Crime and punishment

foroom lluzers said:
If you hate yourself , you need love , so there is misuse/misinterpretation of religion.Religion does not say kill innocent people , where does it say that?
Click to expand...

It's been pretty well established that these terrorist attacks are nothing to do with religion. More to do with mentally sick psycopaths.
 
Hiya Tom,
tomorton said:
I bet South Korea are not so confident of that though I hope you're right.
Click to expand...
Viz-a-viz nuclear weapons, I imagine that everyone agrees that Kim Jong-Un is a sarnie or two short of a picnic and is probably mad enough to use nuclear weapons. Moreover, South Korea will be his most likely target. Now, suppose that nightmare were to actually play out. What should / would we in the west do? Unleashing a bunch of Trident missiles will kill tens of thousands - perhaps hundreds of thousands - of innocent North Koreans, who already have the misfortune of living under a brutal dictator. And the environmental disaster will be made even worse. It will serve no useful purpose whatsoever and merely inflame what will already be a nightmare situation. Most importantly, it's a completely ineffective way of killing one man and a handful of his henchmen, not least because you can bet your bottom dollar that he will survive the strike by taking refuge in a well stocked nuclear bunker from where he'll launch further attacks on Japan etc.

It's better for us to ditch nuclear weapons and, if Kim Jong-Un needs to be 'dealt with' - then do it via a drone strike, or get undercover agents to slip him some Polonium-210 in his afternoon tea, or parachute in a crack team of SAS marines to do the job etc., etc. Any or all of the above have to be more efficient and a thousand times cheaper than nuclear weapons. Besides which, if they all fail, we can send in Daniel Craig! ;-)

tomorton said:
Who established that?
Click to expand...
Well, the first part of Pat's post isn't contentious as Muslim leaders the world over have condemned ISIS and the terrorists and made very clear that Islam does not condone the atrocities carried out in its name. So, in this regard, the terrorists have hijacked a religion for their own purposes. Theoretically, they could have done the same with Christianity and then Justin Welby and the Pope would denounce them - just as the Imam's have done - and say they are not acting in accordance with core Christian principles and beliefs.

The second part of Pat's post is debatable in that - as far as we know - none of the terrorists have undergone psychiatric evaluation and, therefore, no medically qualified practitioner has pronounced any of them as being "mentally sick psychopaths". That said, I don't know what someone has to do to get such a diagnosis but, in my book, the Manchester bomber and the attacks in London on Saturday night must, surely, come pretty damn close. I suspect I'm not alone in my views.
Tim.
 
timsk said:
Hiya Tom,

Viz-a-viz nuclear weapons, I imagine that everyone agrees that Kim Jong-Un is a sarnie or two short of a picnic and is probably mad enough to use nuclear weapons. Moreover, South Korea will be his most likely target. Now, suppose that nightmare were to actually play out. What should / would we in the west do? Unleashing a bunch of Trident missiles will kill tens of thousands - perhaps hundreds of thousands - of innocent North Koreans, who already have the misfortune of living under a brutal dictator. And the environmental disaster will be made even worse. It will serve no useful purpose whatsoever and merely inflame what will already be a nightmare situation. Most importantly, it's a completely ineffective way of killing one man and a handful of his henchmen, not least because you can bet your bottom dollar that he will survive the strike by taking refuge in a well stocked nuclear bunker from where he'll launch further attacks on Japan etc.

It's better for us to ditch nuclear weapons and, if Kim Jong-Un needs to be 'dealt with' - then do it via a drone strike, or get undercover agents to slip him some Polonium-210 in his afternoon tea, or parachute in a crack team of SAS marines to do the job etc., etc. Any or all of the above have to be more efficient and a thousand times cheaper than nuclear weapons. Besides which, if they all fail, we can send in Daniel Craig! ;-)


Well, the first part of Pat's post isn't contentious as Muslim leaders the world over have condemned ISIS and the terrorists and made very clear that Islam does not condone the atrocities carried out in its name. So, in this regard, the terrorists have hijacked a religion for their own purposes. Theoretically, they could have done the same with Christianity and then Justin Welby and the Pope would denounce them - just as the Imam's have done - and say they are not acting in accordance with core Christian principles and beliefs.

The second part of Pat's post is debatable in that - as far as we know - none of the terrorists have undergone psychiatric evaluation and, therefore, no medically qualified practitioner has pronounced any of them as being "mentally sick psychopaths". That said, I don't know what someone has to do to get such a diagnosis but, in my book, the Manchester bomber and the attacks in London on Saturday night must, surely, come pretty damn close. I suspect I'm not alone in my views.
Tim.
Click to expand...

LOL I love that write up and agree strongly.

If we think about Saddam who perhaps shows similar tendencies to the short fat man with silly hair cut, they are about self preservation. They will not do anything that'll endanger their lives. Saddam was caught in hole looking worse than our tramps on Embankment. It's all about show of strength and power with weak vulnerable people. They are paranoid smart. Not plain stupid.

