UKIP has the solution to terrorism

[Hibbyradge]

http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/24/ex-ukip-mep-calls-for-death-penalty-for-suicide-bombers-6658334/?utm_content=bufferfc17e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Peevemor]

http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/24/ex-ukip-mep-calls-for-death-penalty-for-suicide-bombers-6658334/?utm_content=bufferfc17e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Crikey! :rolleyes:

[Hibernia&Alba]

Introducing the death penalty for suicide bombers is the kind of logic one would expect from that lot.

[JeMeSouviens]

https://images.encyclopediadramatica.rs/5/52/Double-facepalm.jpg

[Pretty Boy]

It makes more sense than most of their policies tbf

[HiBremian]

It makes more sense than most of their policies tbf

Might work if the terrorist in question turns out to be a zombie. Would also help the post-Brexit faultering wooden stake industry.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Holmesdale Hibs]

It's one way to get a headline I suppose, even if it does sound a bit silly. Surely life in prison is more of a deterant. Especially if it actually meant life rather than 15 years for good behaviour. The death penalty would save a load of cash over a life time though.

[CapitalGreen]

It's one way to get a headline I suppose, even if it does sound a bit silly. Surely life in prison is more of a deterant. Especially if it actually meant life rather than 15 years for good behaviour. The death penalty would save a load of cash over a life time though.

Seriously?

[Pete]

It's one way to get a headline I suppose, even if it does sound a bit silly. Surely life in prison is more of a deterant. Especially if it actually meant life rather than 15 years for good behaviour. The death penalty would save a load of cash over a life time though.

I'd agree with the life in prison with no prospect of parole. That goes for would be bombers or anyone who is complicit. I'm sure the human rights laws that prevented us doing this in the past will not apply.

Killing them gives them the easy way out and is kind of what they wanted in the first place. Let them suffer.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

Seriously?

The comment about the cost wasn't completely serious, although it does grate that we'd spend £100k per year (I googled this, estimates vary) keeping a terrorist in jail when the money could be better spent. I was completely serious about life in jail.

[Hibrandenburg]

The comment about the cost wasn't completely serious, although it does grate that we'd spend £100k per year (I googled this, estimates vary) keeping a terrorist in jail when the money could be better spent. I was completely serious about life in jail.

Would need to be a very short sentence for suicide bombers though.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

Would need to be a very short sentence for suicide bombers though.

True. Although it would presumably be 'attempted' suicide bombers.

[CapitalGreen]

Would need to be a very short sentence for suicide bombers though.

😂😂

[Hibrandenburg]

True. Although it would presumably be 'attempted' suicide bombers.

Or repeat offenders.

[Sir David Gray]

Obviously "successful" suicide bombers can't face the death penalty for obvious reasons but it does certainly raise an important discussion. I do believe that those found guilty of being involved in a terrorist attack in any way, should face execution, if their guilt is beyond any doubt.

I also believe that if any dual citizens who weren't born here go abroad and are found to have taken part in any terrorist activity whilst they are there, they should lose their British citizenship rights and therefore banned from coming back to the UK.

[The Harp Awakes]

Sadly UKIP and the Tories are likely to get a bounce in the GE as a result the Manchester atrocity; being the parties most against immigration.

Both parties thrive on resistance to change, insecurity and fear = Conservatism. Through their blindness they cannot see that their policies, views and intransigence fuel the dogma of the militants and make the UK more susceptible to terrorist acts. Having said that, Tony Blair was the biggest offender and and his actions were culpible for many British deaths.

[NYHibby]

I also believe that if any dual citizens who weren't born here go abroad and are found to have taken part in any terrorist activity whilst they are there, they should lose their British citizenship rights and therefore banned from coming back to the UK.

Would you like me to pop over to your place and pick up my 2nd class citizen armband to wear? :rolleyes: Remember to make it blue! (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/df/d8/63/dfd86387e11bc904d5878736fc42bac1.jpg)

[JeMeSouviens]

Obviously "successful" suicide bombers can't face the death penalty for obvious reasons but it does certainly raise an important discussion. I do believe that those found guilty of being involved in a terrorist attack in any way, should face execution, if their guilt is beyond any doubt.

