Obsession With Weather Forecast..
Jokes0 min ago
Collective Resposibility
As some will know, I've been advocating this on here for a long time, finally the penny seems to have dropped. It makes sense, wouldn't you agree?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Another imbecilic post;
//So should we punish children if their parents are terrorists? How young? New born babies? What about neighbours? The bloke in the papershop who might know something?//
We do not imprison children and new born babies, didn't you know? But if the neighbour or the 'bloke in the paper shop' knows that someone is a terrorist and doesn't report it, then they are perverting the course of justice, so yes, most certainly.
//So should we punish children if their parents are terrorists? How young? New born babies? What about neighbours? The bloke in the papershop who might know something?//
We do not imprison children and new born babies, didn't you know? But if the neighbour or the 'bloke in the paper shop' knows that someone is a terrorist and doesn't report it, then they are perverting the course of justice, so yes, most certainly.
khandro
Can you explain collective responsibility. If you are saying that close family and friends who know about planned terrorist attacks should be prosecuted, then the law is already in place, and has lead to prosecutions.
This is actually in the report you linked to:
//A number of defendants who assisted the plotters behind the failed 21 July bombings in 2005 were convicted under the section, which carries a maximum sentence of five years.//
So are you simply arguing for stiffer sentences in cases where non-disclosure can be proven (e.g. where there is clear evidence that members of family and/or friends knew about an attack beforehand)?
Or are you proposing that even without any evidence, the friends and family of terror suspects or those who carry out attacks should be jailed?
This really needs to be clarified.
Can you explain collective responsibility. If you are saying that close family and friends who know about planned terrorist attacks should be prosecuted, then the law is already in place, and has lead to prosecutions.
This is actually in the report you linked to:
//A number of defendants who assisted the plotters behind the failed 21 July bombings in 2005 were convicted under the section, which carries a maximum sentence of five years.//
So are you simply arguing for stiffer sentences in cases where non-disclosure can be proven (e.g. where there is clear evidence that members of family and/or friends knew about an attack beforehand)?
Or are you proposing that even without any evidence, the friends and family of terror suspects or those who carry out attacks should be jailed?
This really needs to be clarified.
sp; Max Hill QC says failure to report terrorist activity deserves a prison sentence and I agree, all terrorists have accomplices even the so-called "lone wolves" it is discovered after the event and they should all face prison.
I advocate the closure for 6 months of the Mosque which the terrorist and his family attend and if there were to be any more terrorist activity linked to it, I would have it bulldozed to the ground.
I'm tired of hearing how family members are "shocked" to learn their son, brother of friend had anything to do with terrorism.
A survey has shown that a third of all UK muslims would not report someone they knew was connected to terror activity, they are the ones who admit to it, in truth, the figure is probably higher than that.
I advocate the closure for 6 months of the Mosque which the terrorist and his family attend and if there were to be any more terrorist activity linked to it, I would have it bulldozed to the ground.
I'm tired of hearing how family members are "shocked" to learn their son, brother of friend had anything to do with terrorism.
A survey has shown that a third of all UK muslims would not report someone they knew was connected to terror activity, they are the ones who admit to it, in truth, the figure is probably higher than that.
khandro
//Max Hill QC says failure to report terrorist activity deserves a prison sentence and I agree//
But don't they already?
//I advocate the closure for 6 months of the Mosque which the terrorist and his family attend//
Why?
What has the mosque got to do with it? By closing the mosque in question, you would have to assume guilt on the part of those running it. Do you really think that's a good idea?
It's still not clear what you're advocating here. As the law is already in place, are you proposing stiffer sentences?
//Max Hill QC says failure to report terrorist activity deserves a prison sentence and I agree//
But don't they already?
//I advocate the closure for 6 months of the Mosque which the terrorist and his family attend//
Why?
What has the mosque got to do with it? By closing the mosque in question, you would have to assume guilt on the part of those running it. Do you really think that's a good idea?
It's still not clear what you're advocating here. As the law is already in place, are you proposing stiffer sentences?
Khandro Closing the mosque will alienate the 99 % of worshipers who want nothing to do with terrorism. It would do far more harm than good. A Muslim does not need a Mosque to pray , they can do it in an ordinary house or a hall. If the Mosque was closed those who used it would just meet somewhere else, but of course we would not know where that was.
