, that being its wrong.
Most "terrorist" are arrested and detained without change, people who have committed no crime, nore is there any real evidence saying they have, if they were, they could be arrested and taken to caught legally. As opposed to having to breach the genral human rights we have here in england.

Killing is wrong for the most part, if you kill a killer, you are no better than them. If we all sink to there level, theres little hope for our species.


( i was creator of first thread ) first of all i did not run away, im happy to discuss it and i will discuss it here, just dont see why i should be insulted for what i believe. I wont insult anybody for their choices and belifs so dont expect to be insulted myself.

I belive terrorists should be executed as losing 1 life is better than 50 innocent ones.

Ive only insulted you because i have no respect for someone incapable of defending the own point of view, and then simply avoids the issue when its challenged. As was done by the closing of your thread, under some really weak pretenses. After all i often enter a lot of debates and get a lot of bad rep for my views, that doesn't mean im just going to run away from the debate, im going to stay there and defend my views, because i believe they are the right ones, and until im proved wrong i will hold that view point and argue its case to the best of my ability's.

Also ive also not called you anti-social. I dont really believe you have really thought your view point through, hence that is where most my challenges to the view are based from. You never responded to most the points i rased after all.


But if we put them all in prison, we pay for them to be there, food clothing bedding etc
The prision system not being harsh enough doesn't really justify killing people. Plus the death penalty, in the US for example costs far more than keeping someone in prison for the rest of the natural life does. So cost is a bad argument.

That aside, even if the cost were greater, i value human life, i am not going to sink to the level of a murder or terroist myself, as if i did, i would have no right in claiming they were wrong in there methods.

GommeInc
10-03-2007, 11:44 PM
Not really. Besides, it is keeping them off the streets killing more. Just killing them is making you as bad as them. Britain has evolved since the days of killing thoughtlessly. That was the medievil times, this is the modern times, where execution is known to solve nothing. Putting them on trial is easier. You take one off the street. Killing them just means getting loads of people in trouble when the group behind them seeks revenge.

T0M
10-03-2007, 11:46 PM
Indeed, i dont believe terrorism is a separate issue from that of the rest of the legal system, hence i hold the same view here as i do with all capital punishment, that being its wrong.
Most "terrorist" are arrested and detained without change, people who have committed no crime, nore is there any real evidence saying they have, if they were, they could be arrested and taken to caught legally. As opposed to having to breach the genral human rights we have here in england.

Killing is wrong for the most part, if you kill a killer, you are no better than them. If we all sink to there level, theres little hope for our species.



Ive only insulted you because i have no respect for someone incapable of defending the own point of view, and then simply avoids the issue when its challenged. As was done by the closing of your thread, under some really weak pretenses. After all i often enter a lot of debates and get a lot of bad rep for my views, that doesn't mean im just going to run away from the debate, im going to stay there and defend my views, because i believe they are the right ones, and until im proved wrong i will hold that view point and argue its case to the best of my ability's.

Also ive also not called you anti-social. I dont really believe you have really thought your view point through, hence that is where most my challenges to the view are based from. You never responded to most the points i rased after all.


Ill try to respond to all of your points in this thread then =) and gomm was the one insulting me not you.

1) yes Killing a killer is sinking to their level, but rather sink to their level and possibly save 50 innocent lives than leave it and take the risk of losing 50 people.

2) I closed because i was being insulted, not because my opinion was being put under pressure

3) please post anymore points of view you have and ill say my opinion on them

Thanks

Edit**

4) im not sure which is more expensive, killing them the way the do at the moment or putting them in prison, but im sure that hanging them, like saddams death, which would be a dignified death in private would cost less

Mentor
10-03-2007, 11:50 PM
1) yes Killing a killer is sinking to their level, but rather sink to their level and possibly save 50 innocent lives than leave it and take the risk of losing 50 people.
How does that work? If we know there terrorists, they get prosecuted for the crimes like everyone else, they serve a long jail sentence, and are released only when its deemed they are safe to reenter society. There not going to be blowing people up from a jail cell you know.

