Please attempt to distinguish between extremists and non extremists to avoid starting the inevitable waste of time that is "can Islam be judged by its believers?" - KwarK
On May 24 2013 21:37 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: Finally we are going VERY off-topic discussing the Yogoslav conflict. Can we try to stick to why it's relevant to the London Beheading?
Meh, those discussions start to go around in circles very quickly. Anyway I'd like to know more about these right-wingers (English Defense League?) attacking mosques in London with Molotov cocktails/ attacking muslims ect. how widespread is that because the Serbian media seems to be focusing on that
The EDL is one of the fascist groups in the UK. These groups are seldom seen or talked about. I have no idea how many fascists are in the UK, bit I suspect it is far less than 0.01% of the population (58 million people in the UK). There is not much about mosques being attacked on the UK news, all I have seen is police being dispatched to break up EDL protests.
also, if you're interested in British politics, you should seek out the thread about UK elections that was going on few weeks ago, some good stuff about who's who and what they stand for. @neighbor Zeo
On May 24 2013 18:39 frontliner2 wrote: I see there are people hoping these 2 terrorists will die in the hospital. Why?
I'd much rather have them live and then; - given time to think in a prison - coming to the realisation that what they did IS actually very wrong and evil - finally apologizing to the family of the victim - Calling other Islamists out and asking them to stop these acts
Would that not be a better development? It is possible and it does happen. When someone dies what is there left to be done?
Options 1, 2 and 3 serve no purpose and I'd rather see them die.
How often does #4 happen?
Yeah....
When someone dies they can no longer spread hate or convert others to their cause, they also stop taking up resources.
Get all the information you can out of them, by whatever means necessary, then feed them to livestock (not before removing organs for transplant to sick people if possible)
Even if you want them to suffer most, you can argue death is less of a punishment than prison. You can't punish someone if they are not in this world anymore. The UK had a life of hard labour as a punishment in the past. You could wish for something like that to be reintroduced instead of a death sentence.
I'm not interested in making them suffer nor am I interested if they repent.
They have proven themselves unacceptable and once every useful bit of them is used they should be recycled in the most efficient way possible.
That somebody can do something like this then be "rehabilitated" or "stand trial" is a complete joke, they deserve neither. Also the notion that they need to be "punished" or "made to pay for their crimes" is a waste of time and effort, there is no need to punish somebody and teach them the error of their ways unless you plan to reintroduce them into society which is absolute madness in the first place.
Give them a sound beating then execution, that's punishment and deterrent enough.
On May 24 2013 22:00 snailz wrote: @ GaNgStaRR.ElV
fine, i'll bite
so let's get the facts straight first. no there is no reason for you to put apostrophes on the war part, and if you do, you need to explain why. to prove my point why it was a war that could relate to your posting from the last couple of pages, i provided a link. now that we have established that (go read the link), we clearly see that there was UN involvement.
so even if you would argue (as you have) that not every war is alike and that US/West is more civilized in their warfare, my example shows otherwise, and that with such conflict indeed comes the ugly part, meaning that even in "controlled" environments you don't control jack shit. needless to say, 99% of the conflicts in history and even TODAY are just the same or worse as the war referenced in my argument, and furthermore, one could argue that even in that 1% where drone strikes do the leg work (no pun intended) you still have large number of civilian casualties, which some would equate with massacres, which makes your argument about good old private Ryan void.
now on to history and what you said wrong. "country i come from commited one of the biggest genocides since WW2" is actually not my country, but whatever, potato-potahto, right? it also wasn't "like 10 ethnic groups in one country fighting", more like 3 and a half. finally, Soviets had absolutely nothing, literally nothing to do with Yugoslavia in this specific context, saying otherwise just proves that you don't know enough about political relations in Europe at that time, hence the link about non-aligned movement i provided. to conclude, the football club in the Champions League you talk about, again, is not from my country.
i mean no disrespect, but i hope you realize by now why i didn't want to enter this debate, mistake on my part was not making it clear you're not educated on this subject, not in general. but honestly, if i came in this thread and mistook Ireland with Scotland, you'd do the same.
and to stop derailing this subject further, my heart goes out to the grieving family.
Firstly, I put """" on the war because I was failing to understand your disagreement on my post. It's called the Yugoslav War for a reason, I call it a genocide as well, because you will probably admit, a genocide did take part, and a genocide can occur during a war. I know there was UN involvement, I remember the controversy when we bombed the hospital in Kosovo, it's a shame that things like that happened, but from my recollection without re-reading the majority of the UN involvement was firstly a bombing campaign(which I thought was un-wise) and then a humanitarian peacekeeping effort.
I think it's extreme to suggest that US forces treat Muslim citizens in a similar way in Afghanistan as Muslims would have been treated in the Yugoslav war is way off base and unfair. Incidents in Afghanistan are isolated incidents of murder(which are punished, like the mis-treatment in that jail in Iraq) or collateral damage of bombs and drone strikes. If you look at the stats, they are reasonably accurate, generating a 20:1 ratio of miltitant:civilian, nowhere near a "reckless killing of innocents". I don't get the private ryan thing, please explain.
When I say "country you came from", you clearly need to use more objectivety. I am not saying "Croatia", I am referring to the former state of Yugoslavia, which Croatia did indeed come from. 10 ethnic groups was gotten from adding up the distinct new states that rose from the ashes of Yugoslavia, assuming that there are more than 1 religion per country, as a rough statement suggesting how much of a melting pot Yugoslavia was. Not meant as an accurate figure. Again you need to realize I discuss the former Yugoslavia when I talk about Arkan's club. Finally I bring up the Soviets because the entire model of Socialist Yugoslavia was directly inspired by the Soviet Union, no?
