Daily Mail General Knowledge (Gk) 00...
Crosswords1 min ago
Are Children Now Isis's New Weapon?
26 Answers
http://
http://
And if caught in the act, should these child terrorists also be given the same treatment as adult terrorists?
http://
And if caught in the act, should these child terrorists also be given the same treatment as adult terrorists?
Answers
I volunteer you AH to go up to the first one and have a chat with him/her then. As your brains are belting through the back of your head you may, for an instant, form another opinion.
13:00 Mon 22nd Aug 2016
No, Isis have always used children and civilians to protect its soldiers, and to carry its bombs.
No they should not receive the same treatment - they are children, and should be treated as such.
It's easy to assume that a child carrying out such atrocities has the intelligence and maturity to know what he or she is doing, and the consequences.
Children do not and cannot think and reason that way, it is beyond their capacity, so they must be treated accordingly, and hopefully re-educated.
No they should not receive the same treatment - they are children, and should be treated as such.
It's easy to assume that a child carrying out such atrocities has the intelligence and maturity to know what he or she is doing, and the consequences.
Children do not and cannot think and reason that way, it is beyond their capacity, so they must be treated accordingly, and hopefully re-educated.
> And if caught in the act, should these child terrorists also be given the same treatment as adult terrorists?
Not the same treatment. They are victims not perpetrators. Clearly they have to be un-brainwashed, but to treat these children as adults would be akin to treating victims of the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal as prostitutes.
Not the same treatment. They are victims not perpetrators. Clearly they have to be un-brainwashed, but to treat these children as adults would be akin to treating victims of the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal as prostitutes.
YMB - //I volunteer you AH to go up to the first one and have a chat with him/her then.
As your brains are belting through the back of your head you may, for an instant, form another opinion. //
This is a typical response to the point I have made - 'If it was you / your child / your wife ..... blah blah ....'.
But it's not.
The question is academic, and so is the response.
We are debating here what we think, not what we would do when faced with the situation, that is a separate question, and would receive a different answer.
As your brains are belting through the back of your head you may, for an instant, form another opinion. //
This is a typical response to the point I have made - 'If it was you / your child / your wife ..... blah blah ....'.
But it's not.
The question is academic, and so is the response.
We are debating here what we think, not what we would do when faced with the situation, that is a separate question, and would receive a different answer.
AOG
If a child has been forced to wear a suicide vest by IS extremists, then that is entirely different to the situation you described at 13:54.
I child who was is forced or coerced into committing an act of terrorism is a victim.
As much of a victim as a child who is bombed in a cinema whilst certain Western commentators cheer, is also a victim.
If a child has been forced to wear a suicide vest by IS extremists, then that is entirely different to the situation you described at 13:54.
I child who was is forced or coerced into committing an act of terrorism is a victim.
As much of a victim as a child who is bombed in a cinema whilst certain Western commentators cheer, is also a victim.
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - //What's the point in having an airy fairy, fluffy bunny point of view, if you admit yourself that if it actually happened to you, then you would take a different view. To be of any use at all your view must be at least a bit practical and not some meaningless never to be tested theory. //
It's not an 'airy fairy fluffy bunny point of view' as you so poetically put it.
The question is - should child terrorists be treated the same as adult terrorists, and that is the question I have answered.
If the question was "What would you do if you had a gun and a child terrorist was about to shoot you?" - then my answer would be different - but that wasn't the question.
bringing up the question you would like to have been asked, and then moaning at people because they didn't answer it, is not the way debates work.
If you want to ask your question - start another thread, I for one will answer your question - but not as a part of this thread, because that is de-railing.
// Any soldier is going to shoot anyone (on the other side) who is pointing a gun at him. //
That is debatable, and again another question. Ask that one as well, by all means.
It's not an 'airy fairy fluffy bunny point of view' as you so poetically put it.
The question is - should child terrorists be treated the same as adult terrorists, and that is the question I have answered.
If the question was "What would you do if you had a gun and a child terrorist was about to shoot you?" - then my answer would be different - but that wasn't the question.
bringing up the question you would like to have been asked, and then moaning at people because they didn't answer it, is not the way debates work.
If you want to ask your question - start another thread, I for one will answer your question - but not as a part of this thread, because that is de-railing.
// Any soldier is going to shoot anyone (on the other side) who is pointing a gun at him. //
That is debatable, and again another question. Ask that one as well, by all means.
sp1814
/// As much of a victim as a child who is bombed in a cinema whilst certain Western commentators cheer, is also a victim. ///
Perhaps if those cinema kids had been killed while in the process of taking their degrees in terrorism, then perhaps one of them would not have graduated so as to later go on and kill 51 people at what should have been a joyful marriage ceremony, and 51 people would still be alive today.
But then that doesn't matter, regardless of the consequences, they are only children, and children do misbehave.
But still, there are some on AB who would willingly don a bullet proof vest and rush out and hug this poor child, sit him down and teach him Western ways.