At the point where talking about there just a defenseless human being, who has no control over there fate. Your say we should kill them in cold blood. I say we should prosecute them, and if they are guilty of conspiracy to murder, they go to jail for it and are detained until they are no longer a threat.


2) I closed because i was being insulted, not because my opinion was being put under pressure
That was never one of the points i rased, and hence leads me to belive the insults were just an excuse to avoid the real criticisms. point 3 wasnt even a point.

edit:

4) im not sure which is more expensive, killing them the way the do at the moment or putting them in prison, but im sure that hanging them, like saddams death, which would be a dignified death in private would cost less
In the uk we dont kill people at all at the moment, we have made a little progress since the middle ages. What your arguing for sounds alot like what they had in nazi Germany, after all, they had the "terrorist's" *cough* to... otherwize known as the jewish/communist community.

Kymux
10-03-2007, 11:50 PM
or is it just power play, as Kymux said "the government likes terrorism, it keeps people scared, and scared people do what theyre told".

thats how i see it, but i do believe they should just be locked up, not in prison, sincei do not think a thing like this can be cured with punishment, like other people in prison (serial rapists, murderers and general psychopaths). they should be in a mental assylum, i see it that they have something wrong in their mind which makes them do that.

being in jail is just going to anger them or make they mental state worse, if they are ever gonna be "cured" it has to be delt with right.

lol thats just my veiw

T0M
10-03-2007, 11:52 PM
if they wer ein prison with no phone calls then fair enough you have a good point, but if they get phone calls to people outside they could organise terrorist attacks and give details/orders to other terrorists

Kymux
10-03-2007, 11:55 PM
lol no they wouldnt, i bet prison officers listen in on all phone conversations theyre having, if they didnt itd be absurd, and anyway what difference does the odd phone call make? its still gonna make them worse

(off topic: im listnin to "Welcome Home (Sanitarium) - Metallica"... very fitting for my points)

Mentor
10-03-2007, 11:59 PM
thats how i see it, but i do believe they should just be locked up, not in prison, sincei do not think a thing like this can be cured with punishment, like other people in prison (serial rapists, murderers and general psychopaths). they should be in a mental assylum, i see it that they have something wrong in their mind which makes them do that.

being in jail is just going to anger them or make they mental state worse, if they are ever gonna be "cured" it has to be delt with right.

lol thats just my veiw
True, i take the slightly idealist view that prison does do the job its supposed to, aka reabiltate inmates for re-interrogation in to regular society, which does include the pycological aspects to.


if they wer ein prison with no phone calls then fair enough you have a good point, but if they get phone calls to people outside they could organise terrorist attacks and give details/orders to other terrorists
People detained in prison's rights depend sole on the risks associated with them having it. They if dont let computer hackers have telephone calls, there not going to give them to convicted terrorists if theres deemed to be a high risk. But like any criminal, i see no reason they shouldnt be allowed contact with the familys etc.

Kymux
11-03-2007, 12:06 AM
People detained in prison's rights depend sole on the risks associated with them having it. They if dont let computer hackers have telephone calls, there not going to give them to convicted terrorists if theres deemed to be a high risk. But like any criminal, i see no reason they shouldnt be allowed contact with the familys etc.

agreed

i think that most inmates would be "cured" with inprisonment, however with criminals with extremely warped minds, i see that theres no other way to cure them other than proper psychiatric help

DCeption
11-03-2007, 12:47 AM
Put them all in one small country and bomb the *******s.

GommeInc
11-03-2007, 12:53 AM
And do exactly what they do? Wow, the wisdom coming from you :rolleyes:

The only logical way to do it is trial them, and lock them up when guilty.

Browney
11-03-2007, 10:06 AM
Bring back the stocks. Oh and jail them.

Colin-Roberts
11-03-2007, 11:27 AM
But if we put them all in prison, we pay for them to be there, food clothing bedding etc
News Flash it's cheaper then proper killing like the electric chair.
oops mentor already posted that.

and theres nothign dignified by beening hung?
i'd make a long post like mentor but he shares my views so i'll let him

edit: again all phonecalls that are made are closely monitored so they couldn't organize anything.