On May 24 2013 21:37 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: Finally we are going VERY off-topic discussing the Yogoslav conflict. Can we try to stick to why it's relevant to the London Beheading?
Meh, those discussions start to go around in circles very quickly. Anyway I'd like to know more about these right-wingers (English Defense League?) attacking mosques in London with Molotov cocktails/ attacking muslims ect. how widespread is that because the Serbian media seems to be focusing on that
The EDL is one of the fascist groups in the UK. These groups are seldom seen or talked about. I have no idea how many fascists are in the UK, bit I suspect it is far less than 0.01% of the population (58 million people in the UK). There is not much about mosques being attacked on the UK news, all I have seen is police being dispatched to break up EDL protests.
also, if you're interested in British politics, you should seek out the thread about UK elections that was going on few weeks ago, some good stuff about who's who and what they stand for. @neighbor Zeo
There were minor attacks but nothing was destroyed. Probably just the act of ignorant indivudual idiots acting like asshats.
Also I know generalising them as fascists might not be entirely fair despite the fact that many of their views are nationalistic, but the BNP does tend to get a fair share of the public vote(something like 5-10% in the last election, which is scary).
A little anecdote about BNP; I lived next to a former cop who votes and is a member of the British National Party while I was at uni, who was thrown off the force for murdering someone on duty(although he was not found guilty of a crime, simply had to resign). This guy was an asshole; I have a story from an elderly neighbour where she put her white goods in a communal area for one day while getting her house painted; when she refused to move them on the day because they annoyed him for some reason, he threatened her life and then proceeded to kick her car mirror off(this is an 80+ year old white British woman, who sat in her flat window every day of the 6 months I lived there, and invited me and my friends over for tea every once and awhile)
I lived with 2 Nigerians, and the first day I moved in, the neighbour came out and physically threatened me and my friend as we carried stuff upstairs(I tried to be nice and apologized if I had caused any noise while moving in, he called me a cunt). Over the course of my stay there, he reported me to the police falsely for "drug dealing", literally called our landlord every day telling him that we were up to criminal activity in the flat and were a major nuisance to him and his wife. Eventually my landlord didn't renew our lease because he said he couldn't take the daily complaints, that we must be doing something wrong. the complex I went to study in was in the same estate as my old flat after we moved, and he confronted me and threatened me physically, calling me a foreign scum, then proceeded to try to get me banned off the estate for "stalking him", despite the fact I had every right to be there, seeing how I paid 9000£ to go to school, and he probably paid far less than that in rent. I
So I have a hard time not considering BNP a fascist organization now.
Edit: update. Breaking news about a air emergency where a Pakistan Airlines flight has squawked an emergency code, and diverted from it's original destination of Manchester to Stansted.Hope nothing bad has happened...
On May 24 2013 22:00 snailz wrote: @ GaNgStaRR.ElV
fine, i'll bite
so let's get the facts straight first. no there is no reason for you to put apostrophes on the war part, and if you do, you need to explain why. to prove my point why it was a war that could relate to your posting from the last couple of pages, i provided a link. now that we have established that (go read the link), we clearly see that there was UN involvement.
so even if you would argue (as you have) that not every war is alike and that US/West is more civilized in their warfare, my example shows otherwise, and that with such conflict indeed comes the ugly part, meaning that even in "controlled" environments you don't control jack shit. needless to say, 99% of the conflicts in history and even TODAY are just the same or worse as the war referenced in my argument, and furthermore, one could argue that even in that 1% where drone strikes do the leg work (no pun intended) you still have large number of civilian casualties, which some would equate with massacres, which makes your argument about good old private Ryan void.
now on to history and what you said wrong. "country i come from commited one of the biggest genocides since WW2" is actually not my country, but whatever, potato-potahto, right? it also wasn't "like 10 ethnic groups in one country fighting", more like 3 and a half. finally, Soviets had absolutely nothing, literally nothing to do with Yugoslavia in this specific context, saying otherwise just proves that you don't know enough about political relations in Europe at that time, hence the link about non-aligned movement i provided. to conclude, the football club in the Champions League you talk about, again, is not from my country.
i mean no disrespect, but i hope you realize by now why i didn't want to enter this debate, mistake on my part was not making it clear you're not educated on this subject, not in general. but honestly, if i came in this thread and mistook Ireland with Scotland, you'd do the same.
and to stop derailing this subject further, my heart goes out to the grieving family.
Firstly, I put """" on the war because I was failing to understand your disagreement on my post. It's called the Yugoslav War for a reason, I call it a genocide as well, because you will probably admit, a genocide did take part, and a genocide can occur during a war. I know there was UN involvement, I remember the controversy when we bombed the hospital in Kosovo, it's a shame that things like that happened, but from my recollection without re-reading the majority of the UN involvement was firstly a bombing campaign(which I thought was un-wise) and then a humanitarian peacekeeping effort.
I think it's extreme to suggest that US forces treat Muslim citizens in a similar way in Afghanistan as Muslims would have been treated in the Yugoslav war is way off base and unfair. Incidents in Afghanistan are isolated incidents of murder(which are punished, like the mis-treatment in that jail in Iraq) or collateral damage of bombs and drone strikes. If you look at the stats, they are reasonably accurate, generating a 20:1 ratio of miltitant:civilian, nowhere near a "reckless killing of innocents". I don't get the private ryan thing, please explain.
When I say "country you came from", you clearly need to use more objectivety. I am not saying "Croatia", I am referring to the former state of Yugoslavia, which Croatia did indeed come from. 10 ethnic groups was gotten from adding up the distinct new states that rose from the ashes of Yugoslavia, assuming that there are more than 1 religion per country, as a rough statement suggesting how much of a melting pot Yugoslavia was. Not meant as an accurate figure. Again you need to realize I discuss the former Yugoslavia when I talk about Arkan's club. Finally I bring up the Soviets because the entire model of Socialist Yugoslavia was directly inspired by the Soviet Union, no?
