Religion of Peace shouts “ALLAHU AKBAR”

135678

Comments

  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
    And...

    How the fuck can anyone dispute the death penalty as inappropriate for a couple of barbaric assholes such as these? Is there any doubt to who committed the crime? They are shoving their brutality in people's faces. Instead of taking the higher road... I suggest not.

    What the hell, man?

    Couple of low lifes thinking they are fighting the good fight. Pieces of shit that need to fry.

    Indisputable.

    I think it's very inappropriate.

    Murder is wrong.

    Seeking a revenge killing as retribution is not a healthy frame of mind, either.

    Taking some measure of comfort or justification or solace that another person was murdered - albeit by the state - is a degree of sickness in my opinion.

    To me, the reason the death penalty is wrong has more to do with those seeking for, and committing the act of the death penalty than it does about the person being killed.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    hostis wrote:
    the people who did this were d***s. nothing more nothing less. leave them alone to rot in a cell, don't give them any more air time and focus on the poor soldier who was murdered. HE deserves the media focus, not the perpetrators.

    (and to a certian extent guns are banned in the UK.... but if we decide to crack down on gun ownership more, only the very small minority will be against it)

    True. Stabbings are not a rare occurrence in Woolwich, and the rest of S.E London. In fact I'd hazard a guess and say they are a daily occurrence in London. But as soon as one of these idiots starts spouting about Islam e.t.c, then everyone jumps up and makes a big song and dance about it. I'd say that prick with the meat cleaver in his hand has never even read the Koran.
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,672
    know1 wrote:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
    And...

    How the fuck can anyone dispute the death penalty as inappropriate for a couple of barbaric assholes such as these? Is there any doubt to who committed the crime? They are shoving their brutality in people's faces. Instead of taking the higher road... I suggest not.

    What the hell, man?

    Couple of low lifes thinking they are fighting the good fight. Pieces of shit that need to fry.

    Indisputable.

    I think it's very inappropriate.

    Murder is wrong.

    Seeking a revenge killing as retribution is not a healthy frame of mind, either.

    Taking some measure of comfort or justification or solace that another person was murdered - albeit by the state - is a degree of sickness in my opinion.

    To me, the reason the death penalty is wrong has more to do with those seeking for, and committing the act of the death penalty than it does about the person being killed.

    The death penalty isn't a revenge killing. It is the ultimate and final punishment for certain horrific crimes.

    I think it is dangerous to label those who disagree with your position as having a sickness.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    know1 wrote:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
    And...

    How the fuck can anyone dispute the death penalty as inappropriate for a couple of barbaric assholes such as these? Is there any doubt to who committed the crime? They are shoving their brutality in people's faces. Instead of taking the higher road... I suggest not.

    What the hell, man?

    Couple of low lifes thinking they are fighting the good fight. Pieces of shit that need to fry.

    Indisputable.

    I think it's very inappropriate.

    Murder is wrong.

    Seeking a revenge killing as retribution is not a healthy frame of mind, either.

    Taking some measure of comfort or justification or solace that another person was murdered - albeit by the state - is a degree of sickness in my opinion.

    To me, the reason the death penalty is wrong has more to do with those seeking for, and committing the act of the death penalty than it does about the person being killed.

    So, then the grieving parents of murder victims that desire the death penalty for the offender that mutilated their child in a gruesome and extremely violent act are sick? They should prefer hot meals, books, television and the opportunity for parole if they were of sound mind?

    To me, the reason the death penalty is right has much to do with offering the survivors of senseless, violent, and extreme homicides the opportunity to heal. It's not at all about the scumbag- they forfeited their right to anything when they, for example, raped and murdered a bunch of children.

    Why should we be so concerned with murderer's rights? Why should these rights trump the survivors' rights to justice (call it vengeance if you please) who have been wronged in the most unimaginable manner possible? Why do some feel they should insist the survivors of violent crimes should adopt their values when they do so from the comfort of their peaceful lives, still having the ability to hug their child, and are not tortured with the agonizing thoughts that most certainly flood their minds on a constant basis?
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    JimmyV wrote:
    know1 wrote:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
    And...