Shawnstra
11-03-2007, 12:17 PM
You should treat them like any criminal, if they killed, you execute them, etc.

GommeInc
11-03-2007, 12:58 PM
You should treat them like any criminal, if they killed, you execute them, etc.
Treating them like any criminal means they would be put in jail, not continuing blood shed by killing them. They shuld be put on trial, and serve a lengthy jail sentence. If you have any common sense, you'll understand. People who find rep a big thing lack common sense and most brain power. Not pointing a finger :rolleyes:

T0M
11-03-2007, 01:25 PM
Treating them like any criminal means they would be put in jail, not continuing blood shed by killing them. They shuld be put on trial, and serve a lengthy jail sentence. If you have any common sense, you'll understand. People who find rep a big thing lack common sense and most brain power. Not pointing a finger :rolleyes:

Just because people disagree with you doesnt mean their wrong btw :l They're as right as you are.

If you had any common sense you'd understand

DCeption
11-03-2007, 01:31 PM
And do exactly what they do? Wow, the wisdom coming from you :rolleyes:

The only logical way to do it is trial them, and lock them up when guilty.


And pay for their food and drink :rolleyes: They are better of dead tbh

T0M
11-03-2007, 01:34 PM
And pay for their food and drink :rolleyes: They are better of dead tbh

Thats been one of my points all the way through, but they say hanging or killing them is more expensive than a life time of paying for them to live :l

DCeption
11-03-2007, 02:33 PM
Thats been one of my points all the way through, but they say hanging or killing them is more expensive than a life time of paying for them to live :l

Which is a load of bull. Hanging them would no way cost as much. I agree with everything you have said!

Browney
11-03-2007, 03:34 PM
Hanging is banned in western countries. Most likely would be lethal injection.

hobo
11-03-2007, 03:37 PM
Hanging is banned in western countries. Most likely would be lethal injection.

it could be unbanned.

DCeption
11-03-2007, 03:37 PM
Hanging is banned in western countries. Most likely would be lethal injection.

Would that cost alot?

Dan2nd
11-03-2007, 05:01 PM
I think they just need a lot of help tbh

Browney
11-03-2007, 05:22 PM
Would that cost alot?

I doubt it would cost alot but it's more efficient than the electric chair.

DCeption
11-03-2007, 05:24 PM
Well im all for the lethal injection then!

GommeInc
11-03-2007, 06:26 PM
Just because people disagree with you doesnt mean their wrong btw :l They're as right as you are.

If you had any common sense you'd understand
Urrgh, I hate it when people use what I say against me without realising what I meant.

It's not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of what is right both morally and legally "/ You have a limit to your opinion, you cannot kill to solve your problems. Which is where you lack your common sense.


I doubt it would cost alot but it's more efficient than the electric chair.
It's been stopped in Canada. It killed someone, yes, but painfully. It took them 15 minutes to die.

Browney
11-03-2007, 06:32 PM
It's been stopped in Canada. It killed someone, yes, but painfully. It took them 15 minutes to die.

I think I heard it was because they missed the main vein. Mistakes happen.

GommeInc
11-03-2007, 06:34 PM
Yes, but if they had to put someone to death, at least make sure they never happen "/ They could of let them sit in jail. There would be no pain and there would be no more blood shed on a matter.

Browney
11-03-2007, 06:40 PM
Yes, but if they had to put someone to death, at least make sure they never happen "/ They could of let them sit in jail. There would be no pain and there would be no more blood shed on a matter.

Obviously you're right and most western countries agree with you but if a terrorist was captured in the USA they would be put to death.

GommeInc
11-03-2007, 06:45 PM
Obviously you're right and most western countries agree with you but if a terrorist was captured in the USA they would be put to death.
I was thinking exactly that, but the US Government is irrational at the best of times.

Breakfloor
11-03-2007, 06:46 PM
One clean shot to the head.

DCeption
11-03-2007, 07:12 PM
Yes, but if they had to put someone to death, at least make sure they never happen "/ They could of let them sit in jail. There would be no pain and there would be no more blood shed on a matter.

yeah thats all very well and good. but we still have to pay for the buggers.

