Drug smuggler Akmal Shaikh executed

hopalong85

walshb wrote: »

May I ask what you would call quality?

Not all their articles are sensationalist. I find some very good articles
too, very informative, diverse and in-depth

lmao!:D

walshb

hopalong85 wrote: »

lmao!:D

Good for you!

Sheeps

walshb wrote: »

May I ask what you would call quality?

Not all their articles are sensationalist. I find some very good articles
too, very informative, diverse and in-depth

Is this some kind of weak troll? I've had first hand experience someone who was victim of a slander campaign by the Irish Daily Mail. The daily mail is a filthy rag, the likes I would not even wipe my arse with.

steviec

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Doesn't matter where they fly the body, be it to the western world or down the road in China.

The crime was committed in China, and its up to the Chinese justice system what happens to him.

Why the presumption that a westerner should be immune, because we are wealthier?

I think the presumption is that everyone should be immune to this kind of treatment regardless of where they are from, but because he is a Westerner we have more of an opening to get involved.

I don't think anyone believes that you have the right to go to other countries and break the law, however if we believe the law or judicial systems of these countries are unjust then we shouldn't just sit back and do nothing.

People are saying why should he be dealt with fairly when a Chinese person wouldn't - well two wrongs don't make a right. And maybe if enough outside pressure was put on China for the sake of a westerner, the Chinese people might see that and start standing up for themselves and take steps towards human rights improvements that the country so desperately needs.

Of course that's precisely the reason why the Chinese government would never bend to pressure from Europe in a case like this.

walshb

Sheeps wrote: »

Is this some kind of weak troll? I've had first hand experience someone who was victim of a slander campaign by the Irish Daily Mail. The daily mail is a filthy rag, the likes I would not even wipe my arse with.

So, anyone who likes it must be a troll?:rolleyes:

Anyway, the paper seemed to wrong you in some way, so I can see why
you are so anti the Mail.

Sheeps

walshb wrote: »

So, anyone who likes it must be a troll?:rolleyes:

No, but i'd be suspicious of someone who argued in favor of the notion that it was a quality source of news in a serious manner.

ED E

Black Magic wrote: »

Nobody should be killed with a death penalty. Shove him in a jail instead but don't kill him.

So the public can pay for him to learn to be a better criminal?

Seaneh wrote: »

Drug sumgglers adversly affect the lives of hundreds if not thousands of people directly and inderictly.


by sumggling the 4kg of smack he was helping to fund human trafficing, child prostution, murder, ileagle firearms dealing, money laundering and countless other crimes you personally would consider detestful.

So sit there with your head in the sand and say he doesnt deserve to die, I'll look at the reality of it.

Bang on.

Dravokivich wrote: »

The guy broke the law in China, They punished him in occordance with thier law... they did...

In short... don't break the law in China... you'll be fucked.

- Drav!

Bang on again!


Also, if he was really that out of it he should have been institutionalized in the UK years ago. To me he sounds like a guy that says F@ck You to everyone he meets, including his kids by some reports. If he's so ignorant as to do the same to the chinese government well he got exactly what he deserved.

If you dont like the way the chinese judicial system works then DONT BLOODY GO THERE! Same cant be said for chinese nationals but thats another topic entirely.

walshb

steviec wrote: »

I don't think anyone believes that you have the right to go to other countries and break the law, however if we believe the law or judicial systems of these countries are unjust then we shouldn't just sit back and do nothing.
.

But what we believe and what they believe are different; and many here would agree with the death penalty, and many would not. I agree with the death penalty for certain crimes.

me_right_one

me_right_one wrote: »

and everyone in the country did the leaving cert!

emmmm, no they didn't.

walshb

Sheeps wrote: »

No, but i'd be suspicious of someone who argued in favor of the notion that it was a quality source of news in a serious manner.

It is a source of news. You seem to be implying that it only prints lies and innuendo; this is inaccurate. It might not be the best source, but it still provides good news coverage, and a wide array of articles. It's a damn good read if you ask me. The Health and Business sections are outstanding. Maybe you have an issue with some controversial topics.