    How the fuck can anyone dispute the death penalty as inappropriate for a couple of barbaric assholes such as these? Is there any doubt to who committed the crime? They are shoving their brutality in people's faces. Instead of taking the higher road... I suggest not.

    What the hell, man?

    Couple of low lifes thinking they are fighting the good fight. Pieces of shit that need to fry.

    Indisputable.

    I think it's very inappropriate.

    Murder is wrong.

    Seeking a revenge killing as retribution is not a healthy frame of mind, either.

    Taking some measure of comfort or justification or solace that another person was murdered - albeit by the state - is a degree of sickness in my opinion.

    To me, the reason the death penalty is wrong has more to do with those seeking for, and committing the act of the death penalty than it does about the person being killed.

    The death penalty isn't a revenge killing. It is the ultimate and final punishment for certain horrific crimes.

    I think it is dangerous to label those who disagree with your position as having a sickness.

    Not to mention very poor form on a forum that hosts the opportunity to present and discuss opposing views. It would be one thing if there was any level of rationalization for the concept presented, but in this case... the post really amounted to dribble.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • hedonist
    hedonist Posts: 24,524
    JimmyV wrote:
    The death penalty isn't a revenge killing. It is the ultimate and final punishment for certain horrific crimes.

    I think it is dangerous to label those who disagree with your position as having a sickness.
    Totally agree on this.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    edited May 2013
    https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/337451498369851393

    "I am outraged that we can't kill people in other countries without them trying to kill us!"
    - Michael Moore


    I think he makes a good point.
    Post edited by Byrnzie on
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    JimmyV wrote:
    The death penalty isn't a revenge killing.

    Yes it is.



    re·venge
    [ri-venj] Show IPA verb, re·venged, re·veng·ing, noun
    verb (used with object)
    1. to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, especially in a resentful or vindictive spirit: He revenged his murdered brother.
    2. to take vengeance for; inflict punishment for; avenge: He revenged his brother's murder.
    verb (used without object)
    3. to take revenge.
    noun
    4. the act of revenging; retaliation for injuries or wrongs; vengeance.
    5. something done in vengeance.
    6. the desire to revenge; vindictiveness.
    7. an opportunity to retaliate or gain satisfaction.
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    Byrnzie wrote:


    "I am outraged that we can't kill people in other counties without them trying to kill us!"
    - Michael Moore


    I think he makes a good point.

    The point is fair, but didn't the two killers kill a fellow countryman?

    I was under the impression they were not from a different country. Have I got this wrong?
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:


    "I am outraged that we can't kill people in other counties without them trying to kill us!"
    - Michael Moore


    I think he makes a good point.

    The point is fair, but didn't the two killers kill a fellow countryman?

    I was under the impression they were not from a different country. Have I got this wrong?

    As far as I know, one of them was Nigerian.
  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,672
    Byrnzie wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:
    The death penalty isn't a revenge killing.

    Yes it is.



    re·venge
    [ri-venj] Show IPA verb, re·venged, re·veng·ing, noun
    verb (used with object)
    1. to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, especially in a resentful or vindictive spirit: He revenged his murdered brother.
    2. to take vengeance for; inflict punishment for; avenge: He revenged his brother's murder.
    verb (used without object)
    3. to take revenge.
    noun
    4. the act of revenging; retaliation for injuries or wrongs; vengeance.
    5. something done in vengeance.
    6. the desire to revenge; vindictiveness.
    7. an opportunity to retaliate or gain satisfaction.

    No, it isn't. A brother who "revenges" his brother's murder? Yes, that is a revenge killing. A state that puts to death a criminal who has been tried, convicted of a horrific crime, allowed to exhaust all appeals and been given due course of law? That is not a revenge killing. Is incarceration revenge?
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Interesting read here:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... m-blowback
    Was the London killing of a British soldier 'terrorism'?