I'll just leave this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informbiro_period and thats the end of that. Shortly after WWII Yugoslavia and Bulgaria wanted to merge and create a Balkan Federation which would include first Albania, then Greece and Romania. Stalin didn't like the idea of a Balkan superstate so Bulgaria backed down, Yugoslavia didn't so for a couple of years the Soviet Union was on the very edge of invading Yugoslavia. The Soviet Union were no friends of ours.
I think its a good thing that the British media isn't covering the extent of unrest, it could all turn into a repeat of the riots that happened in Tottenham not so long ago
On May 24 2013 22:00 snailz wrote: @ GaNgStaRR.ElV
fine, i'll bite
so let's get the facts straight first. no there is no reason for you to put apostrophes on the war part, and if you do, you need to explain why. to prove my point why it was a war that could relate to your posting from the last couple of pages, i provided a link. now that we have established that (go read the link), we clearly see that there was UN involvement.
so even if you would argue (as you have) that not every war is alike and that US/West is more civilized in their warfare, my example shows otherwise, and that with such conflict indeed comes the ugly part, meaning that even in "controlled" environments you don't control jack shit. needless to say, 99% of the conflicts in history and even TODAY are just the same or worse as the war referenced in my argument, and furthermore, one could argue that even in that 1% where drone strikes do the leg work (no pun intended) you still have large number of civilian casualties, which some would equate with massacres, which makes your argument about good old private Ryan void.
now on to history and what you said wrong. "country i come from commited one of the biggest genocides since WW2" is actually not my country, but whatever, potato-potahto, right? it also wasn't "like 10 ethnic groups in one country fighting", more like 3 and a half. finally, Soviets had absolutely nothing, literally nothing to do with Yugoslavia in this specific context, saying otherwise just proves that you don't know enough about political relations in Europe at that time, hence the link about non-aligned movement i provided. to conclude, the football club in the Champions League you talk about, again, is not from my country.
i mean no disrespect, but i hope you realize by now why i didn't want to enter this debate, mistake on my part was not making it clear you're not educated on this subject, not in general. but honestly, if i came in this thread and mistook Ireland with Scotland, you'd do the same.
and to stop derailing this subject further, my heart goes out to the grieving family.
Firstly, I put """" on the war because I was failing to understand your disagreement on my post. It's called the Yugoslav War for a reason, I call it a genocide as well, because you will probably admit, a genocide did take part, and a genocide can occur during a war. I know there was UN involvement, I remember the controversy when we bombed the hospital in Kosovo, it's a shame that things like that happened, but from my recollection without re-reading the majority of the UN involvement was firstly a bombing campaign(which I thought was un-wise) and then a humanitarian peacekeeping effort.
I think it's extreme to suggest that US forces treat Muslim citizens in a similar way in Afghanistan as Muslims would have been treated in the Yugoslav war is way off base and unfair. Incidents in Afghanistan are isolated incidents of murder(which are punished, like the mis-treatment in that jail in Iraq) or collateral damage of bombs and drone strikes. If you look at the stats, they are reasonably accurate, generating a 20:1 ratio of miltitant:civilian, nowhere near a "reckless killing of innocents". I don't get the private ryan thing, please explain.
When I say "country you came from", you clearly need to use more objectivety. I am not saying "Croatia", I am referring to the former state of Yugoslavia, which Croatia did indeed come from. 10 ethnic groups was gotten from adding up the distinct new states that rose from the ashes of Yugoslavia, assuming that there are more than 1 religion per country, as a rough statement suggesting how much of a melting pot Yugoslavia was. Not meant as an accurate figure. Again you need to realize I discuss the former Yugoslavia when I talk about Arkan's club. Finally I bring up the Soviets because the entire model of Socialist Yugoslavia was directly inspired by the Soviet Union, no?
I think its a good thing that the British media isn't covering the extent of unrest, it could all turn into a repeat of the riots that happened in Tottenham not so long ago
Appreicate the post but you mis-interpreted what I said. I didn't say you were best friends with the Soviets just that the basic setup of the state of Yugoslavia was inspired by the USSR model(ie the USSR encompassed Russia, but also the states around it into a big union under central control from Moscow). Much like the Yugoslavia was a union of "states" with central command in Belgrade.
Agree that the discussion doesn't need to continue, just need to make it clear my intentions of prior posts as obviously there has been something lost in translation from brain to page.
On May 24 2013 22:00 snailz wrote: @ GaNgStaRR.ElV
fine, i'll bite
so let's get the facts straight first. no there is no reason for you to put apostrophes on the war part, and if you do, you need to explain why. to prove my point why it was a war that could relate to your posting from the last couple of pages, i provided a link. now that we have established that (go read the link), we clearly see that there was UN involvement.
so even if you would argue (as you have) that not every war is alike and that US/West is more civilized in their warfare, my example shows otherwise, and that with such conflict indeed comes the ugly part, meaning that even in "controlled" environments you don't control jack shit. needless to say, 99% of the conflicts in history and even TODAY are just the same or worse as the war referenced in my argument, and furthermore, one could argue that even in that 1% where drone strikes do the leg work (no pun intended) you still have large number of civilian casualties, which some would equate with massacres, which makes your argument about good old private Ryan void.
now on to history and what you said wrong. "country i come from commited one of the biggest genocides since WW2" is actually not my country, but whatever, potato-potahto, right? it also wasn't "like 10 ethnic groups in one country fighting", more like 3 and a half. finally, Soviets had absolutely nothing, literally nothing to do with Yugoslavia in this specific context, saying otherwise just proves that you don't know enough about political relations in Europe at that time, hence the link about non-aligned movement i provided. to conclude, the football club in the Champions League you talk about, again, is not from my country.
i mean no disrespect, but i hope you realize by now why i didn't want to enter this debate, mistake on my part was not making it clear you're not educated on this subject, not in general. but honestly, if i came in this thread and mistook Ireland with Scotland, you'd do the same.
and to stop derailing this subject further, my heart goes out to the grieving family.
