RE: Hug a Jihadi

RE: Hug a Jihadi (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Greta75 -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 11:24:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick quote: The only way to stop killers from killing is to give them the death penalty. Which makes you a killer, and the only way to stop you is the death penalty for using the death penalty. Killing is killing. You are a killer when you support killers by donating to killers knowingly that it is to fund their killing spree. Or you are planning or have killed yourself. Death penalty is legalised killing where we as a country have specific laws and conditions a person has to meet before it is deemed, his punishment is death. These got be very clear guidelines. Like in my country, more than 15 grammes of pure diamorphine is mandatory death penalty. It should be clear, transparent, everyone is informed in advance what are the conditions they need to meet to get death penalty before they commit the crime. Legalised murder makes sense to me, because what's the point of keeping anybody around if they aren't interested in contributing positively to society and if their sole purpose to life is to take away other people's life.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 11:37:35 AM)
quote: Death penalty is legalised killing Killing is killing.

Greta75 -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 11:41:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick Killing is killing. I disagree totally. IF a man was raping me and I killed him in self-defense. I think that's justified killing. I think there is legalised killing which is good killing. And bad killing where people simply kill innocents for no reason. Like what Jihadist do.

WhoreMods -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 11:49:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick Killing is killing. I disagree totally. IF a man was raping me and I killed him in self-defense. I think that's justified killing. I think there is legalised killing which is good killing. And bad killing where people simply kill innocents for no reason. Like what Jihadist do. The jihadists don't see the people they're killing as innocent.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 12:11:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: The strong arm approach should be tweaked similar to what Greta offered: Let them leave, but cancel their visa, revoke their citizenship and don't let them come back, if they are guilty of any of the offenses listed. If they don't leave, go ahead and throw them in prison. That is really strange. Wasn't there a movie about arresting people for future crimes? Who are the "they" "them" or "their" you are talking about? How would you distinguish people going abroad for the purpose of assisting some radical group? What distinguishing characteristics would compel the immigration people to say: "Oh fuck, there goes a jihadi. Let's take away his passport or citizenship. Wot? He hasn't committed any crime yet? Well, fuck! Let's just shoot his towel-head ass dead then we will be certain he will not come back to harm us." DS, you often have some really good ideas but this is not one of them. You've jumped to stupid conclusions twice, Vincent. The first time you did it, was in your first response to the OP. Now, you're doing it again. It's not going to be just any person that will have their visas revoked, and you know it. You're making the assumption that Government is going to set the bar at the lowest possible setting to revoke the visa. I do not believe that has, is, or will happen.

PeonForHer -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 1:19:20 PM)
quote: So, it's "Thug a Jihadi" vs. "Hug a Jihadi." The strong arm approach should be tweaked similar to what Greta offered: Let them leave, but cancel their visa, revoke their citizenship and don't let them come back, if they are guilty of any of the offenses listed. If they don't leave, go ahead and throw them in prison. The soft approach might be more effective in turning hearts and minds away from the radicalization, but it can also end up being a yuge dice roll. How terrible would it be if a soft approach resulted in the deaths of innocents? In the end, I think it would be best to apply both strategies. The more hardened and radicalized, the less likely a soft approach is likely to work. My impression from this Danish experiment is that there's a practical, legal and moral difficulty in that the police aren't focusing either on jihadis or innocent and benign Muslims, but those who are somewhere in between. Arrest them, bully them around ... but they get to go home afterwards because they haven't yet committed a crime. Thereafter they seethe. Perhaps they then flit out of the country and into ISIL or some other group of murdering evil shits; perhaps they remain at home and tell the stories of their treatment to all their friends and relatives, thus making them seethe, too.

thompsonx -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 1:49:17 PM)
ORIGINAL: Greta75 In my country, parents are urge to report their children for extremism. Basically, anybody suspected of extremism has to go through compulsory "re-education about the version of Islam that is compatible to Singapore laws". You live in idaho dumbass. So it is a criminal offense if friends/family/relatives, knows that someone is going to join ISIS and not report them for rehabilitation. Cite please.

thompsonx -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 1:52:35 PM)
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It's not going to be just any person that will have their visas revoked, and you know it. You're making the assumption that Government is going to set the bar at the lowest possible setting to revoke the visa. I do not believe that has, is, or will happen. What a lying sack of shit you are. You were recently in a discussion about that very thing re: the "no fly" list. Where the discussion clearly showed that the government had set the bar artificially low.

thompsonx -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 1:53:58 PM)
ORIGINAL: WhoreMods The jihadists don't see the people they're killing as innocent. Do amerikan soldiers view those they kill as innocent?