I also believe that if any dual citizens who weren't born here go abroad and are found to have taken part in any terrorist activity whilst they are there, they should lose their British citizenship rights and therefore banned from coming back to the UK.

I think if somebody has chosen martyrdom as their weapon of choice, we should perhaps make it harder for them rather than helping them out, no? :dunno:

[Holmesdale Hibs]

Would you like me to pop over to your place and pick up my 2nd class citizen armband to wear? :rolleyes: Remember to make it blue! (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/df/d8/63/dfd86387e11bc904d5878736fc42bac1.jpg)

SDG's point seems reasonable enough to me. If I was given duel citizenship in a country and then went to join a terrorist group fighting against it, it seems reasonable that I'd be banned from re-entry and have my duel citizenship revoked.

[Geo_1875]

SDG's point seems reasonable enough to me. If I was given duel citizenship in a country and then went to join a terrorist group fighting against it, it seems reasonable that I'd be banned from re-entry and have my duel citizenship revoked.

So you'd ban them from coming back to this country to be convicted for terrorism?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

SDG's point seems reasonable enough to me. If I was given duel citizenship in a country and then went to join a terrorist group fighting against it, it seems reasonable that I'd be banned from re-entry and have my duel citizenship revoked.

Agree with this. With rights come responsibilities, it has to be a two-way street.

[Holmesdale Hibs]

So you'd ban them from coming back to this country to be convicted for terrorism?

Fair point, I suppose they'd need to face trial here to determine whether they were guilty or not. If so, ideally they'd serve the sentence in their country of origin although not sure how realistic that is. I was more meaning they should never be allowed to walk the streets freely ever again.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://t.co/GUJwhMPCeG

[NYHibby]

SDG's point seems reasonable enough to me. If I was given duel citizenship in a country and then went to join a terrorist group fighting against it, it seems reasonable that I'd be banned from re-entry and have my duel citizenship revoked.


Fair point, I suppose they'd need to face trial here to determine whether they were guilty or not. If so, ideally they'd serve the sentence in their country of origin although not sure how realistic that is. I was more meaning they should never be allowed to walk the streets freely ever again.

To be clear, his post was about "dual citizens who weren't born here". So as well as capturing me in that category, you would be capturing the children of British couples who were born outside the UK, say someone like Boris Johnson or the child of a British couple temporally working in Ireland.

I'm sure you are aware that in this country you can be stripped of your citizenship without a trial. The Home Secretary exercises this power unilaterally.

So you don't see what the problem would be if two people, who are identical other than their place of birth and did exactly the same thing, were punished very differently solely because of where they were born?

If it is ok to ban these British citizens from ever entering the country again, why not just say that the Government should be able to ban any British citizen from ever returning?

Stripping people from their citizenship has a very murky history. As long as you two are ok with your support of Nazi policies...

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

To be clear, his post was about "dual citizens who weren't born here". So as well as capturing me in that category, you would be capturing the children of British couples who were born outside the UK, say someone like Boris Johnson or the child of a British couple temporally working in Ireland.

I'm sure you are aware that in this country you can be stripped of your citizenship without a trial. The Home Secretary exercises this power unilaterally.

So you don't see what the problem would be if two people, who are identical other than their place of birth and did exactly the same thing, were punished very differently solely because of where they were born?

If it is ok to ban these British citizens from ever entering the country again, why not just say that the Government should be able to ban any British citizen from ever returning?

Stripping people from their citizenship has a very murky history. As long as you two are ok with your support of Nazi policies...

If somebody has gained citizenship, then it is right that it shpuld be possible to strip them of it for major transgressions of the responsibilities that go with it - i.e. waging terrorist campaign against us.

I dont see that ad a nazi policy, just making the problem of housing them for thr rest of their lives after convictiob some othet government's problem.

Seems like common sense?

