Al-Qaeda "poisoner" gets life in prison

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

Oh gods, can we *PLEASE* not do this bloody discussion *again*?

If you want to make comments like this, do it in a different thread.

Just responding Graham, keep your hair on! As long as it's blonde

[allieyoung666]

But Me is right I am sad to say

Sorry but killing anyone is wrong...Taking the law into one's own hands is wrong..

However I can see the lure of the the theory that kiliing one man to save millions could be a justification..I would like to point out that this would only ever work out in hindsight anyway as we cannot predict the future.

What if your killing that one person actually created a civil war?Gave someone even more disgusting their chance to run/ruin a country.

Also where would it end?Why not kill 10,000 people to ensure that a war never happens.Stalin worked on that theory after all.He killed all potential troublemakers before thay had even said a word.How many returning members of the Red Army from WW11 found themselves incarcerated before they could compare how much better the western system of capatalism was at feeding people than the communist system..

Killing one can often lead to killing more..It's not justified under any circumstances.

[me283]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Sorry but killing anyone is wrong...Taking the law into one's own hands is wrong..

However I can see the lure of the the theory that kiliing one man to save millions could be a justification..I would like to point out that this would only ever work out in hindsight anyway as we cannot predict the future.

What if your killing that one person actually created a civil war?Gave someone even more disgusting their chance to run/ruin a country.

Also where would it end?Why not kill 10,000 people to ensure that a war never happens.Stalin worked on that theory after all.He killed all potential troublemakers before thay had even said a word.How many returning members of the Red Army from WW11 found themselves incarcerated before they could compare how much better the western system of capatalism was at feeding people than the communist system..

Killing one can often lead to killing more..It's not justified under any circumstances.

I see your point. However, that is slightly different to executing someone whose aim and intention is to commit genocide, and who actually went some way in his attempts. Further, he stabbed several police officers, killing one of them. That isn't someone who might become a troublemaker, that is one loaded gun with a hair trigger.

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by me283

I see. Can you imagine if everyone felt the same as you do? We would all be speaking German now... those that survived. And they would be blonde haired and blue eyed..

Don't see the connection. Punky asked about murder, nothing else.

[me283]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

Don't see the connection. Punky asked about murder, nothing else.

Indeed, in response to your comment that "killing people is wrong".

Let's try an analogy here: if you had a dog that bit people, the courts would order you to have it put down on the grounds that a) it was dangerous and b) you couldn't control it.

Statements a) and b) could equally be applied to this Algerian lunatic; who may have "human rights" but seems to me to be sub-human.

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by me283

I see your point. However, that is slightly different to executing someone whose aim and intention is to commit genocide, and who actually went some way in his attempts. Further, he stabbed several police officers, killing one of them. That isn't someone who might become a troublemaker, that is one loaded gun with a hair trigger.

If the only way of stopping him from murdering others would be to kill him, then I could accept the neccessity in that. But it clearly wasn't neccessary in this case.

Where it becomes tricky is what you might call 'non-defensive' but morally right wars.

E.g. : second world war; Hitler admired the British and would have settled for occupying Europe, and just leaving Britain be. So were we right to join the war to protect the millions facing genocide in mainland Europe? I'm pretty sure we were.

E.g.: Iraq; much less clear cut. There's little doubt that thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people will now not be murdered by Saddam as a result of the war. I think it was the right thing to do to protect them, even though 'we' weren't directly threatened by Saddam. Many people obviously disagree, but none of the people who I've spoken to who opposed the war seem to have had any alternative, other than to leg Saddam get on with doing what he was doing and presumably leave the people of Iraq to whatever fate he was going to hand out.

But back to Ricin man - it's plain as day that murdering him would be wrong.
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

Indeed, in response to your comment that "killing people is wrong".

Let's try an analogy here: if you had a dog that bit people, the courts would order you to have it put down on the grounds that a) it was dangerous and b) you couldn't control it.

Statements a) and b) could equally be applied to this Algerian lunatic; who may have "human rights" but seems to me to be sub-human.

What does 'sub-human' mean?

[punky]

So you do think murder is justified under certain conditions? You have changed your tune a bit.

Originally Posted by punky

So you do think murder is justified under certain conditions? You have changed your tune a bit.

Originally Posted by punky

So you do think murder is justified under certain conditions? You have changed your tune a bit.

Depends on what 'murder' means. I usually consider murder as a term for an unjust killling. I.E IN WW2 killing a german solider during a battle isnt murder but in this case killing the police man was murder

Note: I know that you were not addressing me

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by Damien

Depends on what 'murder' means. I usually consider murder as a term for an unjust killling. I.E IN WW2 killing a german solider during a battle isnt murder but in this case killing the police man was murder

Note: I know that you were not addressing me

But you've saved me the trouble of typing exactly the same response

[me283]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

What does 'sub-human' mean?

The man wanted to kill as many random humans as possible. He then went berserk and killed a police officer, also injuring several others. He clearly has a complete disregard for human life.

Does that clarify my meaning of "sub-human" for you? Similarly, I would describe Saddam and Hitler as being "sub-human".
__________________

Originally Posted by cookie_365

If the only way of stopping him from murdering others would be to kill him, then I could accept the neccessity in that. But it clearly wasn't neccessary in this case.

Where it becomes tricky is what you might call 'non-defensive' but morally right wars.

E.g. : second world war; Hitler admired the British and would have settled for occupying Europe, and just leaving Britain be. So were we right to join the war to protect the millions facing genocide in mainland Europe? I'm pretty sure we were.

E.g.: Iraq; much less clear cut. There's little doubt that thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people will now not be murdered by Saddam as a result of the war. I think it was the right thing to do to protect them, even though 'we' weren't directly threatened by Saddam. Many people obviously disagree, but none of the people who I've spoken to who opposed the war seem to have had any alternative, other than to leg Saddam get on with doing what he was doing and presumably leave the people of Iraq to whatever fate he was going to hand out.

But back to Ricin man - it's plain as day that murdering him would be wrong.
__________________



What does 'sub-human' mean?

Cookie,

I agree with you on WWII and Iraq. However the two basic differences between Saddam and Hitler and ricin man were scale and success. He would have done exactly what they did, and more, given time and the right level of success (for want of a better word).

[punky]

Originally Posted by me283

I agree with you on WWII and Iraq. However the two basic differences between Saddam and Hitler and ricin man were scale and success. He would have done exactly what they did, and more, given time and the right level of success (for want of a better word).

Good point.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by me283

Cookie,

I agree with you on WWII and Iraq. However the two basic differences between Saddam and Hitler and ricin man were scale and success. He would have done exactly what they did, and more, given time and the right level of success (for want of a better word).

You know him then? And his motive was being a power-hungry megalomaniac?

Does that clarify my meaning of "sub-human" for you? Similarly, I would describe Saddam and Hitler as being "sub-human".

The problem is that they are human, thatââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s why Hitler is such a disturbing thought. He was a real man; he had thoughts and feelings just like all of us. The idea that people like that are 'sub-human' has the danger of dismissing these peopleââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s acts as something no person is capable of.

The point is that they were human and people could act like that again. The real question is what drives people to commit gross acts of evil such as those committed by Saddam and Hitler rather than dismissing them as sub human.

Your kind of right about the only difference between him and Saddam is a matter of a scale. However there a few key differences 1) this guy is in jail he cannot cause more problems, Hitler could have. Saddam is in Jail and canââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t commit any more crimes. 2) The matter of scale is still important