FarmerGreen

Puts you right off smuggling drugs into China though, doesn't it.

steviec

walshb wrote: »

But what we believe and what they believe are different; and many here would agree with the death penalty, and many would not. I agree with the death penalty for certain crimes.

Just because they believe it, doesn't mean that everyone else should stand by and let them do it because it's their country, their rules.

Obviously that's within reason and I don't want to say we should be forcing Western values on every other nation, but in the case of a person who appears to have been mentally disabled being executed after a rushed secretive trial and without proper medical examination, I think that's a strong enough case for us to stick our nose in and make some noise, even if we know the Chinese government isn't going to back down.

slipss

walshb wrote: »

So, anyone who likes it must be a troll?:rolleyes:

Anyway, the paper seemed to wrong you in some way, so I can see why
you are so anti the Mail.

Most people are anti the mail walsh. If someone reads it for entertainment purposes that's fine. I would just hope it's readers except that The Daily Mail are the print media version of a troll. A huge amount of what they report is opinion pieces full of journalistic innacuracies written with no other purpose but to ellicit a sensationalist reaction. I'm sure they also have some good articles from time to time but the general attitude of the majority in both the UK and Ireland is that it's The Daily Troll.

walshb

steviec wrote: »

Just because they believe it, doesn't mean that everyone else should stand by and let them do it because it's their country, their rules.

Obviously that's within reason and I don't want to say we should be forcing Western values on every other nation, but in the case of a person who appears to have been mentally disabled being executed after a rushed secretive trial and without proper medical examination, I think that's a strong enough case for us to stick our nose in and make some noise, even if we know the Chinese government isn't going to back down.

Yeah, well I think it's fair to assume that the mental issue was just a red herring thrown in.

Liam Byrne

steviec wrote: »

People are saying why should he be dealt with fairly when a Chinese person wouldn't

But he was dealt with fairly.

1) The penalty for the crime was there
2) He committed the crime
3) He was punished according to the penalty

It's not like China did a FIFA on the seeding of the crime or something.

Everything was perfectly fair, and if he didn't want to be lawfully executed then it would have been damn easy for him to prevent it. Just don't do the bloody crime!

slipss

FarmerGreen wrote: »

Puts you right off smuggling drugs into China though, doesn't it.

Apparently didn't put Akmal Shaikh right off smuggling drugs into China

Ridley

FarmerGreen wrote: »

Puts you right off smuggling drugs into China though, doesn't it.

Punch it, Chu-ih!

FarmerGreen

slipss wrote: »

Apparently didn't put Akmal Shaikh right off smuggling drugs into China

It has now.

slipss

FarmerGreen wrote: »

It has now.

lol.

And what with being the only heroin smuggler left in the world, China's major heroin problem which has been getting progressively worse since the late 80's is now sure to be a thing of the past.

Stercus Accidit

OutlawPete wrote: »

...

I make a point of ignoring posts like the above, if you can't make a clear point or argument in a succinct set of paragraphs and need to resort to nit picking individual words out of context, you aren't worth interacting with.

Emotions of loved ones don't come into this situation, there are many upset familes out there, some of the people executed don't have families I imagine.

Should only those without loved ones be killed? Nonsense, emotions don't affect anything to do with this situation, only the law, and that won't be changed by tears and weak moral posturing.

OutlawPete

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

I make a point of ignoring posts like the above, if you can't make a clear point or argument in a succinct set of paragraphs and need to resort to nit picking individual words out of context, you aren't worth interacting with..

LMAO ..

Yeah right mate, cop out of the year award.

Everyone here can read you know.

Here's that post again just in case anyone wants to take another look ..

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63712501&postcount=131

I dealt with each and every one of your arguments and if you cannot follow suit then don't bother replying.

My answers were short and to the point and so it shouldn't be too much trouble for ya.

Would you rather I just addressed one of your comments and ignored the rest of the points you made in the post?? :rolleyes:

hooradiation

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But he was dealt with fairly.

1) The penalty for the crime was there
2) He committed the crime
3) He was punished according to the penalty

It's not like China did a FIFA on the seeding of the crime or something.

Everything was perfectly fair, and if he didn't want to be lawfully executed then it would have been damn easy for him to prevent it. Just don't do the bloody crime!