Also i dont think that apllies in this case, where the killer was a brit. We would unfortunately still habe to deal with them

[Holmesdale Hibs]

To be clear, his post was about "dual citizens who weren't born here". So as well as capturing me in that category, you would be capturing the children of British couples who were born outside the UK, say someone like Boris Johnson or the child of a British couple temporally working in Ireland.

I'm sure you are aware that in this country you can be stripped of your citizenship without a trial. The Home Secretary exercises this power unilaterally.

So you don't see what the problem would be if two people, who are identical other than their place of birth and did exactly the same thing, were punished very differently solely because of where they were born?

If it is ok to ban these British citizens from ever entering the country again, why not just say that the Government should be able to ban any British citizen from ever returning?

Stripping people from their citizenship has a very murky history. As long as you two are ok with your support of Nazi policies...

You make some interesting points, apart from the nazi policy stuff which is nonsense and judging by your post, you're smart enough to know that.

I don't care about the circumstances on how the duel citizenship came about, if you've been given it, not joining a terrorist group fighting against that country seems a fairly low bar to meet in terms of maintaining it.

As for 2 people being treated differently, ideally we'd keep both out but there's nowhere to send the guy who's British so it's our responsibility to deal with him. Both people are equally deplorable, it just comes down to legal responsibility.

[Swedish hibee]

You make some interesting points, apart from the nazi policy stuff which is nonsense and judging by your post, you're smart enough to know that.

Yes. Complete nonsense.

[Hibrandenburg]

Yes. Complete nonsense.

So stripping people of their citizenship wasn't a Nazi policy?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

So stripping people of their citizenship wasn't a Nazi policy?

It may have been, yes.

So were having schools, building roads and collecting taxes.

I assume we think we should still do these, even though the Nazis did them too?

Ergo not ever policy of the Nazis was bad?

[PeeJay]

It may have been, yes.

So were having schools, building roads and collecting taxes.

I assume we think we should still do these, even though the Nazis did them too?

Ergo not ever policy of the Nazis was bad?

Difficult to believe you actually wrote this and still posted it ...

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Difficult to believe you actually wrote this and still posted it ...




Its called nuance.

Shouting something down as 'nazi', especiallu when what was being discussed was nothing of the sort, is peurile.

My post was merely trying to highlight the stupidity of that line of argument.

[PeeJay]

Its called nuance.

Shouting something down as 'nazi', especiallu when what was being discussed was nothing of the sort, is peurile.

My post was merely trying to highlight the stupidity of that line of argument.

By posting something equally stupid? :confused:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

By posting something equally stupid? :confused:

Yes!! Im not sure it worked though...

[PeeJay]

Yes!! Im not sure it worked though...


Well, writing "Not every policy of the Nazis was bad" without qualifying it seems to me to be a more worrying "line of argument" to adopt than the one you were initially criticising ...

By the way, "The Nuremberg Laws" of 1935 was a Nazi policy that stripped Jews of their citizenship - so no "may have been" about it - Seems to me HB was entitled to query the post suggesting this was "nonsense" and NYH was entitled to make the initial reference ...

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Well, writing "Not every policy of the Nazis was bad" without qualifying it seems to me to be a more worrying "line of argument" to adopt than the one you were initially criticising ...

By the way, "The Nuremberg Laws" of 1935 was a Nazi policy that stripped Jews of their citizenship - so no "may have been" about it - Seems to me HB was entitled to query the post suggesting this was "nonsense" and NYH was entitled to make the initial reference ...

I concede the point, there was a logic to it in my head, but i didnt really pit it across very well, amd obviously once Goodwin's Law has been evoked, and the 'N' word is in play, it is difficult to continie the discussion without finding yourself in the bizarre position of appearing to defend the nazis, which i think and hope goes without saying wasnt my intention.

And i said 'may' because i genuinely didnt know for sure, i was taking Hibrandenburgs word for it, not disputing it.

