Guest MattP Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Punish them where it hurts. No Quran, no Islamic literature, no halal food, no prayer room, isolation from other inmates, for the rest of their lives not a single access to a word or sight of the religion. That would be hell for them. It shouldn't be a problem either as the media keep telling us they aren't 'real muslims' so this shouldn't cause a problem. That's exactly what I'd do.
Uncle Albert Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 If it makes them a martyr or not, I would of killed the pair of them.
ADK Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 If they'd killed my family member I'd want them dead. I wouldn't want to have to worry about if they are being allowed to corrupt other inmates with their ideology or if they will be released as part of a negoiation with an Islamic group or if they will be released in 20 years time. They wouldn't be martyrs either, it wouldn't exalt them amongst ordinary Muslims. They would just be dead criminals, or dead terrorists however you want to look at it. Whether they want to die or not is irrelevant, their wishes are just irrelevant. I think the way the US handled Bin Laden shows that killing someone can be the better option. They could have put him on trial in front of the world, but this would have given him a platform and no doubt imprisoning him would have incited terrorist groups to take hostages in an attempt to have him freed. Instead they shot him, and buried the body at sea. The fallout was minor and we've heard little of Bin Laden since.
Uncle Albert Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 If they'd killed my family member I'd want them dead. I wouldn't want to have to worry about if they are being allowed to corrupt other inmates with their ideology or if they will be released as part of a negoiation with an Islamic group or if they will be released in 20 years time. They wouldn't be martyrs either, it wouldn't exalt them amongst ordinary Muslims. They would just be dead criminals, or dead terrorists however you want to look at it. Whether they want to die or not is irrelevant, their wishes are just irrelevant. I think the way the US handled Bin Laden shows that killing someone can be the better option. They could have put him on trial in front of the world, but this would have given him a platform and no doubt imprisoning him would have incited terrorist groups to take hostages in an attempt to have him freed. Instead they shot him, and buried the body at sea. The fallout was minor and we've heard little of Bin Laden since. You're spot on. I honestly think they will be dead within a few months anyway, so we won't have long to wait.
MooseBreath Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 If they'd killed my family member I'd want them dead. I wouldn't want to have to worry about if they are being allowed to corrupt other inmates with their ideology or if they will be released as part of a negoiation with an Islamic group or if they will be released in 20 years time. They wouldn't be martyrs either, it wouldn't exalt them amongst ordinary Muslims. They would just be dead criminals, or dead terrorists however you want to look at it. Whether they want to die or not is irrelevant, their wishes are just irrelevant. I think the way the US handled Bin Laden shows that killing someone can be the better option. They could have put him on trial in front of the world, but this would have given him a platform and no doubt imprisoning him would have incited terrorist groups to take hostages in an attempt to have him freed. Instead they shot him, and buried the body at sea. The fallout was minor and we've heard little of Bin Laden since. They would be martyrs in the eyes of other extremists, and giving them what they want would be like an advert to the rest of them telling them they can come to the UK, commit terrible crimes and get a nice package of fame, notoriety and painless martyrdom. The most effective punishment is the one that does most to prevent the same thing happening again, and killing them isn't it.
FoxesAreBlue Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Can we just rip their bolloks off at the root?
Voll Blau Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 If they'd killed my family member I'd want them dead. I wouldn't want to have to worry about if they are being allowed to corrupt other inmates with their ideology or if they will be released as part of a negoiation with an Islamic group or if they will be released in 20 years time. They wouldn't be martyrs either, it wouldn't exalt them amongst ordinary Muslims. They would just be dead criminals, or dead terrorists however you want to look at it. Whether they want to die or not is irrelevant, their wishes are just irrelevant. I think the way the US handled Bin Laden shows that killing someone can be the better option. They could have put him on trial in front of the world, but this would have given him a platform and no doubt imprisoning him would have incited terrorist groups to take hostages in an attempt to have him freed. Instead they shot him, and buried the body at sea. The fallout was minor and we've heard little of Bin Laden since. Which is exactly why the victims of crime aren't the ones allowed to decide the punishment. I'm sure the vast majority of us would feel that way.