Firstly, I put """" on the war because I was failing to understand your disagreement on my post. It's called the Yugoslav War for a reason, I call it a genocide as well, because you will probably admit, a genocide did take part, and a genocide can occur during a war. I know there was UN involvement, I remember the controversy when we bombed the hospital in Kosovo, it's a shame that things like that happened, but from my recollection without re-reading the majority of the UN involvement was firstly a bombing campaign(which I thought was un-wise) and then a humanitarian peacekeeping effort.
I think it's extreme to suggest that US forces treat Muslim citizens in a similar way in Afghanistan as Muslims would have been treated in the Yugoslav war is way off base and unfair. Incidents in Afghanistan are isolated incidents of murder(which are punished, like the mis-treatment in that jail in Iraq) or collateral damage of bombs and drone strikes. If you look at the stats, they are reasonably accurate, generating a 20:1 ratio of miltitant:civilian, nowhere near a "reckless killing of innocents". I don't get the private ryan thing, please explain.
When I say "country you came from", you clearly need to use more objectivety. I am not saying "Croatia", I am referring to the former state of Yugoslavia, which Croatia did indeed come from. 10 ethnic groups was gotten from adding up the distinct new states that rose from the ashes of Yugoslavia, assuming that there are more than 1 religion per country, as a rough statement suggesting how much of a melting pot Yugoslavia was. Not meant as an accurate figure. Again you need to realize I discuss the former Yugoslavia when I talk about Arkan's club. Finally I bring up the Soviets because the entire model of Socialist Yugoslavia was directly inspired by the Soviet Union, no?
I think its a good thing that the British media isn't covering the extent of unrest, it could all turn into a repeat of the riots that happened in Tottenham not so long ago
Appreicate the post but you mis-interpreted what I said. I didn't say you were best friends with the Soviets just that the basic setup of the state of Yugoslavia was inspired by the USSR model(ie the USSR encompassed Russia, but also the states around it into a big union under central control from Moscow). Much like the Yugoslavia was a union of "states" with central command in Belgrade.
Agree that the discussion doesn't need to continue, just need to make it clear my intentions of prior posts as obviously there has been something lost in translation from brain to page.
yugoslavia was formed before soviet union. dude...
On May 24 2013 22:00 snailz wrote: @ GaNgStaRR.ElV
fine, i'll bite
so let's get the facts straight first. no there is no reason for you to put apostrophes on the war part, and if you do, you need to explain why. to prove my point why it was a war that could relate to your posting from the last couple of pages, i provided a link. now that we have established that (go read the link), we clearly see that there was UN involvement.
so even if you would argue (as you have) that not every war is alike and that US/West is more civilized in their warfare, my example shows otherwise, and that with such conflict indeed comes the ugly part, meaning that even in "controlled" environments you don't control jack shit. needless to say, 99% of the conflicts in history and even TODAY are just the same or worse as the war referenced in my argument, and furthermore, one could argue that even in that 1% where drone strikes do the leg work (no pun intended) you still have large number of civilian casualties, which some would equate with massacres, which makes your argument about good old private Ryan void.
now on to history and what you said wrong. "country i come from commited one of the biggest genocides since WW2" is actually not my country, but whatever, potato-potahto, right? it also wasn't "like 10 ethnic groups in one country fighting", more like 3 and a half. finally, Soviets had absolutely nothing, literally nothing to do with Yugoslavia in this specific context, saying otherwise just proves that you don't know enough about political relations in Europe at that time, hence the link about non-aligned movement i provided. to conclude, the football club in the Champions League you talk about, again, is not from my country.
i mean no disrespect, but i hope you realize by now why i didn't want to enter this debate, mistake on my part was not making it clear you're not educated on this subject, not in general. but honestly, if i came in this thread and mistook Ireland with Scotland, you'd do the same.
and to stop derailing this subject further, my heart goes out to the grieving family.
Firstly, I put """" on the war because I was failing to understand your disagreement on my post. It's called the Yugoslav War for a reason, I call it a genocide as well, because you will probably admit, a genocide did take part, and a genocide can occur during a war. I know there was UN involvement, I remember the controversy when we bombed the hospital in Kosovo, it's a shame that things like that happened, but from my recollection without re-reading the majority of the UN involvement was firstly a bombing campaign(which I thought was un-wise) and then a humanitarian peacekeeping effort.
I think it's extreme to suggest that US forces treat Muslim citizens in a similar way in Afghanistan as Muslims would have been treated in the Yugoslav war is way off base and unfair. Incidents in Afghanistan are isolated incidents of murder(which are punished, like the mis-treatment in that jail in Iraq) or collateral damage of bombs and drone strikes. If you look at the stats, they are reasonably accurate, generating a 20:1 ratio of miltitant:civilian, nowhere near a "reckless killing of innocents". I don't get the private ryan thing, please explain.
