Religion of Peace shouts “ALLAHU AKBAR”

know1

JimmyV wrote:

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.

We'll just agree to disagree. I think people should ALWAYS strive to find a way to forgive and be at peace with the situation. If you hold onto the anger and bitterness, you're just perpetuating the crime and letting the criminal do even more damage.

JonnyPistachio

Im usually against the death penalty. Well, how it operates in the USA, im 100% against it.
But the discussion that is going on here - you have to ask yourself -- How did this evolve into wanting the attackers dead? Some feel thats what they deserve. Some feel its revenge. Some feel its simply the best way to deal with them. But many are speaking out of emotions. It was a sick, horrifying, and disgusting act. Personally, I dont think it solves anything to murder them. I might feel differently if it was me or my family victimized, but we must think as a collective unit, and not single out with emotion...just my opinion.

Again it was a sick act, committed by sick fucks -- But so is the way the death penalty is handed out in some cases.
I just say its too bad the cops didnt waste them on the spot. Its crazy to see some of the pictures of the attackers walking around afterwards, all bloody, still holding knives. I think the cops did shoot them up pretty good from what I hear though...

facepollution

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I just say its too bad the cops didnt waste them on the spot. Its crazy to see some of the pictures of the attackers walking around afterwards, all bloody, still holding knives. I think the cops did shoot them up pretty good from what I hear though...

I'm pretty convinced that they wanted to be shot, since they opened fire on the Police, that way they would have been martyrs.

JimmyV

facepollution wrote:

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.

I think by dismissing the legal procedures it becomes much easier to argue the death penalty is immoral. I think they are very relevant and should not be forgotten in this discussion.

facepollution wrote:

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.

They can all be reasons. Not sure they can all be justifications. Not sure they are the same thing.

facepollution wrote:

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.

Again, this is why I think the legalities are important. We don't have the right to decide whether the accused lives or dies. We do have the right to decide whether the convicted lives or dies.

facepollution

JimmyV wrote:

I think by dismissing the legal procedures it becomes much easier to argue the death penalty is immoral. I think they are very relevant and should not be forgotten in this discussion.

I think by focussing on legal procedures it is easy to direct attention away from the fundamental human aspect of what is actually being proposed - the premeditated ending of a life.

JimmyV wrote:

They can all be reasons. Not sure they can all be justifications. Not sure they are the same thing.

I don't know why they couldn't be.

JimmyV wrote:

Again, this is why I think the legalities are important. We don't have the right to decide whether the accused lives or dies. We do have the right to decide whether the convicted lives or dies.

Why do we have that right? See, the perpetrators of this crime believed they were justified in their actions because people are dying in the middle east all the time at the hands of western nations.

I found this site quite interesting: http://www.mvfr.org/ it's a community of family members of murder victims who oppose the death penalty.

hedonist

I just feel for how this poor kid (only 25!) was taken down - and down again.

I feel for his family too.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... istan?lite

To see the blood of their son on the hands of his murderer in the footage where said murdering fuck demanded he be filmed...it'd break my heart and then some. Sort of does already, and I'm an outsider.

Anyone can feel "justified" in their actions; doesn't mean that's actually justice. Sometimes it's just a fucked up response.

(and I do get the irony / conflict in wanting that same justice applied to those supposed "avengers")

aerial

Eilian wrote:

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?

I don't understand how people dismiss this either...

Godfather.

josevolution wrote:

GF just keep stroking that gun of yours while i smoke my peace pipe , i bet a terrorist would find me more approachable if i was smoking a joint instead of holding a AK47 ....

if you mean "approachable" as in easy target you're right, but if a terrorist attacks you while I'm around "stroking my AK47" I'll make sure I smoke them before they can hurt you my friend, no strings atached...we can write off as my humanitarian good deed for the day.

Your Godfather.

Byrnzie

ed243421 wrote:

What do we learn when we let murderers live?

What do we learn when we kill them? We learn that murder is a solution to problems.

Byrnzie

Eilian wrote:

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?

He said it was in revenge for the war in Afghanistan. He may also have been motivated by the targeting of Muslims in drone strikes in Yemen and elsewhere. So it's political as far as I can see.

Byrnzie

aerial wrote:

I don't understand how people dismiss this either...

No, of course you don't.

And because the Boston bombers just happened to be Muslim, those attacks were religious in nature too, right? Despite there being no evidence whatsoever that the attacks were inspired by their religion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... sandy-hook


Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?

Can an act of violence be called 'terrorism' if the motive is unknown?

Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Monday 22 April 2013


'...even those assuming the guilt of the Tsarnaev brothers seem to have no basis at all for claiming that this was an act of "terrorism" in a way that would meaningfully distinguish it from Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine. All we really know about them in this regard is that they identified as Muslim, and that the older brother allegedly watched extremist YouTube videos and was suspected by the Russian government of religious extremism (by contrast, virtually every person who knew the younger brother has emphatically said that he never evinced political or religious extremism). But as Obama himself acknowledged, we simply do not know what motivated them (Obama: "Tonight there are still many unanswered questions. Among them, why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence?").

It's certainly possible that it will turn out that, if they are guilty, their prime motive was political or religious. But it's also certainly possible that it wasn't: that it was some combination of mental illness, societal alienation, or other form of internal instability and rage that is apolitical in nature. Until their motive is known, how can this possibly be called "terrorism"? Can acts of violence be deemed "terrorism" without knowing the motive?