Anyhow, point is NKorea does not pose any threat to UK or US. More a pain for SKorea and China having a dispute on their backyard. Not good for area or trade. Imagine a radio active cloud floating around the region and impact on whether one is an ally or not? His not going to use his tool. Russians thought Castro might use his nuclear arsenal and backed away from supporting him in the end. It wasn't the yanks they were afraid of.

Trident as a solution is an incredible waste of money to upgrade. It must be retired and decommissioned. Nor is it a deterrent. Nuclear weapons pose more of a threat making us a target for other nuclear weapons.

We really need to readdress this debate and look at better defense and more concise surgical weapons imo.


fwiw the three terrorists look like going to have problem being buried. Somebody suggested a Christian burial but this is even better.

http://www.newsweek.com/london-attack-manchester-funeral-imam-621193

Personally, I would build a toilet over where ever their corpses end up. :mad:
 
For the North to successfully invade the South they would need surprise and a quick victory. Surprise to overcome the large, well equipped and motivated Southern and UN garrison forces. Quick so that 1) they can occupy the whole of the South, ending the war and creating a 50 million-strong human shield;
and 2) so the North can fully occupy the South before the US/UN can reinforce: if the South is occupied from end to end, a US/UN invasion would be extremely risky and susceptible to opposition in the UN. It becomes no longer a rescue/defence/reinforcement mission but a mostly amphibious invasion.

The best way to achieve surprise would be through nuclear weapons targeting military / air base locations, not cities. The best way to quarantine Korea against arrival of allied sea-borne / air-borne reinforcements would be through nuclear weapons against fleets, harbours and air bases.

Its a viable strategy - for a madman that is.
 
timsk said:
Well, the first part of Pat's post isn't contentious as Muslim leaders the world over have condemned ISIS and the terrorists and made very clear that Islam does not condone the atrocities carried out in its name. So, in this regard, the terrorists have hijacked a religion for their own purposes. Theoretically, they could have done the same with Christianity and then Justin Welby and the Pope would denounce them - just as the Imam's have done - and say they are not acting in accordance with core Christian principles and beliefs.
Click to expand...


Yes Tim, Muslim leaders have to their credit condemned the attacks. But as across history, if some believers don't like the leadership of their faith, they just start a new branch/sect/entire church. That doesn't mean they have less faith or are mad. In a sense it means they have too much faith, it depends where you're stand.
e.g. At the time of the Protestant Reformation, the Protestants did not cease to be Christian.

Believers who adopt extreme measures aren't automatically non-believers - they will always be able to find some justification for what they do, if they really want to.

Not that I can think of a way through the problem, but we should at least recognise what the problem is.
 
Hi Tom,
tomorton said:
. . . Its a viable strategy - for a madman that is.
Click to expand...
You're clearly better informed on this topic than I am - so I'm more than happy to accept the scenario you've outlined. However, my point is that whatever Kim Jong-Un does- there's no scenario (that I've ever heard anyway), whereby an appropriate response from the West would be to nuke North Korea - using them as an example. Ergo, Trident is useless and a monumental waste of money.
tomorton said:
. . . Not that I can think of a way through the problem, but we should at least recognise what the problem is.
Click to expand...
Some fair points well made but, just to be clear, are you saying that the link between the terrorists and Islam is so strong - to the extent that if the Islamic faith diodn't exist - then the events in Manchester, London and elsewhere wouldn't occur?
Tim.
 
timsk said:
Hi Tom,

You're clearly better informed on this topic than I am - so I'm more than happy to accept the scenario you've outlined. However, my point is that whatever Kim Jong-Un does- there's no scenario (that I've ever heard anyway), whereby an appropriate response from the West would be to nuke North Korea - using them as an example. Ergo, Trident is useless and a monumental waste of money.

Some fair points well made but, just to be clear, are you saying that the link between the terrorists and Islam is so strong - to the extent that if the Islamic faith diodn't exist - then the events in Manchester, London and elsewhere wouldn't occur?
Tim.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with Trident, which may well be a monumental waste of money, but as long as other powers have nukes, then so should we.

Unilateral disarmament arguments are just nonsense. All of them.

On North Korea, as far as we are concerned, it is of no consequence to us whatsoever. The situation is not One of UK v N Korea in some kind of nuclear exchange. This is just fantasy thinking. China and the wider region need to monitor the situation and act if required.

If N Korea needed to be taken down, the way to do it would be intelligence lead backed up by some kind of air armed force to neutralise and contain any attempted missile launches, whilst at the same time, take out by whatever means, the N Korean leadership.
 
mike. said:
Yup.... Da fat kid needs to go.

The trouble is the whole country is brainwashed, replacing him would be difficult.
Click to expand...