I think we should either have the death penatly for terrorism. And much tougher laws on immigration. Which woudlnt be fair, as the majority of immigrants want a decent life, and wont cause any trouble.

And why the bloody hell shouldnt they suffer, they made tons more people suffer.

Mentor
11-03-2007, 07:51 PM
You should treat them like any criminal, if they killed, you execute them, etc.
Unluckly, some of us have progressed since the dark ages, we dont kill criminals. Turns out, if your going to tell people killing is wrong. killing people yourself doesnt set a great exsample.


And pay for their food and drink :rolleyes: They are better of dead tbh
IT costs more to have death penalty, than pay for life imprisonment, if people read the thread, they wouldnt repetely make the same mistakes..


Just because people disagree with you doesnt mean their wrong btw :l They're as right as you are.

If you had any common sense you'd understand
o.0 I fail to understand how you worked that out. The UK does not have the death penalty, that is FACT. Unless your mind boggling stupid, you cant claim saying we do, makes you right. Your wrong. If you had any common sence, that would have made sence the first time round.


Which is a load of bull. Hanging them would no way cost as much. I agree with everything you have said!
Well actualy what your sayings aload of bull, some people actualy do some reaserch, and are capable of figureing out that the courtcases for the death pentalty cost alot.

That is, unless you would rather bring in the gustaopo and secret police, stalin and hitler would have been proud.


Obviously you're right and most western countries agree with you but if a terrorist was captured in the USA they would be put to death.
There presednet used to be an exicutioner in texis, do i need to say more.
The death penalty is somthing i associate with backwards practisies and one of the horrible things in some 3rd world countarys.


yeah thats all very well and good. but we still have to pay for the buggers.

I think we should either have the death penatly for terrorism. And much tougher laws on immigration. Which woudlnt be fair, as the majority of immigrants want a decent life, and wont cause any trouble.

And why the bloody hell shouldn't they suffer, they made tons more people suffer.
1) It costs more to go threw the court process in order to get death penalty than inprison em for life, for a tax payer or someone with some morality, thats a bad thing, for a loyer, thats a good thing, they get payed.
2) immigration supports this country, are ecnomeny would collapse without it.
3)because if we make them suffer, you have sank down to there level, you may as well be prosecuted as a murder as well.


ps. Whos the idiot who bad repped me for "poor spelling and grammer", at least have the balls to put your name with it.

Dentafrice1
11-03-2007, 07:55 PM
I believe we should do like they used to

Hang them high

Mentor
11-03-2007, 07:58 PM
I believe we should do like they used to

Hang them high

So basicaly, we should take the moral high ground by sinking to there level, capturing them then hanging/killing them?
Wow we can produce the same sort of tv programming bin larden does...

2hd.
11-03-2007, 07:59 PM
( i was creator of first thread ) first of all i did not run away, im happy to discuss it and i will discuss it here, just dont see why i should be insulted for what i believe. I wont insult anybody for their choices and belifs so dont expect to be insulted myself.

I belive terrorists should be executed as losing 1 life is better than 50 innocent ones.

Am I right in saying you're American?

Zuar
11-03-2007, 08:18 PM
Kill them all.
Then send all imigrants back.
And close the UK border.

Mentor
11-03-2007, 08:26 PM
Kill them all.
Then send all imigrants back.
And close the UK border.
Then send then burn the registag, take war powers and invade poland?

Maybe you should audition for the "Hitler factor" =.=

Ramones
11-03-2007, 08:32 PM
in my opinion, they try kill us = we kill them. to many people are to nice

Mentor
11-03-2007, 08:48 PM
in my opinion, they try kill us = we kill them. to many people are to nice

if you do that, how are you any better than them?

