UK : Terror plotters facing tougher punishments for knife and car attacks

a reply to: CulturalResilience

I am sorry but the question is can a man be intelligent enough to be able to separate things away from each other.

This is not a personal attack on you I want you to know that.

a reply to: Ohanka

Bang on, and even that harrowing end was too bloody good for most of the bastards who were tried and convicted.

Industrial murder? What sort of psychopath would permit themselves to think in such a manner?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Oh, that was merely a hypothetical, since clearly, if you were to indulge in collective punishment, then you would be morally degenerate, and someone who is not would HAVE to end you, to protect innocent people from your fury.

Obviously, I was assuming that you would not be about to actually do anything like that, since I like to give the benefit of the doubt. One must assume that one cannot be insulted by what I said, unless one were to actually resemble a morally degenerate individual, which, to be fair, is an unsupportable position to take, regardless of what is said to you or about you. If you ARE that sort of person, I can say what I like about you, because no matter what I say and do, it cannot be nearly as bad as having genocidal tendencies, now can it?

What would you suggest as a workable course of action that would resolve the problem of Islamic terrorism?

originally posted by: szino9
a reply to: CulturalResilience

I am sorry but the question is can a man be intelligent enough to be able to separate things away from each other.

This is not a personal attack on you I want you to know that.

Its has not been taken as one. I put the same question to you that I have just put to True Brit.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

I would refer you to my first post, on the first page of this thread, if you would like to see a solution to the issue which actually takes into account the real meat of the topic. Its a long post, but it contains at least the groundwork for a proper and correct solution to the problem as it stands.

The solution in you posit in your original post is possible, but is it probable? It would work if the world we lived in today was a better and fairer place, but if it was we would likely not be having this conversation in the first place.
a reply to: TrueBrit

originally posted by: szino9
I don't understand why keep a minimum sentence? It is attempted murder should be automatically life in prison.

Well, in the UK the judges have flexibility and can set the precedent as to how sentences are applied. In this way a judge may consider a case on its merits. There is a clear difference between someone who kills someone at the end of a life of abuse, against someone who kills someone "for a bit of fun". The former may get the minimum allowable sentence, while the former may get the maximum.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

There is no solution. We crossed a line long ago where there is no way back from. You know every time I talk about this issue with someone I remember a speech by Ronald Reagan. The only way humanity would stop to kill each other, if ALL humanity would be threatened by something out of this world. Then and only then it would be everyone's interest to keep us together.

Otherwise, we are truly doomed.

a reply to: paraphi

My comment was regarding to terrorists why keep a minimum.

But yes in general keeping a minimum make sense

a reply to: CulturalResilience

The solution in you posit in your original post is possible, but is it probable? It would work if the world we lived in today was a better and fairer place, but if it was we would likely not be having this conversation in the first place.

CulturalResilience,

The whole reason we find ourselves in this position, is because the powerful of yesteryear decreed, in absence of a power to restrict them from doing so, that things would become thus. Making that anyone elses fault but theirs, and those who propagate the situation by continuing to fan the flame we are trying to extinguish, will only make the problem worse and worse.

If we were to act in a genocidal manner, toward those we are TOLD are our enemies (but are not), then two unacceptable things would occur without question. First, we would be capitulating to the unacceptable circumstances we find ourselves in, to whit, the people have no power or editorial control, over those who govern them, despite the fact that wars were fought between the crown and the people, over this exact matter, to prevent exactly this sort of thing from coming about.

Second, we would become the problem. Not the government, not the flag or the military, but we, the common people of the British Isles, in capitulating to the circumstances in the simplest way, and lending our weight to the demand for a total solution of the sort you are suggesting, would become the very monsters, the very bogeymen, the very animalistic savages that we have been led to fear.

There is NO value to a solution to the terror situation which does any of the following things:

1) Removes, reduces, or abridges the liberty of the citizens of this country

2) Places the people in a position where they must chose either inaction or genocide as responses

3) Requires people to accept the lies they are told, or the governance of those who consistently tell them

I am willing to die rather than accept any of these three things, as a result of the existence of, or a solution to, terrorism. I insist, precisely because I know who I am, respect who my grandfathers were and the things they did during WWII, that solutions to the terror problem are found where they ought to be, or not at all. My liberty is worth more than my life, and becoming an appeaser of a genocidal response to a problem our own government helped invent, is not something I can accept as a valid course of action.

We can make all manner of war against the people who actually caused this situation, without even the slightest moral quandary or qualm, because they chose this situation, chose to continue it despite the immorality of it, but we cannot blame a religion or those who hold it, for the actions and the effects of the actions of our leaders. We can dethrone them, we can break their thrones and toss their likenesses on the fire, scatter their friends and backers to the four corners of the nation, borne on the furious breath of the people, but we cannot, must not, must NEVER indulge in mass murder, simply to save face, or our own lives, from the consequences of our own nations actions.

If we were big enough, and ugly enough to allow our governments to act disreputably in our name, then we must be big enough and strong enough to make proper responses to the danger we have been placed in by our apathy, without making our errors, someone elses mortally dangerous problem.

We ARE better than that, Britain IS better than that. And if it is not... then much as it pains me to say it, the place should burn in much worse of a hell than any nutjob with a bomb vest can create.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

..............oh!. Got it.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Indeed, yes.

And to agree with what was said above, if we want to find a solution to Wahhabist extremism, we need to tackle the state that is spending billions exporting Wahhabi terrorism around the world. The bloody house of Saud.

But no chance of that happening while the US has a President who likes to hang out in dark rooms with the Saudis, fondling their balls.

Ooooooo! Increasing the severity of the penalties... wow.. what a genius idea!!

Do they honestly believe that Mohammed (or Mohammedina, don't want to be called a sexist) is going to say "oh well, I was just about to go and scream Allahu Akbar and drive my Rubicon delivery van through an enormous crowd of Saturday shoppers, but now there's a good chance I'll get a fifty quid fine and three points on my licence I don't think I'll bother"?

Perhaps they'll give them the option to attend a "not committing violent Jihad" awareness course in lieu of the three points...

Also there's been what, two attacks of this nature in the UK now?

One of them was a Jihadist who was later shot dead by police.

The other was a white guy attacking Muslims outside a mosque and... I don't know what happened to him, awaiting trial I guess?


This hardly seems like a major government priority.

its hilarious.

we have aliens running countries. only way to explain the mind numbing absurdity they continually vomit.

Genocide is not the solution I would be in favour of. A free choice between original repatriation, or segregation would be preferable to me.
a reply to: TrueBrit

I say reopen the Tower of London and the torture chambers !!

originally posted by: szino9
a reply to: LondonMan

I don't understand why keep a minimum sentence? It is attempted murder should be automatically life in prison. That is of course if it's not possible to shoot them on site.

oops... I just said it

The UK has had a massive population increase, but they don't have the capacity or land to build new prisons. So instead, people get out after only serving half their sentence for good behaviour. Over 75% of the people in prison now are from abroad.

a reply to: stormcell

Land? Nonsense.

It might interest you to know that more land is being used for bloody golf courses in this country, than has been devoted to regular housing, leave alone the building of prisons, to ease the circumstances in our jails somewhat.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

But that is still collective punishment of a great mass of people, over the actions of a small few, and a small few which are controlled and handled by those our nation employs to do so.

The enemy is not the Muslims, or the refugees from illegal wars we started. The enemy is the entity which instigated the wars, funded the terror groups, trained their operatives, their recruiters, and that enemy is our governance, that of America too, not the responsibility of the people you are advocating acting against.