It would indeed be difficult. We have seen countless times what happens when the first part is carried out and a vacuum is left afterwards.
 
counter_violent said:
It would indeed be difficult. We have seen countless times what happens when the first part is carried out and a vacuum is left afterwards.
Click to expand...

Parties on the streets I think. :clap::clap::clap:


As for using Nukes on neighbours - not happening. Would have to factor in weather and radiation cloud activity.

That is about as predictable as weather in that part of the world and time period for the radio-active decay is not days or weeks. Think about it. NK using nukes on SK???

Let's say they've nuked SK. What are they going to do with all that radio-active land and material?

They are weak and paranoid smart. Not plain stupid.




As for Trident that makes us a target. 1.5% of all global nukes is not much of a deterrent is it?

So who might consider nuking us and why? Stop being lemmings and think about where you are going?
 
Atilla said:
Parties on the streets I think. :clap::clap::clap:


As for using Nukes on neighbours - not happening. Would have to factor in weather and radiation cloud activity.

That is about as predictable as weather in that part of the world and time period for the radio-active decay is not days or weeks. Think about it. NK using nukes on SK???

Let's say they've nuked SK. What are they going to do with all that radio-active land and material?

They are weak and paranoid smart. Not plain stupid.




As for Trident that makes us a target. 1.5% of all global nukes is not much of a deterrent is it?

So who might consider nuking us and why? Stop being lemmings and think about where you are going?
Click to expand...

Don't worry. I won't be following you anywhere comrade :LOL:
 
mike. said:
Yup.... Da fat kid needs to go.

The trouble is the whole country is brainwashed, replacing him would be difficult.
Click to expand...

Diffcult ? I don't think so. Even a muppett would be preferable.

It is high time the people of the world got rid of dangerous rulers.

Regime change ? You bet.

Getting close enough to knock him over ? Now that would be difficult.

I expect the Yanks would reward the event ? Or will they play it like Saddam Hussein and think they can do it alone ?
 
timsk said:
Hi Tom,

You're clearly better informed on this topic than I am - so I'm more than happy to accept the scenario you've outlined. However, my point is that whatever Kim Jong-Un does- there's no scenario (that I've ever heard anyway), whereby an appropriate response from the West would be to nuke North Korea - using them as an example. Ergo, Trident is useless and a monumental waste of money.

Some fair points well made but, just to be clear, are you saying that the link between the terrorists and Islam is so strong - to the extent that if the Islamic faith diodn't exist - then the events in Manchester, London and elsewhere wouldn't occur?
Tim.
Click to expand...


Yes, pointless using Trident to attack North Korea - what would be the point if the South has already been conquered or nuked?

But its very possible that nuclear weapons are a deterrent against conventional attack rather than just tit for tat city destruction in the Dr. Strangelove M.A.D. scenario. The most likely, and arguably valid, use of Trident would be interdiction against Russian armoured formations or fleets headed towards invasion of western Europe and the UK. These would be easier and closer targets than e.g Moscow, giving a high chance of our very limited number of warheads getting through.

The scenario is remote but given that we remain aligned against Russian military aggression no UK government is going to throw out the viable effective weapon of choice. The best alternative we could opt for would be a massive increase in conventional forces, which would need to be permanently deployed to the European mainland, again. Of course, these would be highly vulnerable to a pre-emptive nuclear strike so we get back where we started. UK military casualties in a conventional defensive war in Europe against Russian ground forces could be immense if their offensive capability is not catastrophically disrupted by nuclear weapons.

As to whether terrorism wouldn't occur here if Islam didn't exist, this is certainly wrong and not what I say. Unless you mean Islamic terrorism, in which case you're right. But then terrorism might occur as purely politically motivated terrorism. However, we are where we are, and Islamic terrorists claim to be fighting for Islam generally and possibly the Islamic State in some cases. Nobody can prove they're not religiously motivated, because all that is in the perpetrator's head. And when they pronounce their religious motivation, they are talking to other believers, and I suppose they hope these will become new recruits after their demise.

Just to be even more pedantic if that's possible, these people are not nutters, they share a belief in man's subordination to divine power. They just differ from most other believers as to how to serve it. But being in the minority means nothing to a true believer. Nor do words from those they would label a false preacher.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Crap Buddist
'Thought Crime' & Glorification of Terror laws.
Replies
11
Views
4K
Atilla
Atilla
BSD
I have to give George Bush credit for this: NO to Israel bombing Iran
Replies
2
Views
2K
Scorpius
Scorpius
JTrader
The Truth about Oil
2 3
Replies
40
Views
8K
PKFFW
P
1
Bad Attitudes on this Forum
2
Replies
31
Views
10K
mpups
mpups
5
Libyan rebels seize town amid deadly battle
2
Replies
24
Views
5K
Atilla
Atilla
Top