Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×

London Terror Attack 29/11/2019

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, hobinfoot said:

I’ve got to disagree a terrorist by definition isn’t like other people and therefore has to be treated differently. 

A murderer is, by the same logic, unlike other people, as is a rapist. All criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

A murderer is, by the same logic, unlike other people, as is a rapist. All criminals.

Sure, and you have various sentences for various crimes. What's your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Branyy said:

Anyway, this all points to the fact that all of this left/right labeling is pointless.

Not pointless at all. To defeat your enemy you first have to understand them and their motivation. 

 

Although it’s very easy to scream and shout and call for them to be locked up forever, all you are ultimately doing is prolonging the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Might have avoided the deaths of est 70-80 million people if we did. 

 

Now stop behaving like a child and changing the subject when you run out of coherent argument.   Back on topic with you. 

 

You have been asked at least twice now what your solution to the problem would be.  Its obvious that you totally disagree with rehabilitation for such offences.   It is also blindingly obvious that locking up and leaving people to rot is simply not realistic in view of the already overpopulation, conflicts with human rights laws and a reported £63k per year price tag for each incarceration.    So I ask again, what would your solution be?

There are certain criminals who cannot possibly be rehabilitated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Not pointless at all. To defeat your enemy you first have to understand them and their motivation. 

 

Although it’s very easy to scream and shout and call for them to be locked up forever, all you are ultimately doing is prolonging the problem.

It is absolutely pointless to artificially create two groups with no clear definition and trying to sort your friends and enemies into those two. I believe we all should be capable of discussing the motivation without putting people into just two boxes.

 

"Locking up forever" by means of actual life sentence is not really prolonging a problem, it's a valid solution (pros and cons can be discussed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ontarian1981 said:

There are certain criminals who cannot possibly be rehabilitated

You know that for certain? I think it's incumbent on a civilised society to try and rehabilitate all people regardless of how hopeless it may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Obelix said:

You know that for certain? I think it's incumbent on a civilised society to try and rehabilitate all people regardless of how hopeless it may be.

That might sound very noble. But we'd hit certain "technical" difficulties - how long could rehabilitation take? Years? Lifetime? How do you assess full and successful rehabilitation? Who would assess that? Who's going to take responsibility for false assessment and consequences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Obelix said:

You know that for certain? I think it's incumbent on a civilised society to try and rehabilitate all people regardless of how hopeless it may be.

Two poor people found out the hard way about the attempted rehabilitation of an extreme religious zealot. It is simply not worth innocent people's lives to find out if these types of criminals can or cannot be rehabilitated. Once is more than enough in these types of crimes . No second chances to these guys is my stance, and I am not alone in my way of thinking, by a long shot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ontarian1981 said:

Two poor people found out the hard way about the attempted rehabilitation of an extreme religious zealot. It is simply not worth innocent people's lives to find out if these types of criminals can or cannot be rehabilitated. Once is more than enough in these types of crimes . No second chances to these guys is my stance, and I am not alone in my way of thinking, by a long shot.

 

To be fair, hitler wasn’t alone in his thinking either, that doesn’t make you right.

 

That said statistically a lot of former jihadists are rehabilitated, but they need monitoring. If you’re going to cut services who are going to do that, this could happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tinfoilhat said:

To be fair, hitler wasn’t alone in his thinking either, that doesn’t make you right.

 

That said statistically a lot of former jihadists are rehabilitated, but they need monitoring. If you’re going to cut services who are going to do that, this could happen.

Do you think Hitler needed just some rehabilitation and monitoring (if he had survived the end of WW2)?

 

Also, I don't think it's about the amount of services needed. Someone had assessed Khan and approved his release. He had access to rehabilitation. He participated on that, he attended that conference. He was monitored. Services were there for him. They failed. 

Edited by Branyy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Branyy said:

It is absolutely pointless to artificially create two groups with no clear definition and trying to sort your friends and enemies into those two. I believe we all should be capable of discussing the motivation without putting people into just two boxes.

 

"Locking up forever" by means of actual life sentence is not really prolonging a problem, it's a valid solution (pros and cons can be discussed).

Like a murderer a terrorist should receive a life sentence with a minimum sentence..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Branyy said:

Do you think Hitler needed just some rehabilitation and monitoring (if he had survived the end of WW2)?

 

Also, I don't think it's about the amount of services needed. Someone had assessed Khan and approved his release. He had access to rehabilitation. He participated on that, he attended that conference. He was monitored. Services were there for him. They failed. 

No, did I say he did? That said not every single nazi was put against a wall and shot, they were, effectively, rehabilitated. 

 

And yes, services did fail. That needs to be looked at, as do the parole board.  They might have made the best decision with the information they had, then again they might not have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.