... It's hard not to suspect that the only thing distinguishing the Boston attack from Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook and Columbine (to say nothing of the US "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad and the mass killings in Fallujah) is that the accused Boston attackers are Muslim and the other perpetrators are not. As usual, what terrorism really means in American discourse - its operational meaning - is: violence by Muslims against Americans and their allies.

aerial

Byrnzie wrote:

aerial wrote:

I don't understand how people dismiss this either...

No, of course you don't.

And because the Boston bombers just happened to be Muslim, those attacks were religious in nature too, right? Despite there being no evidence whatsoever that the attacks were inspired by their religion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... sandy-hook


Why is Boston 'terrorism' but not Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine?

Can an act of violence be called 'terrorism' if the motive is unknown?

Glenn Greenwald
guardian.co.uk, Monday 22 April 2013


'...even those assuming the guilt of the Tsarnaev brothers seem to have no basis at all for claiming that this was an act of "terrorism" in a way that would meaningfully distinguish it from Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson and Columbine. All we really know about them in this regard is that they identified as Muslim, and that the older brother allegedly watched extremist YouTube videos and was suspected by the Russian government of religious extremism (by contrast, virtually every person who knew the younger brother has emphatically said that he never evinced political or religious extremism). But as Obama himself acknowledged, we simply do not know what motivated them (Obama: "Tonight there are still many unanswered questions. Among them, why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence?").

It's certainly possible that it will turn out that, if they are guilty, their prime motive was political or religious. But it's also certainly possible that it wasn't: that it was some combination of mental illness, societal alienation, or other form of internal instability and rage that is apolitical in nature. Until their motive is known, how can this possibly be called "terrorism"? Can acts of violence be deemed "terrorism" without knowing the motive?

... It's hard not to suspect that the only thing distinguishing the Boston attack from Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook and Columbine (to say nothing of the US "shock and awe" attack on Baghdad and the mass killings in Fallujah) is that the accused Boston attackers are Muslim and the other perpetrators are not. As usual, what terrorism really means in American discourse - its operational meaning - is: violence by Muslims against Americans and their allies.

I know the motive, how can someone not know the motive when the Terrorist explained it himself?
Sorry I can't believe a word this man (Obama)says.....and how could he know anything about this, when he constantly admits that he doesn't know a thing about anything .......... spying on the AP, He and Holders lies to illegally go into a reporters private emails....Seems he gets all his information from the news like we do.....this Administration is the most ignorant or the biggest liars of all!

Byrnzie

aerial wrote:

I know the motive, how can someone not know the motive when the Terrorist explained it himself?

You know the motive for the Boston bombings? That's great, because the F.B.I doesn't.

Care to share it with us?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

facepollution wrote:

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?

Pretty easy to say when it isn't your kid, or husband, or father that has just had his head savagely removed from his body in the streets, eh? Must have been pretty tough to not only fathom what had happened to your loved one, but imagine watching the killer afterwards relishing in his glory with your loved one's blood dripping from his hands and weapons. Yah. No need to be excessive with our measure of punishment for this guy. Let him do some time reading books, watching television, and answering letters from like-minded ones around the world that admire him.

And what a thing to say 'Us' being civili(z)ed people who don't go around killing people. How is seeking justice for this man http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/slai ... fghanistan running around trying to kill someone? Nobody asked for this- we are only left to respond to it.

You don't think the frustrations people have supporting those who must attend parole hearings to protest the release of the animal who murdered their child doesn't have its toll on social identity? I can live much more comfortably living with a savage murderer put to death for his offence than I can a grieving family tortured by being forced to attend parole hearings and read of the prison exploits of the murderer of their loved one.

kenny olav

Byrnzie wrote:

aerial wrote:

I know the motive, how can someone not know the motive when the Terrorist explained it himself?

You know the motive for the Boston bombings? That's great, because the F.B.I doesn't.

Care to share it with us?

He wrote his motive on the inside of the boat he was hiding in... he said it was revenge for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying "when you kill one Muslim, you kill all Muslims".

Also, there are many clues about his beliefs in his Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/J_tsar

The so-called 'religion of peace' is really a religion that gives an otherwise typical young man a reason to feel at peace when he kills innocent civilians... same goes with other religions...
"I can kill cause in God I trust"

Byrnzie

kenny olav wrote:

He wrote his motive on the inside of the boat he was hiding in... he said it was revenge for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying "when you kill one Muslim, you kill all Muslims".

That's the first of it I've heard. And there was no mention of the above in any news source four days after they were captured.
But I'll take your word for it.

PhillyCrownOfThorns

aerial wrote:

Eilian wrote:

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.

Can't you be on both sides of this equation? Why are they mutually exclusive in this case?

Byrnzie

PhillyCrownOfThorns wrote:

Can't you be on both sides of this equation? Why are they mutually exclusive in this case?

I don't believe the murderers professed religion was responsible for his crime. He said himself on camera it was motivated by British foreign policy abroad. Therefore I see it as a political act. Though I realize it's convenient for many people to use this episode to try and slander Islam and Muslims in general for his twisted behaviour.

George Galloway on RT addresses this issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XLh1ZCWu3s

mikepegg44

Byrnzie wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

He wrote his motive on the inside of the boat he was hiding in... he said it was revenge for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying "when you kill one Muslim, you kill all Muslims".

That's the first of it I've heard. And there was no mention of the above in any news source four days after they were captured.
But I'll take your word for it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162- ... urces-say/

ed243421

Byrnzie wrote:

ed243421 wrote:

What do we learn when we let murderers live?

What do we learn when we kill them? We learn that murder is a solution to problems.

I think we've spoke of this before in the dp thread

I just feel that a sentenced death, when a trial is hardly even needed,

Such as the British soldier incident,

Is the punishment for murder,

Not murder.