Religion of Peace shouts “ALLAHU AKBAR”

JimmyV

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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. 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?

Yes. It certainly does.

JimmyV

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

I don't agree that revenge and punishment are synonymous. They are related concepts, but they are not the same.

ed243421

A life has been taken, stolen

Brutally, from a young man with his life ahead of him

They cut his head off

Matters not whether this was religious or political

Have true empathy and put yourself in this victims shoes

If he could have been told this will happen, what do you think he would wish upon the suspects?

What would you want?

As a society, we learn from our actions and decisions

What do we learn when we let murderers live?

JimmyV

redrock wrote:

KM228407 wrote:

^^^^^i know and it took the police 30 minutes to arrive :fp: :fp:

Misinformation:
"We first received a 999 call from the public at 14:20hrs stating a man was being attacked, further 999 calls stated that the attackers were in possession of a gun. We had officers at the scene within 9 minutes of receiving that first 999 call. Once that information about a gun or guns being present was known, firearms officers were assigned at 14:24hrs. Firearms officers were there and dealing with the incident 10 minutes after they were assigned, 14 minutes after the first call to the Met."


All 'over and done with' within 14 minutes of first call from public.....

But even nine minutes?!?! Is that average response time in London? Not that the police were going to be able to save this poor guy but what if these two monsters kept hacking away at others?

facepollution

ed243421 wrote:

What do we learn when we let murderers live?

Mercy, it's what separates 'us' from 'them'.

Eilian

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

Sorry to interject, but by what measure was this not a religiously motivated act? Why do we even flirt with the idea of doubting it when the men in question are screaming Allah's name as they try to behead someone in public with butchers' knives and meat cleavers? - an act, incidentally, which is anything but a regular occurrence, much less in Woolwich.

How many times will these people have to tell us directly that their personal line of communication with the creator of the universe has told them to kill people before we believe them?

know1

ed243421 wrote:

What do we learn when we let murderers live?

We potentially learn forgiveness....which is an incredibly freeing thing to learn.

JimmyV

facepollution wrote:

ed243421 wrote:

What do we learn when we let murderers live?

Mercy, it's what separates 'us' from 'them'.

Not every murderer deserves mercy.

JimmyV

know1 wrote:

ed243421 wrote:

What do we learn when we let murderers live?

We potentially learn forgiveness....which is an incredibly freeing thing to learn.

Not every murderer deserves forgiveness.

facepollution

JimmyV wrote:

Not every murderer deserves mercy.

It's not for their benefit, it's for ours so we can clearly define the differnce between their action and our own.

JimmyV

facepollution wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Not every murderer deserves mercy.

It's not for their benefit, it's for ours so we can clearly define the differnce between their action and our own.

But the differences between our actions and their own are clearly defined. We grant them a trial by a jury of their peers, representation, appeals, etc. Their attorneys are free to appeal for clemency right up until the moment the sentence is carried out. Their victims are granted none of that.

know1

JimmyV wrote:

know1 wrote:

ed243421 wrote:

What do we learn when we let murderers live?

We potentially learn forgiveness....which is an incredibly freeing thing to learn.

Not every murderer deserves forgiveness.

You're right - not ever murderer deserves forgiveness. Heck, probably NONE of them deserve it.

BUT...I was talking about what we could learn from it.

facepollution

JimmyV wrote:

But the differences between our actions and their own are clearly defined. We grant them a trial by a jury of their peers, representation, appeals, etc. Their attorneys are free to appeal for clemency right up until the moment the sentence is carried out. Their victims are granted none of that.

Legal procedures aside, the situations are morally the same, people killing because in some way they have convinced themselves that they are justified to do so.

JimmyV

facepollution wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

But the differences between our actions and their own are clearly defined. We grant them a trial by a jury of their peers, representation, appeals, etc. Their attorneys are free to appeal for clemency right up until the moment the sentence is carried out. Their victims are granted none of that.

Legal procedures aside, the situations are morally the same, people killing because in some way they have convinced themselves that they are justified to do so.

1) The legal procedures are an awfully large difference to just put aside.

2) Hard to gauge the criminal mind of course but I question how many murderers kill because they believe they are justified to. I think they kill for things they want like wealth, out of hate, or because they think they can get away with it more often than not.

That said, the perpetrators who committed the crime in this thread I'm sure did feel they were justified. But they don't get to set the bar for what is and what is not justified.

KM228407

JimmyV wrote:

redrock wrote:

KM228407 wrote:

^^^^^i know and it took the police 30 minutes to arrive :fp: :fp:

Misinformation:
"We first received a 999 call from the public at 14:20hrs stating a man was being attacked, further 999 calls stated that the attackers were in possession of a gun. We had officers at the scene within 9 minutes of receiving that first 999 call. Once that information about a gun or guns being present was known, firearms officers were assigned at 14:24hrs. Firearms officers were there and dealing with the incident 10 minutes after they were assigned, 14 minutes after the first call to the Met."


All 'over and done with' within 14 minutes of first call from public.....

But even nine minutes?!?! Is that average response time in London? Not that the police were going to be able to save this poor guy but what if these two monsters kept hacking away at others?

I did get that wrong.I was going by the the guy on the news clip, who I'm sure felt nine minutes was more like thirty!
However considering it was central London next to an armed army barracks I feel even nine minutes is a bloody long time to wait.

JimmyV

know1 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

know1 wrote:

We potentially learn forgiveness....which is an incredibly freeing thing to learn.

Not every murderer deserves forgiveness.

You're right - not ever murderer deserves forgiveness. Heck, probably NONE of them deserve it.

BUT...I was talking about what we could learn from it.

I hear you and perhaps there is something to be learned from it. But there are extreme cases, like this one, when the ultimate punishment should be handed down. These two, for sure, should not be forgiven.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

facepollution wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Not every murderer deserves mercy.

It's not for their benefit, it's for ours so we can clearly define the differnce between their action and our own.

Who cares about 'us'?

We are the furthest removed from the situation. What about thesurvivors and the victim? They are the key stakeholders here. With exceptions, I'm pretty sure justice that serves the magnitude of the crime is desired.

facepollution

JimmyV wrote:

1) The legal procedures are an awfully large difference to just put aside.

They're not relevant to the point I'm making, it's a moral argument.

JimmyV wrote:

2) Hard to gauge the criminal mind of course but I question how many murderers kill because they believe they are justified to. I think they kill for things they want like wealth, out of hate, or because they think they can get away with it more often than not.

Wealth, hate, getting away with it, they can all be justifications in the minds of some.

JimmyV wrote:

But they don't get to set the bar for what is and what is not justified.

Agreed, but then I don't think we have that right either when it comes down to choosing whether someone lives or dies.

facepollution

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Who cares about 'us'?

We are the furthest removed from the situation. What about thesurvivors and the victim? They are the key stakeholders here. With exceptions, I'm pretty sure justice that serves the magnitude of the crime is desired.

'Us' being civilised people who don't go around killing people. You don't think that the use of the death penalty can have an effect on social identity?

Jason P

Byrnzie wrote:

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.

You're preaching to the choir. When all the facts come out, we will be exonerated by those who disagreed with our opinion.