Terrorist/criminal human rights

When the US and UK invaded Iraq its soldiers became terrorists in uniform - the invasion was state sponsored terrorism. When innocent civilians die in bombing raids they call it 'collateral damage' what is the difference beyond the word games? Intent? Motivation? If I bomb what I believe is a legitimate military target knowing full well innocent men, women and children will die I can convince myself I am innocent insofar that I was not motivated to harm them but I would be deluding myself. I find it completely understandable that some people feel so outraged by the allied bombing of Iraq that they seek to hit back in the only way they can. They are wrong to do this - two wrongs never make a right but to seek revenge is a uniquely human trait. If you want to stop terrorism then stop the terrorism of your own military. I predict without any fear of contradiction that if the US/UK pull out of Muslim lands the terrorism in the US and UK will stop over night. All this talk of laws etc is bollocks. Get out of Muslim lands and the problem vanishes.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
Get out of Muslim lands and the problem vanishes.

No, 9/11 came first. Remember?

quote:

Definitions are exactly where the shit hits the fan. The drafters of the legislation and the judges aren't the problem. Nor are the lawyers. By the time it gets to judges and lawyers the rules have already been stretched to fit whatever the police or other arm of government wanted the rule to fit.

You couldn't answer my question and that's ok. It seems you haven't thought that deeply about the implications of your ideas.

Deane, I answered your questions perfectly adequately (although I am under no obligation so to do) and believe me, I've thought long and hard about the implications of my ideas.

You clearly have a problem with the police - tough.

I've made it clear that its down to Parliamentary Draughtsmen to write the rules. Thats a responsible, professional job that takes time and careful scrutiny. Seem like you might agree this is the only way to get it right. It would therefore be totally pointless for me to draft half a dozen lines in the next 10 minutes to post on this forum.

Seems to me that you would snivel and nit-pick for a life-time, even at the output of the professionals - quite oblivious to the consequent lost rights of the human race at the hands of terrorist scum. It seems to me that you have one huge chip on your shoulder about something or other with "European" or European-derived society and are carrying the sins of your fathers for last 7,500 generations on modern humanity on your shoulders.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
Get out of Muslim lands and the problem vanishes.

No, 9/11 came first. Remember?

..and 9/11 was a response to what exactly? (if you accept the view that it was perpetrated by muslim terrorists acting alone that is - which I doubt)

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:
Get out of Muslim lands and the problem vanishes.

Was Spain "in Muslim lands" when that train was bombed there? It is not so simple as you suggest, I fear, even if you would not be the only one wondering how much good we have done or stand any chance of doing in Iraq, for example.

There is a clash of cultures of massive significance between radicalised Islamics, and the Western secular tradition.

The cult of suicide in regard of the Japanese is another such classical dissonance of cultures. The treatment of POWs by the Japanese in WW2 was in our eyes abominable, but to the Japanese feeding on their Zen Bhudism culture, they thought that anyone who does not fight to the death was beneath contempt. Is it our right to change the culture of the Japanese, or even radicalised Muslims? There is a point of view which says not, but when it affects behaviour of people in in the UK, then I think the setting down of a well understoood legal framework, even a very tough one, is entirely reasonable and not bollocks at all.

The questions of what to do about Iraq, and what to do about terrorism are separate [though not without links, of course], and will without doubt be sorted out over different time scales and in different ways. Solving one will have no bearing at all on the other, as the terrorism threat is now established [and was established before the invasion of Iraq], and thus terrorism will continue whether the US and UK military presense carries on for much longer.

Sincerely, Fredrik

The rules would apply to all terrorist, not just the current fashion in Islamic ones.

Several recent reports have indicated that Al Qaida simply hate the West and would use terror-tacticts whether we were in Iraq or not. As Rasher pointed out, there is evidence of this in 9/11 and other crimes that preceeded the current presence in Iraq.

Cheers

Don

9/11 was in response to the American troops being in Saudi Arabia to help protect it from Saddam in 1991, and to any other perceived injustice done by the west and specifically the USA against the followers of Islam

Fredrik said

quote:

Was Spain "in Muslim lands" when that train was bombed there?

Answer - Yes.
Madrid bomb March 2004
troop withdrawal from Iraq May 2004

Dear Bob,

I remember that now. The ruling Party was blaming the bombing on home based terrorists, and when the evidence was suggestive of it being the Islamics, the Spanish voted down the government which had supported the Invasion, at the general election. Hopefully a change of governments in the US and UK might result in withdrawals of US and UK troops with good effect all round. After all, there were no WMDs found and Saddam has gone, which was Blair's second justification once there were no WMDs found... Hans Blix really should have been allowed to finish the job of inspecting...

