Unusual murder sentence
Discussion
TurboHatchback said:
It's not advocating genocide to say that Islamic extremists are unlike other historic adversaries, there can never be any surrender, truce, bargain or outcome other than death or total fundamentalist Islamic domination for them. The collective failure of the West to accept this and our continued attempts to impose democracy, freedom of thought/expression and 21st century values on those who are incapable of accepting them has gone a long way towards creating the giant clusterf
k that is the sandier parts of the world today. We will never 'win' this fight because it can only be 'won' using methods contrary to the values we are fighting to uphold, the best we can do is to make sure we never lose.
I think there are historical precedents. The Chinese emperors were seen as gods on earth, as was the Japanese emperor up until WW2. Still are by some. In both cases, surrendering to a foreign power was out of the question so long as the last man there could raise his arm.k that is the sandier parts of the world today. We will never 'win' this fight because it can only be 'won' using methods contrary to the values we are fighting to uphold, the best we can do is to make sure we never lose.Lord Elgin's brutal and yobbish attack on the Summer Palace showed very clearly that the ancient empire was no match for the might of a modern army, just as the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved that imperial Japan would be wiped out if it continued on it's course.
It's also happened before with Islam, in the much maligned crusades and when the Spanish kicked our the Moors, and when the Christian nations of the Ottoman empire broke away.
Modern Islamists are of the same mould - they believe they have God on their side and any superior weaponry or tactics we may appear to have represent nothing more than some quirk of circumstance which will be overcome by their gung ho craziness. So far we're sort of proving them right.
We need to somehow get the message across that we are more powerful than your god, and if you provoke enough us we will destroy you. Unfortunately I don't really see any western country with the *just* possible exception of the United States who have the moral courage to do such a thing.
AJS- said:
We need to somehow get the message across that we are more powerful than your god, and if you provoke enough us we will destroy you. Unfortunately I don't really see any western country with the *just* possible exception of the United States who have the moral courage to do such a thing.
The reason is that you can't easily pick the Islamist millitants out of a crowd. To destroy them you'd also have to destroy millions of innocent people.This isn't a lack of moral courage, in fact it's precisely the opposite.
AJS- said:
I really would like to see the law changed around manslaughter, and possibly the introduction of second degree murder as many US states have.
I think most people would see manslaughter as accidentally causing death through negligence or stupidity - throwing something out of a window and killing someone below, setting an animal trap and catching a hiker or whatever. To my mind when you set out to intentionally cause someone significant harm, whether by stabbing them, beating them or whatever, and it results in death, then it is a murder. True that it's a different murder than actually plotting to kill someone in cold blood for financial gain or some other rivalry, but it's also a very different crime from the sort of accidental death that I would call manslaughter.
I agree.I think most people would see manslaughter as accidentally causing death through negligence or stupidity - throwing something out of a window and killing someone below, setting an animal trap and catching a hiker or whatever. To my mind when you set out to intentionally cause someone significant harm, whether by stabbing them, beating them or whatever, and it results in death, then it is a murder. True that it's a different murder than actually plotting to kill someone in cold blood for financial gain or some other rivalry, but it's also a very different crime from the sort of accidental death that I would call manslaughter.
AJS- said:
TurboHatchback said:
It's not advocating genocide to say that Islamic extremists are unlike other historic adversaries, there can never be any surrender, truce, bargain or outcome other than death or total fundamentalist Islamic domination for them. The collective failure of the West to accept this and our continued attempts to impose democracy, freedom of thought/expression and 21st century values on those who are incapable of accepting them has gone a long way towards creating the giant clusterfk that is the sandier parts of the world today. We will never 'win' this fight because it can only be 'won' using methods contrary to the values we are fighting to uphold, the best we can do is to make sure we never lose.
I think there are historical precedents. The Chinese emperors were seen as gods on earth, as was the Japanese emperor up until WW2. Still are by some. In both cases, surrendering to a foreign power was out of the question so long as the last man there could raise his arm.k that is the sandier parts of the world today. We will never 'win' this fight because it can only be 'won' using methods contrary to the values we are fighting to uphold, the best we can do is to make sure we never lose.Lord Elgin's brutal and yobbish attack on the Summer Palace showed very clearly that the ancient empire was no match for the might of a modern army, just as the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved that imperial Japan would be wiped out if it continued on it's course.
It's also happened before with Islam, in the much maligned crusades and when the Spanish kicked our the Moors, and when the Christian nations of the Ottoman empire broke away.