When I say "country you came from", you clearly need to use more objectivety. I am not saying "Croatia", I am referring to the former state of Yugoslavia, which Croatia did indeed come from. 10 ethnic groups was gotten from adding up the distinct new states that rose from the ashes of Yugoslavia, assuming that there are more than 1 religion per country, as a rough statement suggesting how much of a melting pot Yugoslavia was. Not meant as an accurate figure. Again you need to realize I discuss the former Yugoslavia when I talk about Arkan's club. Finally I bring up the Soviets because the entire model of Socialist Yugoslavia was directly inspired by the Soviet Union, no?
I think its a good thing that the British media isn't covering the extent of unrest, it could all turn into a repeat of the riots that happened in Tottenham not so long ago
Appreicate the post but you mis-interpreted what I said. I didn't say you were best friends with the Soviets just that the basic setup of the state of Yugoslavia was inspired by the USSR model(ie the USSR encompassed Russia, but also the states around it into a big union under central control from Moscow). Much like the Yugoslavia was a union of "states" with central command in Belgrade.
Agree that the discussion doesn't need to continue, just need to make it clear my intentions of prior posts as obviously there has been something lost in translation from brain to page.
yugoslavia was formed before soviet union. dude...
Sorry for not being more clear, obviously some people are nit-pickers and can't see the forest through the trees.
Wiki quote
In 1945, the country became the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (FPR Yugoslavia, FPRY), with the constitution coming into force in 1946[2] and in 1963 the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFR Yugoslavia, SFRY). The state is most commonly referred to by this last full name (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), which it held for the longest period of all. Of the three Yugoslav languages, the Serbo-Croatian and Macedonian language name for the state was identical, while Slovene slightly differed in capitalization and the spelling of the adjective "Socialist".
I think it's pretty clear when I say "it was formed in the Soviet style", I am referring to post-liberation Socialist Yugoslavia.
On May 24 2013 21:37 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: Finally we are going VERY off-topic discussing the Yogoslav conflict. Can we try to stick to why it's relevant to the London Beheading?
Meh, those discussions start to go around in circles very quickly. Anyway I'd like to know more about these right-wingers (English Defense League?) attacking mosques in London with Molotov cocktails/ attacking muslims ect. how widespread is that because the Serbian media seems to be focusing on that
The EDL is one of the fascist groups in the UK. These groups are seldom seen or talked about. I have no idea how many fascists are in the UK, bit I suspect it is far less than 0.01% of the population (58 million people in the UK). There is not much about mosques being attacked on the UK news, all I have seen is police being dispatched to break up EDL protests.
also, if you're interested in British politics, you should seek out the thread about UK elections that was going on few weeks ago, some good stuff about who's who and what they stand for. @neighbor Zeo
There were minor attacks but nothing was destroyed. Probably just the act of ignorant indivudual idiots acting like asshats.
Also I know generalising them as fascists might not be entirely fair despite the fact that many of their views are nationalistic, but the BNP does tend to get a fair share of the public vote(something like 5-10% in the last election, which is scary).
The BNP got 1.9% of the vote in the last election, which is a bit scary. That is their highest ever though. in the 20th century they got 0.1% or less consistently.
On May 24 2013 21:37 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: Finally we are going VERY off-topic discussing the Yogoslav conflict. Can we try to stick to why it's relevant to the London Beheading?
Meh, those discussions start to go around in circles very quickly. Anyway I'd like to know more about these right-wingers (English Defense League?) attacking mosques in London with Molotov cocktails/ attacking muslims ect. how widespread is that because the Serbian media seems to be focusing on that
The EDL is one of the fascist groups in the UK. These groups are seldom seen or talked about. I have no idea how many fascists are in the UK, bit I suspect it is far less than 0.01% of the population (58 million people in the UK). There is not much about mosques being attacked on the UK news, all I have seen is police being dispatched to break up EDL protests.
also, if you're interested in British politics, you should seek out the thread about UK elections that was going on few weeks ago, some good stuff about who's who and what they stand for. @neighbor Zeo
There were minor attacks but nothing was destroyed. Probably just the act of ignorant indivudual idiots acting like asshats.
Also I know generalising them as fascists might not be entirely fair despite the fact that many of their views are nationalistic, but the BNP does tend to get a fair share of the public vote(something like 5-10% in the last election, which is scary).
The BNP got 1.9% of the vote in the last election, which is a bit scary. That is their highest ever though. in the 20th century they got 0.1% or less consistently.
Oops I was a bit off, but I remember seeing it on the news and thinking "how the hell are there that many crazy people".
Update on the plane incident at Stansted, BBC reporting 2 people now arrested there!
On May 24 2013 18:39 frontliner2 wrote: I see there are people hoping these 2 terrorists will die in the hospital. Why?
I'd much rather have them live and then; - given time to think in a prison - coming to the realisation that what they did IS actually very wrong and evil - finally apologizing to the family of the victim - Calling other Islamists out and asking them to stop these acts
Would that not be a better development? It is possible and it does happen. When someone dies what is there left to be done?
Options 1, 2 and 3 serve no purpose and I'd rather see them die.
How often does #4 happen?
Yeah....
When someone dies they can no longer spread hate or convert others to their cause, they also stop taking up resources.
Get all the information you can out of them, by whatever means necessary, then feed them to livestock (not before removing organs for transplant to sick people if possible)
Even if you want them to suffer most, you can argue death is less of a punishment than prison. You can't punish someone if they are not in this world anymore. The UK had a life of hard labour as a punishment in the past. You could wish for something like that to be reintroduced instead of a death sentence.
I'm not interested in making them suffer nor am I interested if they repent.
They have proven themselves unacceptable and once every useful bit of them is used they should be recycled in the most efficient way possible.
That somebody can do something like this then be "rehabilitated" or "stand trial" is a complete joke, they deserve neither. Also the notion that they need to be "punished" or "made to pay for their crimes" is a waste of time and effort, there is no need to punish somebody and teach them the error of their ways unless you plan to reintroduce them into society which is absolute madness in the first place.
Give them a sound beating then execution, that's punishment and deterrent enough.
How stupid are you to think that executing someone who wants to die for their cause will deter them?
On May 24 2013 18:39 frontliner2 wrote: I see there are people hoping these 2 terrorists will die in the hospital. Why?
I'd much rather have them live and then; - given time to think in a prison - coming to the realisation that what they did IS actually very wrong and evil - finally apologizing to the family of the victim - Calling other Islamists out and asking them to stop these acts
Would that not be a better development? It is possible and it does happen. When someone dies what is there left to be done?
Options 1, 2 and 3 serve no purpose and I'd rather see them die.
How often does #4 happen?
Yeah....
When someone dies they can no longer spread hate or convert others to their cause, they also stop taking up resources.
Get all the information you can out of them, by whatever means necessary, then feed them to livestock (not before removing organs for transplant to sick people if possible)
Even if you want them to suffer most, you can argue death is less of a punishment than prison. You can't punish someone if they are not in this world anymore. The UK had a life of hard labour as a punishment in the past. You could wish for something like that to be reintroduced instead of a death sentence.
I'm not interested in making them suffer nor am I interested if they repent.
They have proven themselves unacceptable and once every useful bit of them is used they should be recycled in the most efficient way possible.
That somebody can do something like this then be "rehabilitated" or "stand trial" is a complete joke, they deserve neither. Also the notion that they need to be "punished" or "made to pay for their crimes" is a waste of time and effort, there is no need to punish somebody and teach them the error of their ways unless you plan to reintroduce them into society which is absolute madness in the first place.
Give them a sound beating then execution, that's punishment and deterrent enough.
How stupid are you to think that executing someone who wants to die for their cause will deter them?
Well like... they'd be dead? So that would probably deter them? Unless you're talking about other's who share similar ideologies, in which case that isn't what he was talking about.
On May 24 2013 22:00 snailz wrote: @ GaNgStaRR.ElV
fine, i'll bite
so let's get the facts straight first. no there is no reason for you to put apostrophes on the war part, and if you do, you need to explain why. to prove my point why it was a war that could relate to your posting from the last couple of pages, i provided a link. now that we have established that (go read the link), we clearly see that there was UN involvement.
so even if you would argue (as you have) that not every war is alike and that US/West is more civilized in their warfare, my example shows otherwise, and that with such conflict indeed comes the ugly part, meaning that even in "controlled" environments you don't control jack shit. needless to say, 99% of the conflicts in history and even TODAY are just the same or worse as the war referenced in my argument, and furthermore, one could argue that even in that 1% where drone strikes do the leg work (no pun intended) you still have large number of civilian casualties, which some would equate with massacres, which makes your argument about good old private Ryan void.
now on to history and what you said wrong. "country i come from commited one of the biggest genocides since WW2" is actually not my country, but whatever, potato-potahto, right? it also wasn't "like 10 ethnic groups in one country fighting", more like 3 and a half. finally, Soviets had absolutely nothing, literally nothing to do with Yugoslavia in this specific context, saying otherwise just proves that you don't know enough about political relations in Europe at that time, hence the link about non-aligned movement i provided. to conclude, the football club in the Champions League you talk about, again, is not from my country.
i mean no disrespect, but i hope you realize by now why i didn't want to enter this debate, mistake on my part was not making it clear you're not educated on this subject, not in general. but honestly, if i came in this thread and mistook Ireland with Scotland, you'd do the same.
and to stop derailing this subject further, my heart goes out to the grieving family.
Firstly, I put """" on the war because I was failing to understand your disagreement on my post. It's called the Yugoslav War for a reason, I call it a genocide as well, because you will probably admit, a genocide did take part, and a genocide can occur during a war. I know there was UN involvement, I remember the controversy when we bombed the hospital in Kosovo, it's a shame that things like that happened, but from my recollection without re-reading the majority of the UN involvement was firstly a bombing campaign(which I thought was un-wise) and then a humanitarian peacekeeping effort.
I think it's extreme to suggest that US forces treat Muslim citizens in a similar way in Afghanistan as Muslims would have been treated in the Yugoslav war is way off base and unfair. Incidents in Afghanistan are isolated incidents of murder(which are punished, like the mis-treatment in that jail in Iraq) or collateral damage of bombs and drone strikes. If you look at the stats, they are reasonably accurate, generating a 20:1 ratio of miltitant:civilian, nowhere near a "reckless killing of innocents". I don't get the private ryan thing, please explain.
When I say "country you came from", you clearly need to use more objectivety. I am not saying "Croatia", I am referring to the former state of Yugoslavia, which Croatia did indeed come from. 10 ethnic groups was gotten from adding up the distinct new states that rose from the ashes of Yugoslavia, assuming that there are more than 1 religion per country, as a rough statement suggesting how much of a melting pot Yugoslavia was. Not meant as an accurate figure. Again you need to realize I discuss the former Yugoslavia when I talk about Arkan's club. Finally I bring up the Soviets because the entire model of Socialist Yugoslavia was directly inspired by the Soviet Union, no?
Not to nitpick, but since you've said it a few times now, it's not 20:1, or at least based on the numbers you listed yourself it's closer to 7:1. (You claimed 2,214 militants have been killed to only 286 civilians.) Also, that number isn't even agreed upon, as you can easily find numbers closer to 3:1 or even lower by just googling. + Show Spoiler +
On May 24 2013 18:39 frontliner2 wrote: I see there are people hoping these 2 terrorists will die in the hospital. Why?