Splinter
11-03-2007, 08:51 PM
The thing is that there a different kinds of terrorists. Two main types as I see it are those which are influenced to carry out terrorism by people they respect/scarred of and those which do it by their own religious choice. These pose two different problems because people who carry out acts of terrorism whom have been brainwashed or heavily influenced into it can these REALLY be thought to have full control over their actions and are they completely guilty. Therefore do they deserve to suffer the death penalty. The other problem is that of those who chose to do it by their own choice. Can these become peaceful and be able to carry out their life in incarceration without repeatedly trying to carry out more acts of terrorism. If not then maybe the death penalty should be employed if they are a major danger to society.

Jazza
11-03-2007, 08:58 PM
They should be given the lethal injection. I have a strong dislike for Terrorists and Britain's government don't help. Anyone can come to Britain and terrorists (and other people who dislike 'the west') can get in very easily and hurt us from the inside.

Splinter
11-03-2007, 10:09 PM
Britain is a free and multi cultural society.. people cant just come in and if they do the authorities will do their best to remove them. But other people come to this country because they cant feed their families or suffer torture if they go back should we turn them away? Also the people who carried out the recent terrorist bombings where British born and brought up in this country so its not just illegal imigrants its people who are of British Nationality.

Mentor
11-03-2007, 10:18 PM
The thing is that there a different kinds of terrorists. Two main types as I see it are those which are influenced to carry out terrorism by people they respect/scarred of and those which do it by their own religious choice. These pose two different problems because people who carry out acts of terrorism whom have been brainwashed or heavily influenced into it can these REALLY be thought to have full control over their actions and are they completely guilty. Therefore do they deserve to suffer the death penalty. The other problem is that of those who chose to do it by their own choice. Can these become peaceful and be able to carry out their life in incarceration without repeatedly trying to carry out more acts of terrorism. If not then maybe the death penalty should be employed if they are a major danger to society.
How is being brainwashed by a religion any different from being brainwashed by a person or indveridual. humans by nature do not want to kill or being killed. If they do, then there is obviously something wrong with them and they will need phyceatric care.

Splinter
11-03-2007, 10:39 PM
Because as I see it religion is irrational and leaves these people feeling their actions are completely justifiable. This isn't just restricted to Muslims the same has happened in America with the Evangelists where people have been killed because they believe its gods will.

GommeInc
11-03-2007, 10:41 PM
yeah thats all very well and good. but we still have to pay for the buggers.

I think we should either have the death penatly for terrorism. And much tougher laws on immigration. Which woudlnt be fair, as the majority of immigrants want a decent life, and wont cause any trouble.

And why the bloody hell shouldnt they suffer, they made tons more people suffer.
So? Better than sinking to their level and paying in the blood of others. You kill a terrorist, you anger a terrorist. And an angry terrorist will tell a group and bang, you've got a frenzy going on. I would rather pay money to hold a terrorist, than pay for it with someones life, whom was killed by people seeking revenge for killing one of their people "/ Get my drift?

Making a terrorist suffer is just sinking to their level. If you killed a load of terrorists, you should in time kill yourself. After all, you have killed human beings, which they are.

Mentor
12-03-2007, 12:44 AM
Because as I see it religion is irrational and leaves these people feeling their actions are completely justifiable. This isn't just restricted to Muslims the same has happened in America with the Evangelists where people have been killed because they believe its gods will.
Exactly, so whats the differnce, unless there minds are brainwashed or have had there mindswarped to some exstent, they wont do it.
That means if they do, do it, one of the above is true. So how can you punish any of the at all for a misguided action.
It should be treated in the same way as miltary problems aka the chain of command is responcible, a soludre isnt responcibe for shooting an inncent cervilian if he was orderd to do so by a superior, its the superors fault and the superor responciblty. Soldures are trained to do what there told.
The same is true here, these people are equaly trained to do what there told, if a terrosit leader (whom also has some warped view of the world) orders someone to do somthing, why are they suddenly responcible for it, where as one of our soldures would not?

Secondly many suide bombers dont even have the choice, the terroist gangs will hold there familys children etc hostage, and kill them if they do not. Hence why they unwilling to carry out those attacks. How can you justife punishing someone for trying to protect there family and childrens lifes...

efq
21-03-2007, 09:13 PM
Jail them. LIFE
Execute them.

Or bomb there the terroists family and teach them a lesson - To far?