    What definition of the term includes this horrific act of violence but excludes the acts of the US, the UK and its allies?

    Glenn Greenwald
    guardian.co.uk, Thursday 23 May 2013

    '...That this was a barbaric and horrendous act goes without saying, but given the legal, military, cultural and political significance of the term "terrorism", it is vital to ask: is that term really applicable to this act of violence? To begin with, in order for an act of violence to be "terrorism", many argue that it must deliberately target civilians.

    ...But here, just as was true for Nidal Hasan's attack on a Fort Hood military base, the victim of the violence was a soldier of a nation at war, not a civilian. He was stationed at an army barracks quite close to the attack. The perpetrator of the attack made clear that he knew he had attacked a soldier when he said afterward: "this British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

    The US, the UK and its allies have repeatedly killed Muslim civilians over the past decade (and before that), but defenders of those governments insist that this cannot be "terrorism" because it is combatants, not civilians, who are the targets. Can it really be the case that when western nations continuously kill Muslim civilians, that's not "terrorism", but when Muslims kill western soldiers, that is terrorism?

    ...What was the US/UK "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad if not a campaign to intimidate the population with a massive show of violence into submitting to the invading armies and ceasing their support for Saddam's regime? That was clearly its functional intent and even its stated intent. That definition would also immediately include the massive air bombings of German cities during World War II. It would include the Central American civilian-slaughtering militias supported, funded and armed by the Reagan administration throughout the 1980s, the Bangledeshi death squads trained and funded by the UK, and countless other groups supported by the west that used violence against civilians to achieve political ends.

    The ongoing US drone attacks unquestionably have the effect, and one could reasonably argue the intent, of terrorizing the local populations so that they cease harboring or supporting those the west deems to be enemies. The brutal sanctions regime imposed by the west on Iraq and Iran, which kills large numbers of people, clearly has the intent of terrorizing the population into changing its governments' policies and even the government itself. How can one create a definition of "terrorism" that includes the London machete attack on this soldier without including many acts of violence undertaken by the US, the UK and its allies and partners? Can that be done?

    ...When media reports yesterday began saying that "there are indications that this may be act of terror", it seems clear that what was really meant was: "there are indications that the perpetrators were Muslims driven by political grievances against the west" (earlier this month, an elderly British Muslim was stabbed to death in an apparent anti-Muslim hate crime and nobody called that "terrorism"). Put another way, the term at this point seems to have no function other than propagandistically and legally legitimizing the violence of western states against Muslims while delegitimizing any and all violence done in return to those states.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    JimmyV wrote:
    know1 wrote:
    I think it's very inappropriate.

    Murder is wrong.

    Seeking a revenge killing as retribution is not a healthy frame of mind, either.

    Taking some measure of comfort or justification or solace that another person was murdered - albeit by the state - is a degree of sickness in my opinion.

    To me, the reason the death penalty is wrong has more to do with those seeking for, and committing the act of the death penalty than it does about the person being killed.

    The death penalty isn't a revenge killing. It is the ultimate and final punishment for certain horrific crimes.

    I think it is dangerous to label those who disagree with your position as having a sickness.

    There's no doubt that for some people it is a revenge killing.

    Secondly, I did not label those all those who disagree with my position as having a sickness. I said someone who takes comfort in the murder of another person is some DEGREE of sickness. Those are not the same thing at all.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    JimmyV wrote:
    No, it isn't. A brother who "revenges" his brother's murder? Yes, that is a revenge killing. A state that puts to death a criminal who has been tried, convicted of a horrific crime, allowed to exhaust all appeals and been given due course of law? That is not a revenge killing.

    Yes it is. Putting someone to death as punishment for one or more of their past actions is an act of vengeance.
    JimmyV wrote:
    Is incarceration revenge?


    Yes. But it's a limited, restrained act of vengeance.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

    Not to mention very poor form on a forum that hosts the opportunity to present and discuss opposing views. It would be one thing if there was any level of rationalization for the concept presented, but in this case... the post really amounted to dribble.