Modern Islamists are of the same mould - they believe they have God on their side and any superior weaponry or tactics we may appear to have represent nothing more than some quirk of circumstance which will be overcome by their gung ho craziness. So far we're sort of proving them right.
We need to somehow get the message across that we are more powerful than your god, and if you provoke enough us we will destroy you. Unfortunately I don't really see any western country with the *just* possible exception of the United States who have the moral courage to do such a thing.
I don't believe the US has the willpower (I'm not so sure it's 'moral courage') to achieve any meaningful solution. If anyone does it's the Russians but even then I'm not so sure.
TurboHatchback said:
Using the Japanese comparison, the only reason the military surrendered was because they were ordered to by the emperor himself (their 'god' if you will), otherwise they would have died to the last man. The Islamists cannot be ordered to give up by their god because he's a figment of their imagination. Advances in technology and the huge strides we've made in mechanised mass slaughter since the crusades also rather change the dynamics of the whole situation.
I don't believe the US has the willpower (I'm not so sure it's 'moral courage') to achieve any meaningful solution. If anyone does it's the Russians but even then I'm not so sure.
I think that if you want to understand the mindset of IS, this (rather long, but interesting) article is a good starting point. Otherwise, one might be badly misled about their ambitions and beliefs.I don't believe the US has the willpower (I'm not so sure it's 'moral courage') to achieve any meaningful solution. If anyone does it's the Russians but even then I'm not so sure.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/0...
Amongst many other things, they believe they are part of a prophesy which will result in them being almost wiped out before achieving final victory.
To be clear I'm not saying we should slaughter all Muslims or rain nuclear weapons on cities in the middle east.
Valid point about the Japanese emperor but there are still leadership structures in ISIS and all the rest. Like Hirohito before the nukes they are convinced they will win. We need to show them otherwise in a strong way.
I don't claim to actually know what we should do in any very exact sense. It just seems that it is the belief and the self-assuredness that we need to attack and destroy rather than just making occasional half hearted interventions which seem to make things worse.
One idea that seems worth considering is a full scale occupation and administration of Iraq over a long term. Commit to running the country on a secular basis for 30 years and develop a generation of Iraqis accustomed to living that way who are not so easily impressed by fanatics. Not easy I know. It would need the muscle of several western countries and enormous political will for the duration. Even then it might not work.
Another area where we appear to be not just passive but complicit is the role of Saudi Arabia, a vile theocratic state as brutal as any, who appear to be actively funding and promoting extreme forms of Islam throughout the region and beyond, yet remain an ally (and of course oil supplier and weapons buyer) of most western countries.
Overthrow them. Destroy the house of Saud once and for all, and as per Iraq above force a secular moderate government on them until such a time as a generation of Arabians won't tolerate being subjugated by these maniacs.
The right nuclear strike might have some merit. I don't see a very obvious candidate at present but that could change. Above all it is a very powerful message that we are serious.
At home we need to stop pandering to this stupidity too. No halal food in prisons or state schools. No religion of peace platitudes or anxious fear of "anti Muslim reprisals" as the first response to some atrocity committed in the name of Islam. Explicitly ending Islamic immigration and encouraging the repatriation of Muslims who have moved here if they are not comfortable with life in a secular western country.
And I repeat these are not prescriptive answers I have thought long and hard about in every detail. They're some suggestions I think worth considering to tackle a problem we currently seem simply unable and unwilling to even face.
It will require tearing up international treaties and comfortable consensuses, and abandoning principles that most decent people are instinctively in favour of.
Valid point about the Japanese emperor but there are still leadership structures in ISIS and all the rest. Like Hirohito before the nukes they are convinced they will win. We need to show them otherwise in a strong way.
I don't claim to actually know what we should do in any very exact sense. It just seems that it is the belief and the self-assuredness that we need to attack and destroy rather than just making occasional half hearted interventions which seem to make things worse.
One idea that seems worth considering is a full scale occupation and administration of Iraq over a long term. Commit to running the country on a secular basis for 30 years and develop a generation of Iraqis accustomed to living that way who are not so easily impressed by fanatics. Not easy I know. It would need the muscle of several western countries and enormous political will for the duration. Even then it might not work.
Another area where we appear to be not just passive but complicit is the role of Saudi Arabia, a vile theocratic state as brutal as any, who appear to be actively funding and promoting extreme forms of Islam throughout the region and beyond, yet remain an ally (and of course oil supplier and weapons buyer) of most western countries.
