UK Soldier beheaded in London - Page 42

On May 25 2013 00:54 Reason wrote:

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 never 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 justice. Their life is forfeit.

On May 25 2013 00:30 Nachtwind wrote:


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.



But to solve your bad reading comprehension i´ll show you what i meaned with barbaric

On May 25 2013 00:59 Holy_AT wrote:


Oh gosh, if stealing was punishable my death, they would have to execute all the managers, CEOs and other business man or financial people. We cant do that !

On May 25 2013 00:59 Trowa127 wrote:
Reason - you think giving the state the power to execute whomever they choose is a good idea? You haven't thought this one through have you mate.

On May 25 2013 01:00 Nachtwind wrote:
When fair justice is a pillar of your society but you kick this pillar in the dust, what society did you create then? I tell you. The moment you´re doing this you´re living in a anomie.

On May 25 2013 00:59 Holy_AT wrote:
Oh gosh, if stealing was punishable my death, they would have to execute all the managers, CEOs and other business man or financial people. We cant do that !

On May 25 2013 00:54 Reason wrote:

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.

On May 23 2013 04:07 Slaughter wrote:
Even if they were Muslim, who cares? The vast majority of the Muslim community thinks the same thing about these attacks as the rest of the world.

Attacks by radical Muslims just get more play in the media (and they currently are more "active" in their activities due to all the shit going down in the Middle East). But other "terrorists" not affiliated with the Muslim religion still do stuff, its just that whenever a Muslim does something it gets amplified 100x because it plays well in the media.

On May 25 2013 01:04 Trowa127 wrote:


Why? Are you saying that the market is a zero-sum game and that if someone makes money, someone else is robbed?

On May 24 2013 22:33 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
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 25 2013 01:01 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
A paradox is an argument that produces an inconsistency, typically within logic or common sense.
I perfectly understood what you meant thanks. I even addressed your inconsistency by saying that the death penalty should only be applied to CONVICTED TERRORISTS who are 100% without a doubt guilty so I fail to see how your paradox is in any way relevant aside from attempting to insult me in a poor and classless fashion. You also fail to make the clear distinction between an execution and murder. Is death during war murder? No because it is sanctioned and justifiable.

Have you ever thought that maybe we need to satisfy our base primal instincts in order to be as one with society? It's not like i'm advocating The Purge, I'm just saying we would be better off saving ourselves the resources of having to pay for the basic human rights these prisoners will require until the day they die in incarceration.

TL:DR for the people who clearly miss the point. Only Reason seems to be endorsing trial-less killings like the famous Viet-Cong in the video depicted. There's a clear difference between execution through due process and on the spot summary execution.

I have no problem with death or with the idea of having to take someone's life in the name of peace, I don't see it as a paradox, but as nature's one basic necessity. Even though it's illegal in this country, if an intruder broke into my home tonight and threatened my family, I would happily bury the broken shaft of a hockey stick through their heart then stick around to figure out if they meant the threats they implied, even if it meant I had to do a bid for manslaughter.

I was merely suggesting that if you knew the consequence of hacking a soldier's head off in the street was a long, painful and embarassing death, would you really be so quick to come to our countries with violent intent?

Have you ever thought that maybe we need to satisfy our base primal instincts in order to be as one with society? It's not like i'm advocating The Purge, I'm just saying we would be better off saving ourselves the resources of having to pay for the basic human rights these prisoners will require until the day they die in incarceration.

On May 25 2013 01:04 Derez wrote:

I think you and the attackers should get together and discuss the finer points of extremely repressive law systems. Why go all the way to murder for theft and not just take a hand?

Anyhow, equality under the law is a basic legal principle. There's no seperate trial systems for the people you don't like. Everyone gets the same treatment, otherwise all you do is giving people like this more of a reason to be mad. Guantanamo & Abu Graibh surely haven't improved anything by taking people's rights away, all it did was create better propaganda material for islamists.

On May 25 2013 00:54 Reason wrote:
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.

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.

On May 25 2013 01:12 Thrill wrote:


The clothes thing i have to take as a joke.

As for that other paragraph, are you comfortable with the police making that decision? I'll tell you - the police themselves certainly wouldn't be, imagine the liability if they are found to have acted outside of their [insane] new authority. An officer that shoots in self defense is one thing, an officer making a judgement call that someone's life is forfeit is a fragment of a kafkaesque reality fit for a religious persons vision of hell.

On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:

No I'm 100% absolutely deadly serious about the clothes thing. If you have anything to say about it I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say if you can present yourself in a more level headed fashion than some of the other people have

I'm not proposing granting the police any insane new authority. If you want to take everything to trial to be on the safe side I understand that position, my whole point here is that there is no "safe side". These men are 100% absolutely guilty and will not be found innocent. So forget about death penalty for a moment, let's just say life prison sentence.

Would you really get chills up your spine if you read in the paper tomorrow these men were already behind bars for the rest of their lives without standing trial for the sole reason that their guilt was undeniable and the only possible sentence is life in prison? I mean what's the point of going through the motions in such a situation?

A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money?

On May 25 2013 01:26 frontliner2 wrote:

I stole a bag of crisps once when I was around 15 for the kick of it. If you were to be my King would you behead me yourself or let some henchmen do it?

I lol at your judicial beliefs

On May 25 2013 01:26 Nachtwind wrote:
It has a sociologically reason, reason. Speaking justice is a form of ritual and very import for human sociologically understanding of how our systems works.

On May 25 2013 01:11 Reason wrote:
These people are not innocent, therefore trial /= necessary..

On May 25 2013 01:20 Reason wrote:
A trial should be to determine guilt and if found guilty the severity of sentence. If guilt is not in doubt and the sentence is uniform what purpose does holding the trial serve aside from wasting time and money?