Al-Qaeda "poisoner" gets life in prison

[me283]

Originally Posted by danielf

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

Obviously I don't know him as well as you do. Why don't you enlighten the forum on his motives, as well as exactly what lengths he would have gone to to achieve them?
__________________

Originally Posted by Damien

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

Yes, it is scary to think that someone human (sub-human in my mind ) can do these things, or even want to do these things, to the rest of the human race. Hitler is long gone; Saddam is in jail, and I doubt (hope) he is never released; but this chap could well be on the streets in 15 years, and I would expect him to be pretty p***ed off by that stage...

[danielf]

Originally Posted by me283

Obviously I don't know him as well as you do. Why don't you enlighten the forum on his motives, as well as exactly what lengths he would have gone to to achieve them?

I'm not saying I know him, and I also don't claim to know what he would or would not do, unlike you.

[me283]

Originally Posted by danielf

I'm not saying I know him, and I also don't claim to know what he would or would not do, unlike you.

Hmmm... you are right, I am supposing too much. Being caught in possession of recipes for poison, plus poison itself (allegedly), plus plans to release cyanide on the underground (allegedly), and other incriminating evidence... I guess he could have been about to change his mind and just make tea cakes for a church festival. Add to that killing a policeman, trying to kill several others, I suppose you still think there's a chance he is an all-round nice guy with honourable intentions...?

I prefer to think that someone who manufactures ricin is doing so for one purpose only... to use it as a poison. And if you need absolute proof of his intentions then the only sure proof is to see how far he would go. Big price to pay, don't you think?

But let's try your logic: how far do YOU think he would have gone?

Whilst we are on the subject, I never met Saddam either... still pretty sure he would have gone from bad to worse though. Would you doubt that too? And how about Hitler? Was he about to turn the corner and stop decimating thousands upon thousands of Jews? It's just that I never knew these people, so I can't be sure...

[danielf]

Originally Posted by me283

Hmmm... you are right, I am supposing too much. Being caught in possession of recipes for poison, plus poison itself (allegedly), plus plans to release cyanide on the underground (allegedly), and other incriminating evidence... I guess he could have been about to change his mind and just make tea cakes for a church festival. Add to that killing a policeman, trying to kill several others, I suppose you still think there's a chance he is an all-round nice guy with honourable intentions...?

No, but I'm not comparing him to Hitler and Saddam either.

Originally Posted by me283

I prefer to think that someone who manufactures ricin is doing so for one purpose only... to use it as a poison. And if you need absolute proof of his intentions then the only sure proof is to see how far he would go. Big price to pay, don't you think?

I agree, and that's why he is in prison

Originally Posted by me283

But let's try your logic: how far do YOU think he would have gone?

Do you mean the logic that you would like other people to think I am following (through supposition and innuendo, which if I am not mistaken is the kind of populist rhetoric that got Hitler voted into power)

[me283]

Originally Posted by danielf

Do you mean the logic that you would like other people to think I am following (through supposition and innuendo, which if I am not mistaken is the kind of populist rhetoric that got Hitler voted into power)

No, I mean the logic that says "we don't know how far he would have gone, therefore we can't assume anything".

[danielf]

Originally Posted by me283

No, I mean the logic that says "we don't know how far he would have gone, therefore we can't assume anything".

And who is supposed to be following that logic exactly?

[me283]

Originally Posted by danielf

And who is supposed to be following that logic exactly?

There I go again, assuming too much. OK, let's make this simple, you stated:

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

Can you expand upon that? Perhaps explain what you are implying? Or how about you opt for stating slightly more than the bare minimum? I really can't see what point you are trying to make.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by me283

There I go again, assuming too much.

indeed

Originally Posted by me283

OK, let's make this simple, you stated:

Can you expand upon that? Perhaps explain what you are implying? Or how about you opt for stating slightly more than the bare minimum? I really can't see what point you are trying to make.

I was merely questioning on what basis you made the following statement:

Originally Posted by me283

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).

In particular the claim that he would have done exactly what Saddam and Hitler did, as that appears to be a bit of leap to me. Perhaps you can explain to me why that is not a leap?

[me283]

Originally Posted by danielf

indeed



I was merely questioning on what basis you made the following statement:



In particular the claim that he would have done exactly what Saddam and Hitler did, as that appears to be a bit of leap to me. Perhaps you can explain to me why that is not a leap?

Sure. He was making poison, on a reasonable scale; he was planning to make further, more lethal poison, on a larger scale. He planned to release cyanide on the underground. He murdered and wounded rather than give in to arrestation. Oh, and the fact that there was nothing to indicate any quota of dead bodies that he hoped to fulfill.