None of this however means that a robust response to the new wave of terrorism in not as necessary as it was the last time with the IRA. There is no prospect of a new governement in the UK or the US in within the next year unless Mr Brown calls a snap general election. If the terrorism stops after that no one will be hurt by some fairly stiff laws as people will not be breaking them. In the meantime anarchy cannot be allowed to rule. In a way we may lay the need for this response to terrorism at Mr Blair's door, if we see the linkage to the recent wave of terrorism as being completely linked to the Invasion of Iraq as AT suggests. I am sure that you realise that I don't think it is quite that easily explained, but the more it actually is linked to Iraq the more Mr Blair [and his gov't ministers] appear responsible for setting up a lot of problems, which may be with us for possibly another generation now, IMO...

Sincerely, Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

Seems to me that you would snivel and nit-pick for a life-time, even at the output of the professionals - quite oblivious to the consequent lost rights of the human race at the hands of terrorist scum. It seems to me that you have one huge chip on your shoulder about something or other with "European" or European-derived society and are carrying the sins of your fathers for last 7,500 generations on modern humanity on your shoulders.

Oh dear. Was it really necessary to get personal, Don? I cannot but comment that to do so is somewhat consistent with having lost an argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
I for one am grateful that some of you have no influence in framing the laws of the land.

Here bloody here. There are some scary contributors to this forum, makes Anne Widdecombe seem lke a liberal.

Terrorism is a despicable activity. There are hugely complex reasons for its existence. Both the motivation of the individual terrorist and larger social factors are involved. Maintaining the safety of the population in the face of a threat is one thing. Those who prefer to frame the issue in black and white terms, who fail to realise that retribution is self defeating for those who see losing their life as a heroic act of martyrdom and who blindly refuse to accept that the policies of Western governments have a degree of culpability are destined never to gain an understanding of the factors which create the conditions for terrorism to breed.

There was an earlier allusion to cancer. Of course a cancer must be excised, but to refuse to gain an understanding of what the root cause is, is to leave it free to spread to future generations.

quote:

The bigotry bit, joe90.

Dear me Deane - I am advocating the short and sharp shift for what is considered by most to be absolute and utter vileness and you're calling me a bigot?

I never said to bump him because he's black/white/whatever.

I said pop him because he raped and killed a 2 year old girl.

I suppose I should spend a fortune on trying to 'rehabilitate' him?

Just before you reply, my father spent three decades as a front-line police officer and my mother nearly 20 years working in prisons. Neither of them have seen a lot of rehabilitation in paedophiles that are violent.

God may or may not forgive them, but I don't want them hanging around my place any time soon.

If wanting to protect my children makes me a 'bigot', then I'm happy with the label.

"It seems you haven't thought that deeply about the implications of your ideas."

"Oh dear. Was it really necessary to get personal, Don? I cannot but comment that to do so is somewhat consistent with having lost an argument."

You tinge far too many of your posts with personal remarks. My comments are based on observation by myself and comments by others of the content of your posts.

My aim was to help you come to terms with yourself. We know how difficult things have been for you these past few years and it has obviously conditioned your thinking process. There is no need for you to burden yourself with all of mankind's wrongdoings.

Cheer up

Don.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
In terms of the rules concerning the use of Diplock courts, for terrorist justice, these existed, and even in those days normal cases were generally put to trial by jury.

Sincerely, Fredrik

Fredrik

Diplock courts sat without a jury not because they were dealing with acts of terrorism per se but because of the very real threat in N Ireland of jury intimidation. The current situation is quite different.

And I did know that terrorism had been defined, my point is that it should make no difference to the legal process.

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
.... and who blindly refuse to accept that the policies of Western governments have a degree of culpability are destined never to gain an understanding of the factors which create the conditions for terrorism to breed.

Wrong.

You Human Rights flag wavers just don't get it, do you?

The main doctrine for the followers of Islam is that Islam becomes the dominant, sole religion in this country and world wide. There is no tolerance or acceptance of any other Faith in their minds.

What do you want Western governments to do, Malky? Take heed of every criticism from Muslims and obey their every demand? To my mind, we are already giving too much tolerance.

Nearly every town now has a mosque and towns like Rochdale and Bradford are predominantly populated with muslims.

Do the maths, every single muslim female I see is pregnant and there are 4 or 5 children round her, they all have huge familes and their population is inexorably growing. Fact. I used to live in Rochdale so I know what I am talking about.

Another topic, but if we are all so worried about climate change and diminishing resources, let's look at population overload...

Don't be so quick to always blame western govts.

To be honest, the liberal do-gooders/human rights pushers in this country scare me more than the terrorists sometimes.

Ian

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

My aim was to help you come to terms with yourself. We know how difficult things have been for you these past few years and it has obviously conditioned your thinking process. There is no need for you to burden yourself with all of mankind's wrongdoings.

Good on you for aiming to help another forum member come to terms with themselves, Don.

Thanks but, um, no thanks...

