What's all the hoo har about jihadists that cut off innocent people's heads, having been caught in Syria and shipped to the United States for trial and punishment. What's it the business of ours, they are no longer British citizens.
This subject cropped up on the Jeremy Vine phone-in. Some left wing liberal snowflake phoned in and was ranting that it was premature to be talking about execution as they hadn't been tried in a court yet, so they were not killers, they were 'alleged' killers. I did chuckle when Vine pointed out that they'd 'filmed themselves beheading their victims'.
Apparently when they die a martyr they get 20 virgins , the wife follows at a later stage and is made more beautiful and irresistible to her husband so he looses interest in the others That's a bit unfair Also , where do they get so many virgins, surly they must have run out by now
Putting humans to death is either wrong or it isn't. It doesn't matter whether it's these utterly pathetic & worthless 'oles or whether it's the equally worthless Thomas Mair or the obnoxious David Norris; you could happily argue that their lives are not worth a fig following what they have done. But, if we agree that putting human lives to death is wrong, then it's wrong. And there are many reasons to believe that it is wrong. And when those who have felt the loss of their loved ones most deeply manage to maintain the truly astonishing level of dignity of seeing past the instant need for revenge or closure or whatever you want to call it, then surely the rest of us should sit back and wonder "Wow - do they have a message for us or what?" And the incredible thing is that those bereaved by the foul actions of those above do seemingly have this wider insight, this incredible dignity. They certainly see a bigger picture. Perhaps I've missed some 'technical' political detail in Sajid Javid's decision to not seek assurance over the death penalty, but until that becomes clear, this sorry case is just one more example of the former Great Britain's descent in to unethical oblivion.
But the “Former Great Britain” did have tougher laws and even executions for crimes of murder. Now that we are not (allegedly) “Great” anymore, coincides with very weak laws.
And these tougher laws didn't work. I said there are reasons why it's wrong, and that's one of them. I ain't going to pursue this with you, Heat - you either read and learn from history or you don't. But I ain't going to waste time discussing with you what's in your 'gut' or your 'heart', because they don't match up with reality. The UK's descent in the eyes of the world continues unabated.
I already have an opinion on death penalties and other killings. I believe it is wrong to kill a person, with the only exception if it is in self defence, or to defend others. However, it could be argued that targeting some murders/terrorists would actually save lives
How would the putting to death of Alexanda Kotey, El Shafee Elsheikh, Thomas Mair or David Norris actually save lives? (Damn - I wasn't going to pursue...)
Absolute morality? Did you catch religion in your absence? Or now that the battle for equal rights has been won, you thought you’d start on equal wrongs? Nah. I just don’t see it AS. There are degrees of wrong. A doctor who hastens the demise of someone in pain isn’t as wrong a terrorist, just because they both take a life. Something is either wrong or isn’t? Maybe (I don’t agree, but let’s explore it), but if so then even the most liberal amongst us must admit that there’s WRONG and there’s wrong. In which case, there’s not a font size small enough for me to write an objection to this decision. Yeah, yeah, I know - but it’s only a little beast. Edit: If Mair had killed on foreign soil and the US had him and wanted to execute him. No, I probably wouldn’t really care about that either.
No business of ours if our government have no objections to these rather objectionable pieces of human dross, being tried in the US. Actually a very astute move. If they are found guilty in the US and receive a life sentence, we wont have to pay for their incarceration. Everybodys happy ( apart from the American taxpayers )
I wouldn't say it's inherently right or wrong, it all depends on the circumstances. In this case I couldn't give a toss. These barbarians willfully gave up any right they held under, UK law, and now the, USA have capture them it's up to them to follow due process as according to the rights of the state they are lawfully tried in. Who cares? At least our foreign secretary has the backing of 99% of the population on this one.
And we all know why there will be a successful prosecution and a just sentence in the US but not the UK, don't we. The European court of human rights wont be interfering in this case.
As a compromise maybe we should democratically elect a modern day Hades to preside over a personalized living purgatory for the individual perpetrator. JCJ EU BOJO Eton Obama and Guantanamo bay DA. Screwfix Community forum.
Putting to death some murderers will no doubt not save lives. But I did say “some” in my previous post. As in, killing some murderers/terrorists will prevent some of them continuing their murdering. I am supporting the innocent person, whether they be a member of the police, or just an ordinary member of the public. Murderers/terrorists come second place The U.K. is very weak on fighting serious crime