Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister
The Catholics have always seemed pretty reasonable to me in the "having fun" department. It's those miserable Scots Presbyterians you have to watch out for.
Roman Catholics Reasonable in "having fun?"
*insert priest joke here*
ok ok.... I was just joking...... just a former Roman Catholic Irish guy "Having Fun" before he's "Sent Home"
Quote: Originally Posted by Unforgiven
I don't know if you guys have the same understanding of terrorism that I have. It's not about anything other than all out war without any rules. The concept of "I am going to kill as many of you people as I possibly can that strikes fear into the hearts of those who survive." is actually how I think war should be. Terrorism is logical in that when in an all out war, you use the worst and most effective weapon you have in your arsenal to inflict the heaviest damages and fear on your enemy as you possibly can.
As I see Terrorism, Terrorism is about taking hostages and/or threatening the lives of the innocent in order to achieve an end goal/demand...... if someone is just plain angry, hateful and wants to just kill or seriously hurt people without any means of negotiation or demands being met, it's not terrorism..... it's called being a crazy lunatic.
Just like all those people who've gone on shooting rampages in high schools, colleges/universities, or at their former job..... many police officials won't label them Terrorists or dub their rampages as Terrorist Attacks..... they're just crazy lunatics.
Therefore if rampaging mass shooters are just crazy lunatics that were isolated incidences, then so too are idiots like this clown who are just filled with anger and frustration who want to cause death and mayhem for whatever reason....... regardless of the weapons they use or their reasons why they did what they did.
If he did not present an end goal other then to cause death or serious injury, if there was no offer of negotiation or hostage taken, then it's not really terrorism, otherwise we should start labeling the white & black folk in our societies who waltz into an office and unload clip after clip of bullets into anybody they see.
A bomb set off in a crowd or a SMG spraying aimlessly into a crowd..... the end result is the same...... indiscriminate death and carnage with no room for negotiating.
But since our governments claim they don't "Negotiate with Terrorists" that makes Terrorism obsolete...... so people now just skip the whole negotiation aspect of it all and just go straight to attacking and killing people.
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshiv
It's not entrapment at all. When they do this, they are able to garner enough evidence against the person who would go through with this regardless(he would have just found other means if he wasn't given this "opportunity") so he can be tried in court. Also, there is the chance they could flush out other potential terrorists doing a sting like this. I find this no different than a sting that would be performed against either biker gangs or other types of gangs.
Agreed, I wouldn't label this entrapment either.
The only time it could be entrapment is if he never once thought about doing this until an undercover officer put it into his head and continually pressured or swayed him into thinking this was a good idea.... then offered to supply him with the resources to carry it through.
If he was already thinking of doing this and officials came across him ranting and raving on a forum or somewhere else online about wanting to perform some violent act..... and he was already actively seeking out the resources to carry it through..... then imo, they did the right thing and it wasn't entrapment.
Neither is it entrapment when some pedophile actively seeks out minors online, comes across one and tries to brainwash the kid into meeting up with him or her, only to end up facing SWAT....... nobody forced them to go seek a minor online, nobody forced them to try and meet up with the kid and they had plenty of opportunity to step away from the computer, think about what they're doing and stop before it got out of hand...... but they didn't, they went ahead with their plans and now they're screwed.
Quote: Originally Posted by Chiliagon
I wish that they could forgo human rights and the charter for terrorists.
have the "eye for an eye" charter for terrorists that are caught.
It's a good thing they don't do what you wish (or shouldn't)
Innocent until proven guilty is the way of the land around here..... and regardless of all the evidence and facts against someone, regardless of how much of an evil scum the person may be, everybody is entitled to due process in our societies.
If Robert Pickton is allowed due process with his rights being protected, then so should these goons.
I'm all for an eye for an eye justice...... but I also still believe in Innocent until proven guilty...... and if we tossed out all the rights and charters for people suspected of being a terrorist, I can foresee a lot of innocent people being dragged through an unjustified process and sent through a witch hunt that will only conclude with them being guilty.
Also, if we're so easily willing to toss what we believe in and what we claim to defend aside when we're faced by people we may not like..... what makes us and our way of life any different from those we preach about being the bad guys?
What does it tell the world about us? What does it tell our allies, our enemies about us?
What does it tell you about how safe and secure you are
in your own society if the rights and charters out there that protect you can easily be waived based on suspicion and public opinion without facts being presented in a court of law and zero due process?
Sure, you can say that you wouldn't harm anybody, you would have nothing to hide and there'd be no reason for officials to drag you off to your witch trial to have all your rights and freedoms tossed...... and I'm sure Arar thought the same thing when he was on that stop-over in NY for a family vacation.
Though I suppose if you're white, it's less likely the above would happen...... but who's to say it wouldn't eventually?
If our way of life, if our society, our courts, our laws, rights and charters are indeed true and the right way to live, then there should be absolutely no need to strip anybody of those rights and laws that protect all...... those courts, laws, rights & charters should find the accused properly guilty for their crimes based on the supplied evidence..... due process should clearly indicate their guilt and they should be punished accordingly.
If we toss aside the above because we don't like the person they're protecting, then we're just stating to the world that the above systems we all believe in and defend are weak and useless to do the job required.
And if that's the case, why are we so proud of those systems?