How to Punish Terrorists 2

[Mentor]

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]

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]

( 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]

slow and painful execution.

[GommeInc]

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]

But if we put them all in prison, we pay for them to be there, food clothing bedding etc

[hobo]

But if we put them all in prison, we pay for them to be there, food clothing bedding etc

exactly.

[Mentor]

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]

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]

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