HereIam, did you know that ALL New Zealand lamb is Halal ? They just don't mention it unless someone asks. It is easier to make all their Lamb Halal so it can be sold anywhere in the world. The only difference between Halal meat and non Halal meat is that for Halal a tape loop of prayers is constantly playing in the slaughter house.
Eddie //Closing the mosque will alienate the 99 % of worshipers who want nothing to do with terrorism.//
Absolute baloney.
'The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with jihadists.'
and btw;
'In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations.'
Absolute baloney.
'The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with jihadists.'
and btw;
'In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations.'
khandro
Are you referring to the ICM survey, which concentrated on specific Muslim groups who live in the poorest and most religiously conservative areas of the UK. The survey that was subsequently criticised because the weighting factors were suspect?
Also, you haven't explained what you mean by collective responsibility. Do you mean that some form of punishment needs to be meted out, not only to the family and friends of the terrorist, but also the mosque they attend?
If so, how far would you go?
What about the schools and universities they attend?
The companies they work for?
The Internet providers who allow extremist content on their sites?
Because people can be radicalised in all those situations.
Where would you draw the line?
Are you referring to the ICM survey, which concentrated on specific Muslim groups who live in the poorest and most religiously conservative areas of the UK. The survey that was subsequently criticised because the weighting factors were suspect?
Also, you haven't explained what you mean by collective responsibility. Do you mean that some form of punishment needs to be meted out, not only to the family and friends of the terrorist, but also the mosque they attend?
If so, how far would you go?
What about the schools and universities they attend?
The companies they work for?
The Internet providers who allow extremist content on their sites?
Because people can be radicalised in all those situations.
Where would you draw the line?
I wonder if some people really have any understanding of what is going on and how much effort they put into finding out. What books have they read, for example, and just out, 'The Strange Death of Europe' by Douglas Murray, or what about the excellent books by Bat Ye'or, try her, 'The Decline and Fall of Eastern Christianity Under Islam', or 'Eurabia The Euro-Arab Axis'? It is the most important issue facing you and particularly your children. Go figure!
The instant I read the link, the very first thing that came into my mind was The Thought Police from 1984 - but Gulliver beat me to it at 10:30 this morning.
Of course, Orwell was painting a nightmare vision of the future, and despite the advent of 'social media', we still have not entered the realms of the totalitarian state in the West.
The whole notion is utterly ludicrous!
How on earth can you prove in a court of law that someone 'knew' someone else was going to do something?
The court proceedings would be very short - something along the lines of -
Prosecuting QC - "Did you know that Mr X was going to blow up his local supermarket?"
Defendant - "No I did not know that.
Defence QC - "M'Lud, since my learned friend is completely unable to gainsay my client's statement, or provide any evidence to dispute his response, I suggest that M'Lud dismisses the case, and we can all have an early lunch."
His Honour - "I am minded to agree - case dismissed."
So, to answer Khandro - no it does not appear to make sense, and no I do not agree.
Of course, Orwell was painting a nightmare vision of the future, and despite the advent of 'social media', we still have not entered the realms of the totalitarian state in the West.
The whole notion is utterly ludicrous!
How on earth can you prove in a court of law that someone 'knew' someone else was going to do something?
The court proceedings would be very short - something along the lines of -
Prosecuting QC - "Did you know that Mr X was going to blow up his local supermarket?"
Defendant - "No I did not know that.
Defence QC - "M'Lud, since my learned friend is completely unable to gainsay my client's statement, or provide any evidence to dispute his response, I suggest that M'Lud dismisses the case, and we can all have an early lunch."
His Honour - "I am minded to agree - case dismissed."
So, to answer Khandro - no it does not appear to make sense, and no I do not agree.
Mamya - //Those who are proven to have aided and abetted, harboured or been aware of an act of terrorism and done nothing, once proven should be dealt with by law. //
I refer you to my post - how can you prove that someone 'knew' something, when all they have to do is deny that they knew anything?
You can't imprison someone for 'knowing' something - the notion simply doesn't fly.
I refer you to my post - how can you prove that someone 'knew' something, when all they have to do is deny that they knew anything?
You can't imprison someone for 'knowing' something - the notion simply doesn't fly.
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.