[PeeJay]

I concede the point, there was a logic to it in my head, but i didnt really pit it across very well, amd obviously once Goodwin's Law has been evoked, and the 'N' word is in play, it is difficult to continie the discussion without finding yourself in the bizarre position of appearing to defend the nazis, which i think and hope goes without saying wasnt my intention.

And i said 'may' because i genuinely didnt know for sure, i was taking Hibrandenburgs word for it, not disputing it.

Alles klar :greengrin ...

[Hibrandenburg]

It may have been, yes.

So were having schools, building roads and collecting taxes.

I assume we think we should still do these, even though the Nazis did them too?

Ergo not ever policy of the Nazis was bad?

Ah, the good old "the Nazis weren't all bad because they built the Autobahns" argument. C'mon tae f...

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Ah, the good old "the Nazis weren't all bad because they built the Autobahns" argument. C'mon tae f...

Thats not what i said.

We both agree the nazis were bad ( statement of the obvious i presume).

But i also assume we both agree that building roads isnt a bad policy per se? Even although the nazis built roads, it doesnt tar all future road building as a nazi policy?

So can we agree that an individual policy pursued under the nazis can be a good policy when taken in isolation, without legitimising the regime enacting the policy?

A kind of 'stopped clocks are right twice a day' theory?

[Hibrandenburg]

Thats not what i said.

We both agree the nazis were bad ( statement of the obvious i presume).

But i also assume we both agree that building roads isnt a bad policy per se? Even although the nazis built roads, it doesnt tar all future road building as a nazi policy?

So can we agree that an individual policy pursued under the nazis can be a good policy when taken in isolation, without legitimising the regime enacting the policy?

A kind of 'stopped clocks are right twice a day' theory?

But you can't separate the two, you just have to ask the question who built the roads for the Nazis, who was sent to work in their factories?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

But you can't separate the two, you just have to ask the question who built the roads for the Nazis, who was sent to work in their factories?

Of course you can, you have to, we all do everyday.

So are you saying that building roads, as a policy, is bad and 'nazi'?

[JeMeSouviens]

Of course you can, you have to, we all do everyday.

So are you saying that building roads, as a policy, is bad and 'nazi'?

Bet you're regretting bringing them up now. Lolz. :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

Of course you can, you have to, we all do everyday.

So are you saying that building roads, as a policy, is bad and 'nazi'?

Increased road building only provides room for more cars and increased polution from emissions so you could be right :wink:

[Hibrandenburg]

Of course you can, you have to, we all do everyday.

So are you saying that building roads, as a policy, is bad and 'nazi'?

No, but Hitlers economical success that allowed him to build Autobahns and reestablish Germany as a military might was partly facilitated by compulsory acquisition of Jewish property and the overuse of resources that then required them to seek military expansion, the two are interwoven and can't and shouldn't be separated.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Bet you're regretting bringing them up now. Lolz. :greengrin

Not half...

To be fair i didnt bring them up, but i wished id ignored it!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Increased road building only provides room for more cars and increased polution from emissions so you could be right :wink:

The diesel holocaust!

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

No, but Hitlers economical success that allowed him to build Autobahns and reestablish Germany as a military might was partly facilitated by compulsory acquisition of Jewish property and the overuse of resources that then required them to seek military expansion, the two are interwoven and can't and shouldn't be separated.

Ok, so are you saying that no road can ever be built anywhere, because the nazis used stolen wealth to fund theirs?

This is a stupid argument, quite obviously a policy can be a good policy, even if the nazis also pursued it, which was my original point.

[Moulin Yarns]

The diesel holocaust!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKggnBh2Mdw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVRctkOATxg

:greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

Ok, so are you saying that no road can ever be built anywhere, because the nazis used stolen wealth to fund theirs?

This is a stupid argument, quite obviously a policy can be a good policy, even if the nazis also pursued it, which was my original point.

No that's stupid. But wasn't it you who deflected from the subject of removing people's citizenship to building roads :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKggnBh2Mdw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVRctkOATxg

:greengrin

Thread hijack, but so good to hear Handy Man again. :aok:

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

No that's stupid. But wasn't it you who deflected from the subject of removing people's citizenship to building roads :greengrin

Yes, by arguing that the lazy shout of "the nazis had that policy" doesnt habe to mean it is, or was a bad policy per se.