PeonForHer -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 1:59:01 PM)
quote: I think there is legalised killing which is good killing. And bad killing where people simply kill innocents for no reason. Like what Jihadist do. Jihadis believe that their killing is legal. Law laid down by God Himself, no less.

thompsonx -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 2:00:20 PM)
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Jihadis believe that their killing is legal. Law laid down by God Himself, no less. Don't britt soldiers believe the same thing?

BoscoX -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 2:02:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Jihadis believe that their killing is legal. Law laid down by God Himself, no less. You are describing most psycho cultist members. Charles Manson also comes to mind

PeonForHer -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 2:15:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Jihadis believe that their killing is legal. Law laid down by God Himself, no less. Don't britt soldiers believe the same thing? Don't know. Probably, though not to as looney a degree, I suspect. Not that it makes a difference, of course, to the person who's being killed.

PeonForHer -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 2:17:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoscoX quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Jihadis believe that their killing is legal. Law laid down by God Himself, no less. You are describing most psycho cultist members. Charles Manson also comes to mind Careful, Bosco. You're within a gossamer's width of saying that certain non-Muslim Americans are as deranged as Islamist killers.

thompsonx -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 2:21:11 PM)
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer ORIGINAL: thompsonx Jihadis believe that their killing is legal. Law laid down by God Himself, no less. Don't britt soldiers believe the same thing? Don't know. Probably, though not to as looney a degree, I suspect. Not that it makes a difference, of course, to the person who's being killed. If you give it a bit of thought it would make the same difference to the one pulling the trigger. We are taught from birth that murder is wrong. We have to be taught that murdering for god is ok.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 4:04:19 PM)
quote: IF a man was raping me and I killed him in self-defense. I think that's justified killing. it is still killing. quote: I think there is legalised killing which is good killing. So the stoning death of a woman who has an affair with a married man is a good killing? It is a legalized killing, so it must be in your books, right? quote: And bad killing where people simply kill innocents for no reason. Like what Jihadist do. But they don't do it for no reason, they have very complex and often rather fascinating reasons for killing who they kill.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 4:06:42 PM)
quote: You are describing most psycho cultist members. And most of the the U.S. military as well. Funny how that works, eh?

vincentML -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 4:51:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: The strong arm approach should be tweaked similar to what Greta offered: Let them leave, but cancel their visa, revoke their citizenship and don't let them come back, if they are guilty of any of the offenses listed. If they don't leave, go ahead and throw them in prison. That is really strange. Wasn't there a movie about arresting people for future crimes? Who are the "they" "them" or "their" you are talking about? How would you distinguish people going abroad for the purpose of assisting some radical group? What distinguishing characteristics would compel the immigration people to say: "Oh fuck, there goes a jihadi. Let's take away his passport or citizenship. Wot? He hasn't committed any crime yet? Well, fuck! Let's just shoot his towel-head ass dead then we will be certain he will not come back to harm us." DS, you often have some really good ideas but this is not one of them. You've jumped to stupid conclusions twice, Vincent. The first time you did it, was in your first response to the OP. Now, you're doing it again. It's not going to be just any person that will have their visas revoked, and you know it. You're making the assumption that Government is going to set the bar at the lowest possible setting to revoke the visa. I do not believe that has, is, or will happen. Thanks for the civil classification of my comments, DS.[8\|] It matters not where government sets the bar for revoking a visa, the pot hole in democracy comes where government sets the bar at all for an anticipated crime. That is shear Orwellian stupidity I am surprised to read from a man who defends Liberty with such fervor. What madness have you come down to, DS. That is one terribly fucking slippery slope of fucking terrible slippery slope, whichever, it certainly doesn't help keep your libertarian badge. From the OP: Those suspected of travelling overseas to fight with IS or similar organisations have their passports cancelled,

PeonForHer -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 5:00:59 PM)
quote: If you give it a bit of thought it would make the same difference to the one pulling the trigger. We are taught from birth that murder is wrong. We have to be taught that murdering for god is ok. I'm not a military man, thompson. I can't get on that wavelength.

thompsonx -> RE: Hug a Jihadi (8/10/2017 8:03:41 PM)
ORIGINAL: PeonForHer If you give it a bit of thought it would make the same difference to the one pulling the trigger. We are taught from birth that murder is wrong. We have to be taught that murdering for god is ok.[/quote] I'm not a military man, thompson. I can't get on that wavelength. My guess is that you would be most uncomfortable executing someone at close range with a fire arm or an edged weapon...My point is that it is a learned skill not a natural reaction.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625