The Difference Between Them And Us (Disturbing)

[SabrinaDeep]

I think the preference is to always take the terrorists alive. Not because we're compassionate, but because you get no intel from a dead terrorist.
Of course, there's always the overriding practical reason that you'd rather have them dead if they're in a position to kill more innocents, rather than have to deal with the aftermath of potential victim's families when you had the killshot.

Let me pose this question for you though: Of the countries that suffered the major terrorist attacks for the last 4 months, (Canada, Australia, France), none have the death penalty. Do you think that fact goes through law enforcement's minds when they're dealing with the situation? As in: "If we catch this guy alive, he's gets to live out his life, as opposed to the innocents he's just killed. Screw that, Eye for an Eye bitch!"

Man, thanks a lot for bringing this back on track.

It might be, at least subconsciously. And yet sometimes i have the feeling that killing them on the spot whenever there was a chance to take them alive is simply more convenient (wrongly, in my opinion) from a pr point of view: i must trial you, i must interrogate you, it's going to be under the spotlight for a long time, interrogations in such situations might lead to rough practices by someone, part of the public opinion will question such practices, the longer it takes the more we'll upset part of the muslim world, we encourage retaliation aimed to the liberation of the offenders etc etc....like there was no return of investment and killing on the spot was the painless way to deal with it. It was a bit the sense of this thread: we seem to be afraid to deal with alive terrorists to our advantage, while they are not. My depiction of a possible big brother show was nothing else, but a provocation in relation to the video i posted to show that we are not fighting them with the same weapons and that killing them on the spot makes them look like martyrs which is exactly what plays in their favor when it comes to recruit more adepts and to get support from a part of the muslim community.
Think of this:

A) We are ready to kill and die and become martyrs for our ideals and if we capture the infidel we explain the Quran to them, they get enlightened, they convert, get tried, admit their sin, acknowledge as converted that they deserve death for their sins, we execute a just sentence.

B) We killed them on the spot, because they are dangerous.

What is more powerful? And Isn't B an essential link for A to be that powerful? There are no ideals or honor or values behind B, but killing someone ready to die for their ideals and values and honor. And the propaganda is served.

 

[mikexmoran]

Sabrina,

Part of my agrees with your approach and a good part of me disagrees with the approach and your version of history. I think arguing online is beneath us.
I propose we discuss it over a few cocktails. With those eyes I'm sure I'd see your side of things quickly.

Love,

Mike

 

[SabrinaDeep]

Sabrina,

Part of my agrees with your approach and a good part of me disagrees with the approach and your version of history. I think arguing online is beneath us.
I propose we discuss it over a few cocktails. With those eyes I'm sure I'd see your side of things quickly.

Love,

Mike

I love people disagreeing with me, i never had a problem with that. In fact it helps to comprehend things better and sometimes even to change my mind on things. It's when people attack you over details because they have nothing else to say that i get bored. It's easy to misunderstand a good slice of what is written in a forum, because the time and interaction are very limited and the lack of facial expressions and body language are not existing at all; some get it and eventually ask-for/stimulate a deeper explanation (and that is what makes the conversation ongoing), others use a more Taliban approach and simply attack you no matter what, making a fool of themselves.
So, yes: to discuss it over a few cocktails sounds always like a great idea. At mine or at yours?

 

[MustBeGood]

:catpopcorn:

 

[pool_hustler]

Holding you to what you say is trolling you? Letting You Misquote, misrepresent and just make shit up is the price one has to pay to get along with you? Well, you're in the right place. There's plenty here that feel the exact same way you do. But I'm not one of them. If you can't get your story straight, then find the source that gets it straight for you.

Casualties and losses in the Battle of France
Germany: 157,621 casualties
1,876 aircraft destroyed
795 tanks destroyed

Did they all trip on a banana peel?

Apparently
Those statistics would tend to strongly suggest otherwise, but you've been dismissed as "not knowing history", so... :dunno:

And what "contextualization" are you using to claim "not a shot was fired"?

Wondering that myself. Whole lot of shots being fired in this (or any) documentary (or newsreel) of The Battle Of France, which lasted roughly 6 weeks, as I recall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQI2VmonjxY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O3aAU4WdoU

 

[tvstrip]

There you go, we got a live one for once.

Belgian police kill two in raid on suspected Islamists
https://news.yahoo.com/belgian-tv-reports-three-dead-anti-terrorism-raid-173313873.html

 

[SabrinaDeep]

Suspected Islamists? That sounds pretty islamophobic. Just suspected terrorists. Ah, bad fascist media!

 

[Johan]

Suspected Islamists? That sounds pretty islamophobic. Just suspected terrorists. Ah, bad fascist media!

You gotta learn the difference between an islamist and a muslim, between Islam and islamism

An islamist is a supporter of Islamic fundamentalism. A muslim is just an islam believer.
Pretending all muslims are islamist is like painting all christians like Mike Huckabee or Bryan Fisher.