[Hibrandenburg]

Yes, by arguing that the lazy shout of "the nazis had that policy" doesnt habe to mean it is, or was a bad policy per se.

It's not Lazy though and has direct connotations and consequences to many people, it's also lazily ridiculous to compare removing someone's citizenship with building roads.

[Swedish hibee]

So stripping people of their citizenship wasn't a Nazi policy?

So was the hunting law that the Nazi party started in 1934 and many Western countries adopted this too..

[Hibrandenburg]

So was the hunting law that the Nazi party started in 1934 and many Western countries adopted this too..

Like road building hunting laws are hardly comparable to stripping people of their citizenship and hardly something you would immediately associate with fascism, unless of course that you'd like to argue that the Nazis weren't all bad because they did do some positive things too?

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

It's not Lazy though and has direct connotations and consequences to many people, it's also lazily ridiculous to compare removing someone's citizenship with building roads.

By all means debate, and dispute the merits of removing someone's citizenship. The point about roads was to prove the priciple that shouting "the nazis did that" doesnt automatically disqualify an idea from being a good one.

I dont see any direct consequences or connotations.

The UK had many flaws, but descending into facism as happened in Germany isnt likely to be one of them imo


I think it is lazy in this situation imo. It shuts down debate, amd draws at best, tangential lines between the wholesale persecution of a religious minority in 1930s Germany, with the deliberate murder and terrorism by a religious minority of in many cases, their own country in 2017 UK.

Just my view, but it adds little to the debate, and means peolle become scared to habe discussion for fear of being labelled a nazi apologist, or some such.

[Swedish hibee]

Like road building hunting laws are hardly comparable to stripping people of their citizenship and hardly something you would immediately associate with fascism, unless of course that you'd like to argue that the Nazis weren't all bad because they did do some positive things too?

Jeez. I give up.

You originally made a comment towards a poster I thought was nonsense ( and still do), and myself & others pointed out that nazi policies are everywhere to this day.
That is all.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Like road building hunting laws are hardly comparable to stripping people of their citizenship and hardly something you would immediately associate with fascism, unless of course that you'd like to argue that the Nazis weren't all bad because they did do some positive things too?

Nobody is arguing your last point - you are constantly building strawman arguments.

[cabbageandribs1875]

imo an acceptable sentence for another would-be bomber, if he actually serves 15 years http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40059351

A student who made a bomb filled with ball bearings and left it on a Tube train has been jailed for 15 years.

Damon Smith put his homemade device into a rucksack and left it on a Jubilee Line train in October 2016.

[--------]

imo an acceptable sentence for another would-be bomber, if he actually serves 15 years http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40059351

A student who made a bomb filled with ball bearings and left it on a Tube train has been jailed for 15 years.

Damon Smith put his homemade device into a rucksack and left it on a Jubilee Line train in October 2016.



Yes, but he'll be released at the latest when he's 39, and what reason does anyone have for believing he won't still be suffering from the same disorder then, and still likely to find a 'smoke bomb' filled with ball-bearings a hugely amusing 'prank' to play on commuters? Life under supervision would have been more sensible.

[SouthsideHarp_Bhoy]

Yes, but he'll be released at the latest when he's 39, and what reason does anyone have for believing he won't still be suffering from the same disorder then, and still likely to find a 'smoke bomb' filled with ball-bearings a hugely amusing 'prank' to play on commuters? Life under supervision would have been more sensible.

Why take the risk? Life in jail. The guy tried ti kill and maim dozens.

I wonder what the average sentence is for attempted murder?

[--------]

Why take the risk? Life in jail. The guy tried ti kill and maim dozens.

I wonder what the average sentence is for attempted murder?


Like the average sentence for murder - not enough. The law sometimes seems to have more respect for the life of the killer than for that of the killed.