Now, logic might suggest that he would have carried on regardless. The fact the he murdered whilst being arrested also suggests he would not have given up until he really had to... Or do you have a different logic? Doesn't seem such a huge leap to me, more a natural progression.

[cookie_365]

Hang on, I think we're arguing at cross purposes.

My point is that killing is just wrong. I accept that there are times when it's, well, not 'right' but tolerable when it's the only way to stop more people being killed, (WWII, Iraq etc, see previous caveats).

But I'm disgusted by the notion of killing someone for fun or for vengeance.

Announcing that someone is 'sub-human' and therefore a suitable target for murder is just sick. Anyone who does that is no better than the person they want to kill. Sub-human perhaps?

Look at Israel/Palestine:

A Palestinian murders an Israeli. Why?
Because an Israeli murdered a Palestinian. Why?
Because a Palestinian murdered an Israeli. Why?
Because an Israeli murdered a Palestinian. Why?
Because a Palestinian murdered an Israeli. Why?
etc etc etc.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by me283

Sure. He was making poison, on a reasonable scale; he was planning to make further, more lethal poison, on a larger scale. He planned to release cyanide on the underground. He murdered and wounded rather than give in to arrestation. Oh, and the fact that there was nothing to indicate any quota of dead bodies that he hoped to fulfill.

Now, logic might suggest that he would have carried on regardless. The fact the he murdered whilst being arrested also suggests he would not have given up until he really had to... Or do you have a different logic? Doesn't seem such a huge leap to me, more a natural progression.

I agree that we don't know how far he would have gone. I think it is a leap however, to assume that because we don't know how far he would have gone, he must have gone as far as Saddam and Hitler did, and then use that as a reason why the death penalty would/should apply. Because, as Cookie says, I do agree that in extreme cases (say Hitler) the death penalty might (regrettably) be justified.

Also, I think it is highly unlikely he would have gone that far, as Hitler and Saddam were far cleverer, in that they chose politics as the tool to satisfy their power-hungry megalomania. Less chance to get caught etc, and largely legal.

Thirdly, I doubt this person was a power-hungry megalomaniac, I think it is more likely he is a religious zelot who was brainwashed by far more dangerous individuals into thinking that killing others is ok.

Mind you, I do think this person should spend the rest of his life in jail, but we don't go around killing people on the basis of what they might have done.

[BBKing]

Sure. He was making poison, on a reasonable scale;

No he wasn't. It was announced that ricin had been found, but it was a cock up between Porton Down and the Number 10 spin machine - no ricin was found, he hadn't made any. He was cleared of conspiracy to murder (well, the jury couldn't agree). The clarification of the statement is still awaited, as is Colin Powell's apology to the UN.

me283 is, again, grossly ignorant of the facts of the case he's trying to make, which unfortunately isn't surprising if you just read the headlines and listen to the Government. You can see why they want to lock people up without trial or evidence if the trials are going to be this embarrassing and it's so obvious they're framing innocent people.

he was planning to make further, more lethal poison, on a larger scale.

With no resources or support and the police already onto him for shoplifting (he was fined £70 and released despite being a known illegal immigrant, and without the immigration service taking a look at him). Damned dangerous. Quite how much poison do you need and how was he going to obtain the ingredients? For that matter how was he going to store it? Or distribute it?

He planned to release cyanide on the underground.

Again incorrect - the only evidence for even wanting to make cyanide is a bizarre attempt to make it out of apple seeds - a moment's perusal of the internet will find far better ways of doing it, hell, I made some in school chemistry once. We really must learn the old Intelligence distinction between capabilities and intentions - I might have the intention to buy a remote Caribbean island and run a global evil organisation a la SMERSH from it, but I haven't got the faintest capability of doing it.

He murdered and wounded rather than give in to arrestation.

Apart from 'arrestation' not being a word, this is true. He's a brutal murderer, not a terrorist, as I said earlier in the thread. Talking of which:

Or would you have spared the likes of Hitler, Pot Pot, Amin, given the chance to pass sentence on them?

I think this is the first mention of Hitler in this thread. I thereby declare that the conditions for Godwin's Law have been met and that this discussion is over, and me283 has lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

[danielf]

Originally Posted by BBKing

<snip>



I think this is the first mention of Hitler in this thread. I thereby declare that the conditions for Godwin's Law have been met and that this discussion is over, and me283 has lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

Originally Posted by wikipedia

In addition, whoever points out that Godwin's law applies to the thread is also considered to have "lost" the battle, as it is considered poor form to invoke the law explicitly.

Damn!

[BBKing]

Sometimes you have to take one for the team.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by BBKing

I think this is the first mention of Hitler in this thread. I thereby declare that the conditions for Godwin's Law have been met and that this discussion is over, and me283 has lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

This is the first time you have EVER said anything to amuse me and boy was it worth the wait. Have a greenie