There are several separate issues under discussion here. Worth recognising some of them.

Why do people become terrorists
What can/should we do to reduce the likelyhood of terrorist causes
How do we reduce the risk of a successful terrorist attack
How should we treat suspected terrorists and their helpers
What level of evidence should be needed to convict
Do we punish terrorists
If so - how
Do we rehabilitate terrorists
etc etc

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

What level of evidence should be needed to convict

Do we punish terrorists

Do we rehabilitate terrorists
etc etc

Cheers

Don

Please tell me your kidding.

Ian

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ianmacd:

"The main doctrine for the followers of Islam is that Islam becomes the dominant, sole religion in this country and world wide. There is no tolerance or acceptance of any other Faith in their minds".

You racists just don't get it do you? Who called the Invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq a 'crusade'? Who said God had told him to do it? What slavish adherent of this policy is a devout christian?


"every single muslim female I see is pregnant and there are 4 or 5 children round her".

What a load of racist filth

Ok, I'll do the maths 'cause you obviously cannot, your Malthusian overpopulation theories were disproved over one hundred years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:

Dear me Deane - I am advocating the short and sharp shift for what is considered by most to be absolute and utter vileness and you're calling me a bigot?

You said violent paedophiles are not human. You said that you doubt that God forgives them. You've gone on in the abortion thread about the sanctity of life - but seem to have lost your compassion for those that hurt the innocent.

What would Jesus do I wonder? Would he be lobbying parliament to execute the buggers?

It is easy to get worked up about these sorts of crimes; but a child is no more or less a victim than an adult victim of violent crime. What is it in particular about crimes against children that merits such especially harsh treatment by the justice system?

quote:

Good on you for aiming to help another forum member come to terms with themselves, Don.

Thanks but, um, no thanks...

Always here to help...even with lost causes

Cheers

Don

quote:

Please tell me your kidding

I'm kidding.....but there's a few on here who aren't.

These were merely headings, aide-momoires, topics to be discussed lucidly and separately.

They were not suggestions that we should punish terrorists etc (clearly we know from past experience and the advice of one or two do-gooders on here that punishment serves no purpose whatsoever - other than the gratuitous self-satisfied feeling of revenge within the on-looking population under attack)

My view is that we waste too much time and resource looking after the rights of criminals and not enough looking after victims.

I also consider that over-population is the root cause of many of our global problems. The world can only support something like one billion people, not 6 billion.

Cheers

Don

PS I've changed this post quite a bit since I first hit the "post now" key - apologies if this has confused anybody

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
What a load of racist filth

Chill out, Malky.

And may I suggest you come up to Rochdale and Bradford and look at the realities you are obviously cushioned from down in beautiful Sussex?

To quote myself earlier:

"To be honest, the liberal do-gooders/human rights pushers in this country scare me more than the terrorists sometimes."

quote:

My view is that we waste too much time and resource looking after the rights of criminals and not enough looking after victims.

I also consider that over-population is the root cause of many of our global problems. The world can only support something like one billion people, not 6 billion.

Don, I agree with every word you are saying.

It's funny how quickly the do-gooders on here get so hot under the collar as soon as any sensible discussion on punishment etc is mentioned.

People like them are bringing this country to it's knees with their "we must first understand the reasons behind terrorism" crap and are equally quick to brand you a racist if you don't agree. Idiots.

Regards, Ian

quote:

Originally posted by Malky:
Terrorism is a despicable activity. There are hugely complex reasons for its existence. ...Those who prefer to frame the issue in black and white terms, who fail to realise that retribution is self defeating .

Absolutely right, but it's difficult to understand which side you are talking about.

The reasons for 9/11 are important to understand certainly, but terrorism has no justification whatsoever, and it's a dangerous road to accept it's reasoning because it can easily lead to excusing it. There may be problems with foreign policy, but terrorism is not excusable and if this thread is about human rights, then remember that terrorism is a crime against humanity. Funny how it all turns full circle isn't it. Anyone here putting the cause of terrorism at the feet of the western governments is indirectly supporting a crime against humanity.

The fact exists that we now for the first time have a model. We have the success of NI to give us clues as to how this can be resolved, but it remains that in NI although the political leaders are now best chums, the community remains divided. I have friends in Belfast and was there a short time ago and was shown that within the very tiny minority that were activists, their bigotry remains; they just have to button it now. Until that generation dies off to be replaced with a new generation that knows only peace, then there will always be a threat that someone will do something stupid, but it remains that NI is an example for us to use in this new situation we find ourselves in.
I love this country being multi-coloured, multi-racial & multi-religion. We don't all look pale and the same. It will work, but we need to get a grip on our community leaders to sort out their own.
The most important thing to remember above all else is that we all (excluding terrorists) want the same thing. We all want to live together in peace. This threat has nothing to do with race or immigration at all, so why try to relate it?