I'd much rather have them live and then; - given time to think in a prison - coming to the realisation that what they did IS actually very wrong and evil - finally apologizing to the family of the victim - Calling other Islamists out and asking them to stop these acts
Would that not be a better development? It is possible and it does happen. When someone dies what is there left to be done?
Options 1, 2 and 3 serve no purpose and I'd rather see them die.
How often does #4 happen?
Yeah....
When someone dies they can no longer spread hate or convert others to their cause, they also stop taking up resources.
Get all the information you can out of them, by whatever means necessary, then feed them to livestock (not before removing organs for transplant to sick people if possible)
Even if you want them to suffer most, you can argue death is less of a punishment than prison. You can't punish someone if they are not in this world anymore. The UK had a life of hard labour as a punishment in the past. You could wish for something like that to be reintroduced instead of a death sentence.
I'm not interested in making them suffer nor am I interested if they repent.
They have proven themselves unacceptable and once every useful bit of them is used they should be recycled in the most efficient way possible.
That somebody can do something like this then be "rehabilitated" or "stand trial" is a complete joke, they deserve neither. Also the notion that they need to be "punished" or "made to pay for their crimes" is a waste of time and effort, there is no need to punish somebody and teach them the error of their ways unless you plan to reintroduce them into society which is absolute madness in the first place.
Give them a sound beating then execution, that's punishment and deterrent enough.
How stupid are you to think that executing someone who wants to die for their cause will deter them?
I would like to add to this; "That somebody can do something like this then be "rehabilitated" or "stand trial" is a complete joke." We can argue about the rehabilitation part (perchance a lifetime sentence is the best punishment). However I am appalled to hear a Brit (or any Westerner from a democratic government for that matter) deny the right of standing trial before court. Rethink your statement please. Do you want to live in a country that does injustice? I don't.
Breivik (fascist extremist) stood trial. The shoe and underwear bomber (islamist extremists) stood trial. Mohammed Bouyeri (islamist extremist) who brutally murdered Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands and Volkert van der Graaf (left-extremist) who killed our politician Pim Fortuyn (centre-right politician) they stood trial too.
Why would we deny these murderers (and politically motivated terrorists) a trial then? We have them captured so why not? Isn't that how Justice is handled/served in democratic Western countries? This is how WE ensure justice. This is lawful, this is just. Without it people would just riot and murder in response. It is what I like to call civilisation.
Everytime these things happen we must condemn the driving factor behind it (in this case extremist islamist doctrine thinking). Each time we must take actions to ensure Justice is served. Going apeshit and killing 'them' in repsonse or becoming violent against 'them' is not the answer to the problem. We must resist and counter extremist ideology wherever it stirs trouble but we must also not forget that we are a constitutional state and that we work by law. Ironically if we somehow resort to savagery ourselves how can we declare ourselves civilized or enlightened.
Mind you, it's the interpretation of the Qu'ran that allows people to become like this. The Bible has horrible stories in them too however we see few Christians being a terrorist. This means we have, regarding this whole issue and the drivers behind it) a problem with a fanatical interpretation of Islam. I like to think our everyday Muslim is no threat to anyone.
Our enemy is the fanatic interpretation of any political doctrine. Be that communism, religious extremism, fascism or you name it makes no difference. All these doctrines or ways of life have people being affected by that tag. Not everyone is willing to die for what they are supposed to stand for being born into that doctrine.
I may have gone overboard here. Maybe my english was too bad also.
On May 24 2013 18:39 frontliner2 wrote: I see there are people hoping these 2 terrorists will die in the hospital. Why?
I'd much rather have them live and then; - given time to think in a prison - coming to the realisation that what they did IS actually very wrong and evil - finally apologizing to the family of the victim - Calling other Islamists out and asking them to stop these acts
Would that not be a better development? It is possible and it does happen. When someone dies what is there left to be done?
Options 1, 2 and 3 serve no purpose and I'd rather see them die.
How often does #4 happen?
Yeah....
When someone dies they can no longer spread hate or convert others to their cause, they also stop taking up resources.
Get all the information you can out of them, by whatever means necessary, then feed them to livestock (not before removing organs for transplant to sick people if possible)
Even if you want them to suffer most, you can argue death is less of a punishment than prison. You can't punish someone if they are not in this world anymore. The UK had a life of hard labour as a punishment in the past. You could wish for something like that to be reintroduced instead of a death sentence.
I'm not interested in making them suffer nor am I interested if they repent.
They have proven themselves unacceptable and once every useful bit of them is used they should be recycled in the most efficient way possible.
That somebody can do something like this then be "rehabilitated" or "stand trial" is a complete joke, they deserve neither. Also the notion that they need to be "punished" or "made to pay for their crimes" is a waste of time and effort, there is no need to punish somebody and teach them the error of their ways unless you plan to reintroduce them into society which is absolute madness in the first place.
Give them a sound beating then execution, that's punishment and deterrent enough.
How stupid are you to think that executing someone who wants to die for their cause will deter them?
I mentioned that in case somebody felt like pointing out that punishment isn't solely to make people who do bad things think twice before doing them again, it's also to deter others from doing it in the first place.
There are a lot of people who commit equally if not even worse crimes who never intend to die for their cause, in which case execution most certainly would be a strong deterrent.
If anticipating a likely response to my post and preemptively covering that issue makes me stupid, then I guess I'm stupid.
What about you, genius?
Let's assume I actually was referring to execution as a deterrent for maniacs who are willing to die for their cause, what alternative deterrent would you suggest?
On May 25 2013 00:18 frontliner2 wrote: I would like to add to this; "That somebody can do something like this then be "rehabilitated" or "stand trial" is a complete joke." We can argue about the rehabilitation part (perchance a lifetime sentence is the best punishment). However I am appalled to hear a Brit (or any Westerner from a democratic government for that matter) deny the right of standing trial before court. Rethink your statement please. Do you want to live in a country that does injustice? I don't.
You're going to have to explain to me how denying a trial to two men who publicly murder someone and videotape the act is unjust before I begin rethinking anything.
It's a waste of taxpayers' money giving these men a trial, as is lifelong incarceration. Extract any information, harvest their organs then use the remains as fertiliser or animal food. This is the only just course imo.
This is a man after my own heart who understands that violence and death are some of the core mechanics of life. People are scared of violence, calling war "barbaric". You don't call animals in nature barbaric, even the ones with gruesome and painful methods for killing their prey, and even the ones who kill to establish themselves as leader in a pack, or who hunt excessively more than they can eat. We should stop trying to label violence as things like "unneccesary, barbaric, inhumane", in fact I get the feeling a lot of the people who stand so strongly against violence of any kind are the kind of people who will back out of confrontation at any cost; I agree that usually in a democratic system standing up for your rights peacefully is the way to go, but sometimes blood must be spilled.
Eijeijei. I was calling death penalty barbaric. Now you´re derailing and using my word in a glorification speech for violance. You lack reading comprehension. You didn´t even understand what i meaned with paradox. I was not telling you that violence is paradox i can´t even understand how you come to this. I was telling you that the system of a not 100% guilty system is paradox.
...the moment the goverment kill just 1 innocent person the whole system is a big failor. The goverment murdered a innocent person, it´s a murder and by law you sentence murder to death...
But to solve your bad reading comprehension i´ll show you what i meaned with barbaric
Sure there are cases where we the society have decided that we allow forms of violence in our society. Police or self defense for example. Also the concept of good and bad is philosophical. The term i used regarding death penalty was a barbaric act. It´s only satisfying the lowest human feelings and i think those feelings should have no place in how we regulate the base mechanisms of how our society should work. I totally have those barbaric feelings though but i differ between personal view and a general society view.
The question i was asking had the conclusion that a torture/killing of this criminals would lead into more attacks. And only a fair process can normalise the situation like someone already mentioned here.
You're going to have to explain to me how denying a trial to two men who publicly murder someone and videotape the act is unjust before I begin rethinking anything.
It's a waste of taxpayers' money giving these men a trial, as is lifelong incarceration. Extract any information, harvest their organs then use the remains as fertiliser or animal food. This is the only just course imo.
Funny username for the logic you present. Seeing how you're arguing against the accepted practice of every civilized country outside of war and promoting a Judge Dread world, the burden of explanation lies solely in your hands.
Guess i can leave you with this:
Anyways, who on earth would you be comfortable entitling with the power of sanctioned summary execution? What if someone rapes your mom, your dad shoots the perpetrator and the police execute him on the spot for holding the smoking gun? I mean wtf, your world is so B&W it's scary. Sounds to me like you despise religion but your own blind conviction is equally scary, take a step back and reflect on that.
You're going to have to explain to me how denying a trial to two men who publicly murder someone and videotape the act is unjust before I begin rethinking anything.
It's a waste of taxpayers' money giving these men a trial, as is lifelong incarceration. Extract any information, harvest their organs then use the remains as fertiliser or animal food. This is the only just course imo.
Funny username for the logic you present. Seeing how you're arguing against the accepted practice of every civilized country outside of war and promoting a Judge Dread world, the burden of explanation lies solely in your hands.
Anyways, who on earth would you be comfortable entitling with the power of sanctioned summary execution? What if someone rapes your mom, your dad shoots the perpetrator and the police execute him on the spot for holding the smoking gun? I mean wtf, your world is so B&W it's scary. Sounds to me like you despise religion but your own blind conviction is equally scary, take a step back and reflect on that.
Allow me to express my opinion more clearly so you can reflect on it's true nature.
I'm openly not the biggest fan of religion but that's got nothing to do with my posts in this thread. The religious "motivations" behind this attack are a joke, I've already stated in this thread these men are a disgrace to Islam. I view this as simple murder.
Life isn't always black and white, but sometimes it can be.
I'll give you an example: stealing clothes.
There is never any need to steal clothes. If you can't afford to buy clothes for insanely cheap prices in charity shops then there are places that will give you clothes for free if you're homeless or whatever. If you're not, then you can afford clothes.
People know stealing clothes isn't a big deal and if they get caught they get a slap on the wrist and maybe a fine or whatever. Plus it's not really cool to have a criminal record. Anyway, it's a low risk low reward scenario. It's a completely unnecessary crime, unlike say a homeless guy on the brink of starvation stealing a loaf of bread or something. I know that's not really a good thing either and you could make similar arguments as to why that's a stupid crime as well but it's certainly more understandable. It's a crime of "necessity" as perhaps would shooting the rapist of your mother be, though neither are really "necessary", almost always you have a choice.
I think if you steal clothes the punishment should be death. I estimate total clothing thefts to be 0%. If the crime is not often committed, the punishment need not often be carried out. If people understood that they will be killed if they are caught stealing clothes, they simply wouldn't do it.
On topic of every civilized country outside of war, let me rephrase. I think once proven guilty of certain crimes you no longer deserve justice. In some cases, a trial is necessary to prove guilt. There is no need for a trial here. They did it in broad daylight, there were multiple witnesses, it was all over the news and they even videotaped it themselves. They are guilty, proven guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever and have made no attempt to deny the allegations.
At this stage, they do not deserve to be treated justly. Their life is forfeit.
What I'm saying here is that these men need to be brought to justice, not be treated justly. I don't think rehabilitation or lifelong prison sentences are justice for these people, I think ending their existence is the only true justice.
EPT