Overthrow them. Destroy the house of Saud once and for all, and as per Iraq above force a secular moderate government on them until such a time as a generation of Arabians won't tolerate being subjugated by these maniacs.
The right nuclear strike might have some merit. I don't see a very obvious candidate at present but that could change. Above all it is a very powerful message that we are serious.
At home we need to stop pandering to this stupidity too. No halal food in prisons or state schools. No religion of peace platitudes or anxious fear of "anti Muslim reprisals" as the first response to some atrocity committed in the name of Islam. Explicitly ending Islamic immigration and encouraging the repatriation of Muslims who have moved here if they are not comfortable with life in a secular western country.
And I repeat these are not prescriptive answers I have thought long and hard about in every detail. They're some suggestions I think worth considering to tackle a problem we currently seem simply unable and unwilling to even face.
It will require tearing up international treaties and comfortable consensuses, and abandoning principles that most decent people are instinctively in favour of.
photosnob said:
A white women goes around to a 77 year olds mans house carrying a knife and stabs him repeatedly to death because she didn't like what he said and she is to serve less than two years.
How can someone being a single mother have a bearing on this case. Would social services let her have the kids after she killed someone because she lost her temper?
Some of you lot are a bit thick at reading between the lines.How can someone being a single mother have a bearing on this case. Would social services let her have the kids after she killed someone because she lost her temper?
Single mother defends old bloke from 'paedo' slanders around the estate. She is reported to have spent time with him, presumably with her kids, and thought he was a nice old bloke, and he may have spent time alone with said kids.
Later finds out he is in fact a paedo, when he is charged with the same.
She goes round to his house to discuss things that may have transpired, when he is release on bail, she brings a knife, she says for self-defence.
He was reportedly unrepentent, and she goes mad and stabs him to death.
She is reported to have had mitigating circumstances, but they aren't allowed to reveal what they are, which is usually something done to protect the identity of victims of sex crimes.
So er yeah?
AJS- said:
To be clear I'm not saying we should slaughter all Muslims or rain nuclear weapons on cities in the middle east.
Ditto.AJS- said:
One idea that seems worth considering is a full scale occupation and administration of Iraq over a long term. Commit to running the country on a secular basis for 30 years and develop a generation of Iraqis accustomed to living that way who are not so easily impressed by fanatics. Not easy I know. It would need the muscle of several western countries and enormous political will for the duration. Even then it might not work.
Not sure about that one - Muslims have been living in Britain (and Europe) for generations, mostly in peace.Cue the rise in social media, spreading the 'extremists' messages, the complete lack of shutting the PC brigade up to stop hate preaching and allowing 'mildists'(?) to get in positions of power (the recent debacle in a certain Islamic(!?) school in the UK), and they're sneaking out to join their 'brother's...
As has been said, this isn't an ordinary war and I'm not sure when it'll end unless 'they' can be taught to live in peace with other religions, but when you're dealing with an ideology, it's never easy and certainly never quick! Just look at Catholics vs Protestants in Ireland.
Anyway, back on topic!
She really did get off lightly IMO, a bloke would've got 10 years, that said however, I'm not shedding a tear at the loss of a kiddy fiddler!
Muslims have lived here in tiny numbers until fairly recently. They are now 5% of the population and growing fast, and massively more in certain areas.
I can't really think of any places where this has been the case without having problems with the non Muslim population over the longer term.
It seems to me that it needs a kind of reformation to make a far more moderate form of Islam which explicitly can live along side people of other religions and none without the need to convert or subjugate them. While there clearly are Muslims capable of doing this I don't see any real evidence of an actively moderate and secular Islamic movement.
I can't really think of any places where this has been the case without having problems with the non Muslim population over the longer term.
It seems to me that it needs a kind of reformation to make a far more moderate form of Islam which explicitly can live along side people of other religions and none without the need to convert or subjugate them. While there clearly are Muslims capable of doing this I don't see any real evidence of an actively moderate and secular Islamic movement.
Reminds me of the Gary Plauche case where the father of an abused child shot the molester at point blank range after his arrest & confession.
He committed premeditated murder and served no jail time due to the circumstance
I remember reading about this stabbing a while back and hoping for a similar outcome
He committed premeditated murder and served no jail time due to the circumstance
I remember reading about this stabbing a while back and hoping for a similar outcome
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff