Pakistan reinstates the death penalty for terrorists

Hitchens

It may be the way for a lot of societies

Nodin

Hitchens wrote: »

It may be the way for a lot of societies

Yeah, that'll stop their suicide bombin.

Hitchens

wit.............or half?

CrazyRabbit

A death sentence for those who fully intend to die for the glory of Allah is pretty pointless.

c_man

Hitchens wrote: »

It may be the way for a lot of societies

I don't think we should be taking any pointers on how to run a society from the likes of Pakistan.

end of the road

obviously the government there condone it then.

Hitchens

c_man wrote: »

I don't think we should be taking any pointers on how to run a society from the likes of Pakistan.

they're human beings too

AboutaWeekAgo

c_man wrote: »

I don't think we should be taking any pointers on how to run a society from the likes of Pakistan.

The Ireland cricket team could take some pointers from them. Say what you about Pakistan but them boys know how to play cricket ball!

wnolan1992

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

A death sentence for those who fully intend to die for the glory of Allah is pretty pointless.

Lovely "terrorist" = "muslim" correlation you drew there.

o1s1n

It also really depends how you define 'terrorist'.

Speaking out about government policies? You're undermining the establishment and a terrorist - off to the firing squad with you.

GalwayGuitar

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Lovely "terrorist" = "muslim" correlation you drew there.

He didn't say that.

Hitchens

o1s1n wrote: »

It also really depends how you define 'terrorist'.

Speaking out about government policies? You're undermining the establishment and a terrorist - off to the firing squad with you.

oh dear..................no, but would you think that riddling schoolkids with bullets might be classed as terrorism?

Gummy Panda

Worse OP ever

wnolan1992

Hitchens wrote: »

oh dear..................no, but would you think that riddling schoolkids with bullets might be classed as terrorism?

Depends. I mean, were the Columbine kids terrorists or just f*cked up in the head...

c_man

Hitchens wrote: »

they're human beings too

We're all human beings, let's stop the killing.

Kermit.de.frog

o1s1n wrote: »

It also really depends how you define 'terrorist'.

Speaking out about government policies?

So the Taliban when they murdered those school children were merely "speaking out against government policies"?

I think it's quite clear what they mean by terrorism and it's not the opposition political entities.

Hitchens

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Depends. I mean, were the Columbine kids terrorists or just f*cked up in the head...

what do you think?

wnolan1992

Hitchens wrote: »

what do you think?

Depends on whether I want to justify putting them to death or not...

What they mean and what it could be misused for in the future are different things

GalwayGuitar

The ones who attacked the school should be executed.

Klim

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Worse OP ever

There's been badder and far worser before.

Skylinehead

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

The ones who attacked the school should be executed.

Yes, hang those corpses! Then quarter the recently recorpsed corpses.

Andy-Pandy

If this happened anywhere else in the world the people would be baying for blood. If it happened in Ireland I would seriously consider my views on the death penalty. Act of savagery, you can't blame them for wanting revenge.

end of the road

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

The ones who attacked the school should be executed.

no they shouldn't. as executing them is a form of condoning what they did, by using the same tactic. the death penalty condones the crime its implemented for

crockholm

Could also be part of a logistical problem,quick executions of terrorrists reduce the bargaining Power of hostages,and,one could imagine that prison breakouts might be somewhat more common,so if there are to be breakouts in the future,there ought to be less terrorrists among the escapees.

WoollyRedHat

Killing will not stop terrorism.

Son Of A Vidic

Nodin wrote: »

Yeah, that'll stop their suicide bombin.

Was just thinking the same thing. Threatening fanatics who have no fear of death with the death penalty, is as about as useful as tits on a bull.

clevtrev

Id say about 99% of terrorists either kill themselves or are killed during their terror attacks

clevtrev

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

The ones who attacked the school should be executed.

I think they were all shot dead by police during the conflict...

Nodin

clevtrev wrote: »

I think they were all shot dead by police during the conflict...

All 8 had explosive vests, afaik, so one way or another, they'd no intention of surviving.

Cookie_Monster

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Killing will not stop terrorism.

only carpet bombing democracy into countries does that.

Amirani

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I think it's quite clear what they mean by terrorism and it's not the opposition political entities.

I don't, it's a very subjective word. Were the British Government right to execute the terrorists involved in 1916? Or were they revolutionaries/freedom fighters?

Should Apartheid South Africa have executed the terrorist that was Nelson Mandela?

Seeing as you think it's quite clear, how exactly do you define a terrorism? Is there a limit on the number of people who can be killed or they age they can be? Can the acts be religious or must they only be political? What percentage of society has to agree with them? Quite tricky questions when deciding whether or not the State should put a bullet in someone's head.

o1s1n

Hitchens wrote: »

oh dear..................no, but would you think that riddling schoolkids with bullets might be classed as terrorism?

I knew someone was going to say this :rolleyes:

Of course it's terrorism, that's why I said it 'depends how you define terrorism'

If their new law states 'those who riddle schoolchildren with bullets are terrorists and will be executed' I'm fairly sure we'll all be happy with that.

If their new law states 'terrorists will be executed' then they need to define what a terrorist is or the law could be used as a way to silence those who oppose the government.

I thought that was fairly obvious from my post.

Hoop66

It's only natural that people in Pakistan, faced with the horrors of that attack, are angry and looking for revenge.

But taking the long term view, its not likely to stop any terrorist acts, and just leads us down the road of violence begetting violence.

Is it not possible for humans to try a bit of evolving? Instead of the old eye for an eye bull**** that we've been pursuing?

Grayson

o1s1n wrote: »

I knew someone was going to say this :rolleyes:

Of course it's terrorism, that's why I said it 'depends how you define terrorism'

If their new law states 'those who riddle schoolchildren with bullets are terrorists and will be executed' I'm fairly sure we'll all be happy with that.

If their new law states 'terrorists will be executed' then they need to define what a terrorist is or the law could be used as a way to silence those who oppose the government.

I thought that was fairly obvious from my post.

I agree. It's too vague

I'm against it because of two reasons.

1) They'll use it to expand what's defined as terrorism.

2) people who are innocent could be executed. This is especially true in a country with a dodgy police/military. They'll get to a point where they need to find culprits and they'll just go "these blokes will do"

I'm also against the death penality on moral grounds but honestly if any of the guys who attacked the school were executed I'd find it very fcuking hard to feel anything positive for them. (I know they're dead already)

o1s1n

Grayson wrote: »

I agree. It's too vague

I'm against it because of two reasons.

1) They'll use it to expand what's defined as terrorism.

2) people who are innocent could be executed. This is especially true in a country with a dodgy police/military. They'll get to a point where they need to find culprits and they'll just go "these blokes will do"

I'm also against the death penality on moral grounds but honestly if any of the guys who attacked the school were executed I'd find it very fcuking hard to feel anything positive for them. (I know they're dead already)

People can be so short sighted when it comes to thinks like this.

-Terrorists commit an atrocity
-People want revenge and something done
-Government brings in a vague law which the people think is to deal with the atrocity and prevent it happening again
-People back a law they might be against in other circumstances

At no point do the people stop and think 'hmmm, maybe the government are in fact being opportunists here and trying to pass something in the heat of the moment which has wider implications than we realize'

I'm all for executing terrorists who commit atrocities like this, but the legislation needs to be worded in a way that's highly specific. Otherwise it risks being abused.

Mr Freeze

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Depends. I mean, were the Columbine kids terrorists or just f*cked up in the head...

I think they were f*cked up in the head, but if that same kind of shooting happened today in the US and if those 2 shooters were of a particular religion (or could in anyway be associated with a particular religion) and depending on what agenda you need to push, then yes, they would be terrorists.

That how we classify terrorists these days right? :pac:

Hitchens

"will someone think of the poor terrorists".........cop on lads ffs

wnolan1992

Hitchens wrote: »

"will someone think of the poor terrorists".........cop on lads ffs

Way to miss the point completely.

o1s1n

Hitchens wrote: »

"will someone think of the poor terrorists".........cop on lads ffs

Your ability to completely miss the point is pretty impressive.

Mr Freeze

Don't think anyone is condoning terrorists. To hell with them as far as I am concerned.

But the more terrorist attacks there are, the more governments create laws that affect normal people, they have zero impact on terrorists.

And they can call anyone a terrorist now if they wish.

DeadHand

A pointless, knee jerk move.

The most extreme terrorists hold no fear of death and would, in fact, welcome the martyrdom of an execution.

Anders Breivik, for example, demanded either freedom or execution. I think it was just that he was defied and instead caged for (what you'd hope would be) life.

This could well be counter productive. To use an example from our own history, public opinion was very much against the 1916 rising in it's immediate aftermath. The executions of the leaders (and others who should not have been) and the manner in which they were carried out swung public opinion in Ireland behind the IRA dramatically. This gave them the broad public support necessary to wage an effective guerilla war against the establishment.

Lest we get too self-righteous about this we should remember that our own state executed those it considered terrorists not so long ago. The fledgling Free State government executed many more Irishmen during the Civil War than the British government did during the War of Independence.

purplepanda

There's difference between fighting & killing armed soldiers for whatever political reason, however misguided, or defending your nation from invaders compared to those murdering hundreds of schoolchildren. The former can fight back & kill you easily the later can't.

Anyone attempting to kill hundreds of kids deserve to be executed if they are captured before they blow themselves up IMO. :mad: Those that help plan & aid such attacks should also face the death penalty if convicted & found guilty.

mac.in

Pakistan reinstates the death penalty for terrorists. On the other hand, Pakistani Court grants bail to Mumbai terror attack suspect that too within few days after heinous terrorist shooting attack on Pakistani school that killed more than 100 children.

Source:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/pakistani-court-grants-bail-to-alleged-mastermind-of-2008-mumbai-attack-1418900667"]


http://www.rferl.org/content/pakistan-terrorism-bail-mumbai-attacks/26750424.html

This event warrants what Hillary Clinton once said

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/93147c90-fbc7-11e0-9283-00144feab49a.html

Icepick

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Lovely "terrorist" = "muslim" correlation you drew there.

Who else is terrorizing Pakistan?