Following the rule to the letter without any regard for the spirit of the law or for the individual circumstances is the polar opposite of fair.

Which is something most people have figured out by now.

Stercus Accidit

OutlawPete wrote: »

LMAO ..

Yeah right mate, cop out of the year award.

Everyone here can read you know.

Here's that post again just in case anyone wants to take another look ..

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63712501&postcount=131

I dealt with each and every one of your arguments and if you cannot follow suit then don't bother replying.

My answers were short and to the point and so it shouldn't be too much trouble for ya.

Would you rather I just addressed one of your comments and ignored the rest of the points you made in the post?? :rolleyes:

No cop out at all on my part, and no response to a series of arguments on yours, just a wall of pedantry that goes nowhere.

Why would the emotions of loved ones have any bearing on the outcome of this case? Of course they are upset, but that is populist bleating, not an actual point of consideration for the law.

This response is not twice the height of my screen, and is to the point.

OutlawPete

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

No cop out at all on my part, and no response to a series of arguments on yours, just a wall of pedantry that goes nowhere.

Look, I gave every clear reasons why I am againist the death penalty in that post and I also explained that just because I have empathy for this man DOES NOT then mean I don't care about the Chinese people that have had worse treatment.

If you want the ignore all the points that I made in that post then do so.

However, do not be under any illusion that what you have done here has fooled anyone - it hasn't.

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Why would the emotions of loved ones have any bearing on the outcome of this case? Of course they are upset, but that is populist bleating, not an actual point of consideration for the law..

I have adressed this point you keep making in the following post:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&postcount=131

If you wish to debate this matter further with me, then do so via that post.

I showed your post the respect it deserved and suggest you do the same with mine.

Stercus Accidit

If I were to quote a massive multi quote post, for it to make any sense, I would have to respond with about as many individual points, threads with one or two of those types of posts become unbearable, not just because of their length, but because multiple out of context sentences soon become wildly off-topic and pedantic. This is impossible to avoid if you respond in kind and is why I do avoid them.

I understand your point regarding emotional trauma being grounds to disagree with the death penalty, but that is in a wider context. In this case, my point is that these emotions, for an individual case, cannot and should not affect it, because while one man may be saved by a heart rending sob story, the next guy with a lower profile passport will get the chop regardless.

In individual cases emotions have no place as a mitigating factor, in any legal system. You may well disagree with china on the whole, I do, but in this case they acted in accordance with their laws. The overall injustice of a death penalty for certain crimes doesn't affect this individual case.

OutlawPete

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

......

Sorry, mate .. didn't read that.

Your paragraphs are too clumpy.

Doesn't feel nice, does it?

Stercus Accidit

OutlawPete wrote: »

Sorry, mate .. didn't read that.

Your paragraphs are too clumpy.

Doesn't feel nice, does it?

Find one person who prefers a wall of quote tennis versus an easily readable post.

If I were to follow suit I'd call that a "cop out of the year" now.

:rolleyes: sums it up at this stage TBH.

OutlawPete

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Find one person who prefers a wall of quote tennis versus an easily readable post.

If I were to follow suit I'd call that a "cop out of the year" now.

:rolleyes: sums it up at this stage TBH.

Well, me .. I prefer it when someone replies to my points with quotes as then at least, I know that they have bothered to actual read the post and not just replied with more bulls**t.

You made a lot of nonsense remarks in your post and I just wanted to make sure I dealt with each one so that you wouldn't be making them again.

If you don't want to reply to this post, then don't.

I won't lose any sleep over it.

Liam Byrne

hooradiation wrote: »

Following the rule to the letter without any regard for the spirit of the law or for the individual circumstances is the polar opposite of fair.

Bull! What is "the spirit of the law" ? What "individual circumstances" ?

He claimed to have a disorder, with no medical proof.
He broke laws in other countries.

hooradiation wrote: »

Which is something most people have figured out by now.

Pretty pathetic argument, TBH......who are these "most people" ? Those who accept and respect the law, and know that breaking it is wrong, regardless of what punishment is associated with it ? I don't care what punishments exist for serious crimes, because I'll never be committing them.

And if a punishment is well-known and someone still chooses to commit the crime, then that's their choice, and it's completely fair.