    Nope. I CLEARLY did not say that people who disagree with me are sick. Read what I said again....carefully this time.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    JimmyV wrote:
    Byrnzie wrote:
    JimmyV wrote:
    The death penalty isn't a revenge killing.

    Yes it is.



    re·venge
    [ri-venj] Show IPA verb, re·venged, re·veng·ing, noun
    verb (used with object)
    1. to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, especially in a resentful or vindictive spirit: He revenged his murdered brother.
    2. to take vengeance for; inflict punishment for; avenge: He revenged his brother's murder.
    verb (used without object)
    3. to take revenge.
    noun
    4. the act of revenging; retaliation for injuries or wrongs; vengeance.
    5. something done in vengeance.
    6. the desire to revenge; vindictiveness.
    7. an opportunity to retaliate or gain satisfaction.

    No, it isn't. A brother who "revenges" his brother's murder? Yes, that is a revenge killing. A state that puts to death a criminal who has been tried, convicted of a horrific crime, allowed to exhaust all appeals and been given due course of law? That is not a revenge killing. Is incarceration revenge?

    Incarceration is a measure of revenge. I can never understand why some insist that justice and revenge are completely different from each other. Here's a definition for justice (from Merriam-webster):
    the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.

    A consequence should match the crime. Of course, nobody here is suggesting striking anyone down with a vehicle and following up with a beheading at the hands of a couple of losers on the pavement. But the sheer brutality of what has prompted this thread demands a little more than incarceration alongside drunk drivers, thieves and tax evaders for these savages. No?
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    know1 wrote:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

    Not to mention very poor form on a forum that hosts the opportunity to present and discuss opposing views. It would be one thing if there was any level of rationalization for the concept presented, but in this case... the post really amounted to dribble.

    Nope. I CLEARLY did not say that people who disagree with me are sick. Read what I said again....carefully this time.

    These are your words:

    Taking some measure of comfort or justification or solace that another person was murdered - albeit by the state - is a degree of sickness in my opinion.

    You carefully encompassed anyone seeking the death penalty (citing three different motivators) as sick.

    Don't run from them... own them. Carefully this time.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • Jason P
    Jason P Posts: 19,814
    Religion and terrorism had nothing at all to do with this tragic event. I’ve seen zero evidence where such claims could be made.

    And Michael Moore is a saint. His logic on making this a justifiable act … even though the “suspects” are not from the middle east … is brilliant. He should get an award or something.

    Whew. I’m glad we got this all clear. I’m going to go eat some frogurt now.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • Byrnzie
    Byrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Jason P wrote:
    Religion and terrorism had nothing at all to do with this tragic event. I’ve seen zero evidence where such claims could be made.

    And Michael Moore is a saint. His logic on making this a justifiable act … even though the “suspects” are not from the middle east … is brilliant. He should get an award or something.

    Whew. I’m glad we got this all clear. I’m going to go eat some frogurt now.

    I realize it's impossible for you to view things through anything other than star-spangled sunglasses, but It wasn't a religious act, it was a political act. Not that murder is something to justify, but we murder people in foreign countries every day, so we shouldn't act surprised when we get a little blow back, from a nutjob or otherwise.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:
    know1 wrote:
    Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

    Not to mention very poor form on a forum that hosts the opportunity to present and discuss opposing views. It would be one thing if there was any level of rationalization for the concept presented, but in this case... the post really amounted to dribble.

    Nope. I CLEARLY did not say that people who disagree with me are sick. Read what I said again....carefully this time.

    These are your words:

    Taking some measure of comfort or justification or solace that another person was murdered - albeit by the state - is a degree of sickness in my opinion.

    You carefully encompassed anyone seeking the death penalty (citing three different motivators) as sick.

    Don't run from them... own them. Carefully this time.

    Again - not true.

    I'm saying ANYONE who takes comfort from a death has a degree of sickness.

    I'm not saying ANYONE who supports the death penalty is sick.

    You all are twisting it. Those two statements are not equal.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.

Categories