Captain... Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 I don't think they would be martyrs, if they were tried and killed in the correct way, but the fact it would be changing a fundamental UK law, would give them much more exposure than they deserve. We shouldn't reduce ourselves to their level. I like the idea of medical testing, they can earn credits to buy food by being tested on, or by performing basic tasks, this goes for all prisoners. If the worry is cost of life imprisonment then set them on an exercise bikes generating eletricity to power our western decadence, get them making clothes and toys for a pittance and we can use their labour to undercut China's manufacturing costs and bring manufacturing back to the UK. Make them and other prisoners work for their food and board, rather than take more from our society.
Webbo Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 . If the worry is cost of life imprisonment then set them on an exercise bikes generating eletricity to power our western decadence, I've often thought this would be good idea. I don't suppose it would generate much or ever be implemented but it has to better that they contributing something.
Zingari Posted 27 February 2014 Posted 27 February 2014 Can we just rip their bolloks off at the root? good shout , it worked for football hooligans
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 28 February 2014 Posted 28 February 2014 If it makes them a martyr or not, I would of killed the pair of them.In the most slow painful way possible I agree
absolutelegend Posted 28 February 2014 Posted 28 February 2014 I just hope that they aren't afforded any luxuries in prison - tv, radio, or any other contact with the outside world. that probably goes against some lefty human rights rubbish though.
Zingari Posted 3 March 2014 Posted 3 March 2014 is this the genuine film of the killer ? it looks really odd to me . http://youtu.be/rckLU3_nCGM
MooseBreath Posted 3 March 2014 Posted 3 March 2014 That's the same video that was shown all over the place at the time yes. No idea what has gone on with the editing of that particular version though. What are you thinking, that the strange editing means the video was staged to cover up what really happened?
Guest MattP Posted 3 March 2014 Posted 3 March 2014 is this the genuine film of the killer ? it looks really odd to me . http://youtu.be/rckLU3_nCGM What is odd about it?
Zingari Posted 3 March 2014 Posted 3 March 2014 What is odd about it? OK I'm presuming its genuine then Well, for a start there doesn't seem to be any blood on his hands , and there's certainly none on his clothes either , theres no blood in the road and people are walking by as if they aren't particularly bothered by the scene. The other attacker ( not in shot here) has a very light coat on and there's no blood on him either, how can you butcher someone without getting splattered in blood ? And if you listen to the kids in the bus at the beginning , they are talking about buying something from the shop etc, would they really be that calm ? The thing that really puzzles me is between 15 secs and 18 secs you can hear one kid say " there's another little film scene yet in't there" as though he thinks it's not real and they are waiting for another "scene". And of course there was another scene ( the shoot out) how did the kid know there was going to be another scene? Why would he even think that unless he'd been told there was going to be " another little film scene"? Does no one else think this looks (and sounds) a bit odd ?
breadandcheese Posted 3 March 2014 Posted 3 March 2014 OK I'm presuming its genuine then Well, for a start there doesn't seem to be any blood on his hands , and there's certainly none on his clothes either , theres no blood in the road and people are walking by as if they aren't particularly bothered by the scene. The other attacker ( not in shot here) has a very light coat on and there's no blood on him either, how can you butcher someone without getting splattered in blood ? And if you listen to the kids in the bus at the beginning , they are talking about buying something from the shop etc, would they really be that calm ? The thing that really puzzles me is between 15 secs and 18 secs you can hear one kid say " there's another little film scene yet in't there" as though he thinks it's not real and they are waiting for another "scene". And of course there was another scene ( the shoot out) how did the kid know there was going to be another scene? Why would he even think that unless he'd been told there was going to be " another little film scene"? Does no one else think this looks (and sounds) a bit odd ? Your post should be held up as an example of how ****ing annoying conspiracy theorists are. This is a brutal murder that happened in broad daylight, witnessed by many people, admitted to by the murderers who committed it and left a toddler without his father. There is no debate or possible angle that could suggest anything other than what happened, yet there's a sycophantic need to find a conspiracy and in so doing, once you've twisted all logic, excuse the perpetrators and act as an apologist for them.
