Do you think IS jihadis should be stripped of citizenship?

Page 3 of 4 [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

24 Aug 2014, 5:27 am

Tequila wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
New rule: people who call for other people's deaths don't get to describe themselves as "liberal" or "libertarian" or any variation thereupon.


People that slaughter civilians must be stopped. They are an enemy of democracy and civilisation. The same with Hamas or any other Talibani bastards.

In very specific circumstances I agree with the death penalty too, but not for ordinary criminals.

Does that get me wingnut points?


No wingnut points, it just displays your justified moral outrage at these people. However, we can't let angry emotions dictate how this situation is handled or we (the west) may just make things worse.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

24 Aug 2014, 7:25 am

The real reason behind Islamist terror and violence is a deep insecurity, anger, rage, control... and fear. They are beaten. By apes and pigs, by unclean women, by people and religions they see as inferior.

Their supremacism has been challenged. They aren't masters of anything and never could be. They can terrorise and control and dominate but never completely.

They can't even kill a couple of million Jews or retake Europe again.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,833
Location: London

24 Aug 2014, 10:32 am

Tequila wrote:
a deep insecurity, anger, rage, control... and fear. They are beaten. By apes and pigs, by unclean women, by people and religions they see as inferior.

Their supremacism has been challenged. They aren't masters of anything and never could be. They can terrorise and control and dominate but never completely.

They can't even kill a couple of million Jews or retake Europe again.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

24 Aug 2014, 12:22 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Tequila wrote:
a deep insecurity, anger, rage, control... and fear. They are beaten. By apes and pigs, by unclean women, by people and religions they see as inferior.

Their supremacism has been challenged. They aren't masters of anything and never could be. They can terrorise and control and dominate but never completely.

They can't even kill a couple of million Jews or retake Europe again.


Your point?

Islamism is a dead duck. How many millions have to die before "the best of peoples" see this?



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

24 Aug 2014, 1:01 pm

With due process sure.

To address the issue of terrorism you have to address their legitimate grievances. The media and government likes to bend it so it seems like they're just madmen that want to take over the entire world and hate our freedom but when you actually sit and listen it is pretty much exclusively because "they kill Muslims" or "they occupy our land". Most people in Afghanistan didn't even know what 9/11 was, what do you think happens to the child who gets orphaned by some night raid or drone strike? We're perpetuating the problem and I think it is by design by our MIC and growing police states, who is the real enemy of freedom?



daydreamer84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,001
Location: My own little world

24 Aug 2014, 8:38 pm

Yes, I support it and think it necessary.

There are hundreds of people who joined ISIS from Britain and many other European countries and a smaller but still significant number from Canada, America and Australia. The terrorist who beheaded James Foley and said he and his buddies "thirsted for American blood" was British. What happens when these people come home after being trained by ruthless, homicidal savages with good military knowledge and funding who are bent on world domination (i.e. "a calefait")?



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

25 Aug 2014, 5:36 am

Tequila wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
New rule: people who call for other people's deaths don't get to describe themselves as "liberal" or "libertarian" or any variation thereupon.


People that slaughter civilians must be stopped. They are an enemy of democracy and civilisation. The same with Hamas or any other Talibani bastards.

In very specific circumstances I agree with the death penalty too, but not for ordinary criminals.

Does that get me wingnut points?


Ok so what do we do with the heads of state who directly caused the deaths of up to 1 million Iraqi civilians the justification for which was based upon lies which they invented? Like I said earlier it is all well and good to be outraged by ISIS, as long as we also direct the same nauseous disgust at our own leaders who are hypocritically demanding justice for all except themselves. If the death toll in Iraq does not concern you maybe the fact that ISIS got their weapons and training from these very people, might.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

25 Aug 2014, 8:02 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
Ok so what do we do with the heads of state who directly caused the deaths of up to 1 million Iraqi civilians...

Are you referring to the Lancet study?



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

25 Aug 2014, 8:58 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
Ok so what do we do with the heads of state who directly caused the deaths of up to 1 million Iraqi civilians


Usually, this will be as a result of collateral damage. They didn't set out to kill and terrorise civilians in the way that Hamas, ISIS, or Al-Qaeda, the PIRA or any other group does.

In cases where civilians have deliberately been targeted, war crimes have been carried out. I'm fairly sure that in the vast majority of cases, this will not apply to the U.S/UK/Australia etc.

DentArthurDent wrote:
Like I said earlier it is all well and good to be outraged by ISIS, as long as we also direct the same nauseous disgust at our own leaders who are hypocritically demanding justice for all except themselves. If the death toll in Iraq does not concern you maybe the fact that ISIS got their weapons and training from these very people, might.


Look at who has swallowed Islamist agitprop!

And I don't have a lot of time for them myself. But this is also left-wing/Islamist propaganda.

We are better than these savages. That is all.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

25 Aug 2014, 10:57 am

Tequila wrote:
Look at who has swallowed Islamist agitprop!

And I don't have a lot of time for them myself. But this is also left-wing/Islamist propaganda.

We are better than these savages. That is all.


How utterly pathetic.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


daydreamer84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,001
Location: My own little world

25 Aug 2014, 2:35 pm

Tequila wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
Ok so what do we do with the heads of state who directly caused the deaths of up to 1 million Iraqi civilians


Usually, this will be as a result of collateral damage. They didn't set out to kill and terrorise civilians in the way that Hamas, ISIS, or Al-Qaeda, the PIRA or any other group does.

In cases where civilians have deliberately been targeted, war crimes have been carried out. I'm fairly sure that in the vast majority of cases, this will not apply to the U.S/UK/Australia etc.


Exactly.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

25 Aug 2014, 3:55 pm

People who simply believe in Jihad have done nothing illegal. We don't convict people for thoughtcrime.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

25 Aug 2014, 4:06 pm

AspE wrote:
People who simply believe in Jihad have done nothing illegal. We don't convict people for thoughtcrime.


You can be tried directly encouraging people to going and kill people. In fact it is illegal in the UK.

Rights are dependent on do no harm principle, when it concerns other people who don't have a choice. Aslo one's right cannot supersede another's.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

25 Aug 2014, 4:54 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
AspE wrote:
People who simply believe in Jihad have done nothing illegal. We don't convict people for thoughtcrime.


You can be tried directly encouraging people to going and kill people. In fact it is illegal in the UK.

Rights are dependent on do no harm principle, when it concerns other people who don't have a choice. Aslo one's right cannot supersede another's.


So, advocating the invasion of Iraq was illegal?



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

25 Aug 2014, 5:46 pm

AspE wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
AspE wrote:
People who simply believe in Jihad have done nothing illegal. We don't convict people for thoughtcrime.


You can be tried directly encouraging people to going and kill people. In fact it is illegal in the UK.

Rights are dependent on do no harm principle, when it concerns other people who don't have a choice. Also one's right cannot supersede another's.


So, advocating the invasion of Iraq was illegal?


The premise for invading Iraq was flawed, and misguided.

The premise for going into Afghanistan had some sense, however the mission crept. It also become clear that we couldn't really fight a war in Afghanistan and not do that in Pakistan.

Btw the principle of above doesn't preclude a defensive capacity, only that case has to be properly made. Direct incitement is still illegal.

Especially as it is not individual citizens fault, so they should not be targeted.



Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

25 Aug 2014, 6:02 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
The premise for invading Iraq was flawed, and misguided.

In hindsight, perhaps, but Saddam had chemical weapons. I don't believe they suddenly ceased to exist. They were moved to Syria, according to Georges Sada. Who knows. We can only speculate.