/// As much of a victim as a child who is bombed in a cinema whilst certain Western commentators cheer, is also a victim. ///
Perhaps if those cinema kids had been killed while in the process of taking their degrees in terrorism, then perhaps one of them would not have graduated so as to later go on and kill 51 people at what should have been a joyful marriage ceremony, and 51 people would still be alive today.
But then that doesn't matter, regardless of the consequences, they are only children, and children do misbehave.
But still, there are some on AB who would willingly don a bullet proof vest and rush out and hug this poor child, sit him down and teach him Western ways.
-- answer removed --
AOG - //Perhaps if those cinema kids had been killed while in the process of taking their degrees in terrorism, then perhaps one of them would not have graduated so as to later go on and kill 51 people at what should have been a joyful marriage ceremony, and 51 people would still be alive today. //
That is true, but seeing into the future is a gift denied to all of us, so we can't really go around massacring children on the basis of what they may or may not grow up to do or not do.
//But then that doesn't matter, regardless of the consequences, they are only children, and children do misbehave. //
Of course it matters! No-one is suggesting otherwise, and I think you are being deliberately provocative with your use of language here.
//But still, there are some on AB who would willingly don a bullet proof vest and rush out and hug this poor child, sit him down and teach him Western ways. //
Once again, you seek to mock AB'ers who see child terrorists as victims.
It doesn't make me change my view in the slightest - but it does rather underline yours.
That is true, but seeing into the future is a gift denied to all of us, so we can't really go around massacring children on the basis of what they may or may not grow up to do or not do.
//But then that doesn't matter, regardless of the consequences, they are only children, and children do misbehave. //
Of course it matters! No-one is suggesting otherwise, and I think you are being deliberately provocative with your use of language here.
//But still, there are some on AB who would willingly don a bullet proof vest and rush out and hug this poor child, sit him down and teach him Western ways. //
Once again, you seek to mock AB'ers who see child terrorists as victims.
It doesn't make me change my view in the slightest - but it does rather underline yours.
divebuddy - //AOG, you said....//But still, there are some on AB who would willingly don a bullet proof vest and rush out and hug this poor child, sit him down and teach him Western ways.//
I think we both know that if push came to shove, they wouldn't. I suppose they may expect somebody else to, though. //
I refer to my response to AOG - using sarcasm and ludicrous scenarios does nothing to bolster your point, or his.
I think we both know that if push came to shove, they wouldn't. I suppose they may expect somebody else to, though. //
I refer to my response to AOG - using sarcasm and ludicrous scenarios does nothing to bolster your point, or his.
I mean AOG is quite right as ever
infantry ( the people who hold guns a lot ) is completely misnamed:
" late 16 cent from the French "Infanterie" from the Italian infanteria, from 'infante' youth or infantryman from Latin 'infant-'
yeah they should be called oldatry or something
and everyone knows child - soldier is a new word from last year
now reader prepare to hold your hats while the usual suspects implode:
the man from Brussels has an opinion: o yes indeedy
Article 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that "parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child of victim of...armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child".[12]
so AOG, get ready to hug your local child=soldier and give him a fluffy bunny to help him on his way !
infantry ( the people who hold guns a lot ) is completely misnamed:
" late 16 cent from the French "Infanterie" from the Italian infanteria, from 'infante' youth or infantryman from Latin 'infant-'
yeah they should be called oldatry or something
and everyone knows child - soldier is a new word from last year
now reader prepare to hold your hats while the usual suspects implode:
the man from Brussels has an opinion: o yes indeedy
Article 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child states that "parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child of victim of...armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child".[12]
so AOG, get ready to hug your local child=soldier and give him a fluffy bunny to help him on his way !
divebuddy
I think a certain person is just playing with words buddy, something he regularly accuses other of.
He has also altered the question in the process, the first question was "Are Children Now Isis's New Weapon"?
And the second one was "And if caught in the act, should these child terrorists also be given the same treatment as adult terrorists"?
Notice he conveniently left out the words "And if caught in the act" which puts an all different meaning to the question that he put.
I think a certain person is just playing with words buddy, something he regularly accuses other of.
He has also altered the question in the process, the first question was "Are Children Now Isis's New Weapon"?
And the second one was "And if caught in the act, should these child terrorists also be given the same treatment as adult terrorists"?
Notice he conveniently left out the words "And if caught in the act" which puts an all different meaning to the question that he put.
Maybe I have mis-interpreted what you meant by "caught in the act". I assumed you meant "caught", in which case their treatment following being caught should not be the same as an adult's treatment following being caught, as I said earlier.
If you meant currently perpetrating a crime, then the actions taken have to be consistent with doing the most good and the least harm. If this means killing the child in order to save lots of other innocent victims, including other children, then so be it. But at all times it has to be considered that a child is a victim, not a perpetrator, and so actions to bring them under control have to be moderated where possible.
If you meant currently perpetrating a crime, then the actions taken have to be consistent with doing the most good and the least harm. If this means killing the child in order to save lots of other innocent victims, including other children, then so be it. But at all times it has to be considered that a child is a victim, not a perpetrator, and so actions to bring them under control have to be moderated where possible.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Food Shortage Plan Being Drawn Up To...
News28 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.