The God Emperor Posted 3 March 2014 Posted 3 March 2014 OK I'm presuming its genuine then Well, for a start there doesn't seem to be any blood on his hands , and there's certainly none on his clothes either , theres no blood in the road and people are walking by as if they aren't particularly bothered by the scene. The other attacker ( not in shot here) has a very light coat on and there's no blood on him either, how can you butcher someone without getting splattered in blood ? And if you listen to the kids in the bus at the beginning , they are talking about buying something from the shop etc, would they really be that calm ? The thing that really puzzles me is between 15 secs and 18 secs you can hear one kid say " there's another little film scene yet in't there" as though he thinks it's not real and they are waiting for another "scene". And of course there was another scene ( the shoot out) how did the kid know there was going to be another scene? Why would he even think that unless he'd been told there was going to be " another little film scene"? Does no one else think this looks (and sounds) a bit odd ? I agree with you Zing. as my Argentine grandfather Heinrich used to say "if something is suspicious the Jews are involved in some way".
Guest MattP Posted 3 March 2014 Posted 3 March 2014 OK I'm presuming its genuine then Well, for a start there doesn't seem to be any blood on his hands , and there's certainly none on his clothes either , theres no blood in the road and people are walking by as if they aren't particularly bothered by the scene. The other attacker ( not in shot here) has a very light coat on and there's no blood on him either, how can you butcher someone without getting splattered in blood ? And if you listen to the kids in the bus at the beginning , they are talking about buying something from the shop etc, would they really be that calm ? The thing that really puzzles me is between 15 secs and 18 secs you can hear one kid say " there's another little film scene yet in't there" as though he thinks it's not real and they are waiting for another "scene". And of course there was another scene ( the shoot out) how did the kid know there was going to be another scene? Why would he even think that unless he'd been told there was going to be " another little film scene"? Does no one else think this looks (and sounds) a bit odd ? I don't know where to start? His hands are covered in blood in my eyes. Not bothered by the scene? Woman are stroking his body as he is clearly lying there having had his life taken from him, of course people are keeping a distance, two maniacs weilding knives are shouting around the place. A bus load of kids involved in the conspiracy as well? Maybe at the time they did think it was a film, what can you see from a bus? Very little. Why did he say that? Who knows. Do you not think we might have heard about it from someone had a busload of people been planted there to watch the scene unfold? I don't know what more to say here, you've actually managed to make consipracy theorists look even more nuts, this was a brutal murder in broad daylight witnessed by a lot of people, a jury was shown the images of it, everyone in the court room had to watch it. To pull off something like this (for what reason I have no idea) you would need an incredible amount of stooges and people in on it, it would be impossible. You've reached the point of no return I think, nothing in your eyes can ever be normal or natural, you are going to find it impossible to look at anything logically again.
Zingari Posted 3 March 2014 Posted 3 March 2014 flippin heck , i only asked a couple of question about the film .
ADK Posted 3 March 2014 Posted 3 March 2014 I don't want to watch the video as if doing so might somehow encourage a copycat to do the same thing to get "views", but from the still, it looks like he's holding a bloody knife and has blood all over his hands.
Bert Posted 3 March 2014 Posted 3 March 2014 OK I'm presuming its genuine then Well, for a start there doesn't seem to be any blood on his hands , and there's certainly none on his clothes either , theres no blood in the road and people are walking by as if they aren't particularly bothered by the scene. The other attacker ( not in shot here) has a very light coat on and there's no blood on him either, how can you butcher someone without getting splattered in blood ? And if you listen to the kids in the bus at the beginning , they are talking about buying something from the shop etc, would they really be that calm ? The thing that really puzzles me is between 15 secs and 18 secs you can hear one kid say " there's another little film scene yet in't there" as though he thinks it's not real and they are waiting for another "scene". And of course there was another scene ( the shoot out) how did the kid know there was going to be another scene? Why would he even think that unless he'd been told there was going to be " another little film scene"? Does no one else think this looks (and sounds) a bit odd ? His hands are drenched in blood.
MooseBreath Posted 3 March 2014 Posted 3 March 2014 Jesus christ zing you are plumbing new depths here. By trivialising that incident with your ludicrous theory you risk causing quite a lot of offence
Zingari Posted 3 March 2014 Posted 3 March 2014 His hands are drenched in blood. Jesus christ zing you are plumbing new depths here. By trivialising that incident with your ludicrous theory you risk causing quite a lot of offence sorry everyone ,i accept it did happen as we've been told , i just thought it looked odd that's all sleep easy everyone
MC Prussian Posted 3 March 2014 Posted 3 March 2014 Jesus christ zing you are plumbing new depths here. By trivialising that incident with your ludicrous theory you risk causing quite a lot of offence As far as I can tell, he was merely asking questions about the video, nothing else. I can't see that being "trivializing".
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.