GommeInc
21-03-2007, 11:46 PM
No I think I shall pick imprisonment. It is a crime, deal with it like one. Why kill their families? Show them who else are blood splattering murderers?

NekkLe
22-03-2007, 02:46 PM
You can't win either way and its proven by current problems, you kill, they kill 2. There will never be a balance between terrorists and the world because they preach different things and either side won't settle terms between each other.

Terrorists provoke and I'm sure the likes of the UK or US could easily put them at rest by destroying there civilization, however, they haven't.

le harry
31-03-2007, 05:56 AM
slow and painful execution.

Agreed

Mentor
31-03-2007, 11:06 AM
Jail them. LIFE
Execute them.

Or bomb there the terroists family and teach them a lesson - To far?

Thats kinda the reason there terrorists. Becuse we (or the US at least) already bombed there homes, and most likly killed there family. After that its not supriseing people are going to be more willing to travel to the US/UK and blow em selfs up. Mis-guided as the action may be.

Ashhizzle
31-03-2007, 11:10 AM
slow and painful execution.
cut off their body part's like Jack bauer did on 24, when he cut off that russians finger with the cigar thing LOL

meh, they should be killed imo

OMGitsaROSS
31-03-2007, 11:13 AM
Exactly, so whats the differnce, unless there minds are brainwashed or have had there mindswarped to some exstent, they wont do it.
That means if they do, do it, one of the above is true. So how can you punish any of the at all for a misguided action.
It should be treated in the same way as miltary problems aka the chain of command is responcible, a soludre isnt responcibe for shooting an inncent cervilian if he was orderd to do so by a superior, its the superors fault and the superor responciblty. Soldures are trained to do what there told.
The same is true here, these people are equaly trained to do what there told, if a terrosit leader (whom also has some warped view of the world) orders someone to do somthing, why are they suddenly responcible for it, where as one of our soldures would not?

Secondly many suide bombers dont even have the choice, the terroist gangs will hold there familys children etc hostage, and kill them if they do not. Hence why they unwilling to carry out those attacks. How can you justife punishing someone for trying to protect there family and childrens lifes...
Or they are simply just ****** up freaks?

RedStratocas
31-03-2007, 11:14 AM
I dont believe in execution, too many people have been executed who have been guilty. Same thing would happen with terrorists.

le harry
31-03-2007, 11:29 AM
Have you seen the Nick Berg execution video? You will curse terrorists for ever, it's that cruel & disturbing.

Mentor
31-03-2007, 11:59 AM
Or they are simply just ****** up freaks?

They wouldn't be terrorists if they were, terrorism denotes a specific terror mongering aim.
Secondly, what difference does that make, if there ****** up, aka mentally ill, its society's job to give them the help they need to recover from it.

scubadiva
31-03-2007, 06:14 PM
In a war, it's a matter of kill or be killed. The same principle applies with the War on Terrorism in my opinion.

Mentor
31-03-2007, 08:43 PM
In a war, it's a matter of kill or be killed. The same principle applies with the War on Terrorism in my opinion.

If you apply the principles of war to terrorists killing them is still wrong? they should then be treated the same as captured soldier's are, governed by the genva convention etc o.0

scubadiva
31-03-2007, 09:20 PM
If you apply the principles of war to terrorists killing them is still wrong? they should then be treated the same as captured soldier's are, governed by the genva convention etc o.0

If it were the other way around, would the terrorist's give a damn about the Geneva Convention? Bit of a retorical question really, they've beheaded enough people, videoed it, and put it on TV :rolleyes:

Mentor
31-03-2007, 09:40 PM
If it were the other way around, would the terrorist's give a damn about the Geneva Convention? Bit of a retorical question really, they've beheaded enough people, videoed it, and put it on TV :rolleyes:
So you think because they do it we should sink to there level, there are murders and rapists out there, should we all go and murder and rape people to becuse they do?
You kinda loose the right to say its wrong when you do it to.

also, yea, we never do that, i mean like showing dead insergets, or sadams children even... or even the video of sadam himself, the hanging may as well have just been a beheading o.0

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!