29 Nov 19: London Bridge sealed off amid reports of gunfire . . .

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, you have inferred that from a statement that says nothing of the sort.

Bro, do you even English?
He tried the same with me. Asked me for proof where it said people were supportive of stabby man who's mindset was changed on London Bridge. I never even mentioned stabby man. Same with some other post. Seems to be a habit of his. Maybe he's a mind reader?
 
Body going to Pakistan.


The same with the 7/7 bomber. Regarded as a martyr.


How come we can't send them back while alive as they are from the UK, but they go back once dead?
Allowing this reinforces the terrorists aims which include being a martyr. Disposing of his body at sea (as per bin laden) with no ceremony demonstrates that other terrorists will not become martyrs to their cause. It may not prevent those who wish us harm from attacking us, but it will change their method, they will be more likely to want to get away, making attacks harder to implement and easier to detect.
 
Allowing this reinforces the terrorists aims which include being a martyr. Disposing of his body at sea (as per bin laden) with no ceremony demonstrates that other terrorists will not become martyrs to their cause. It may not prevent those who wish us harm from attacking us, but it will change their method, they will be more likely to want to get away, making attacks harder to implement and easier to detect.
Isn't it nice to be able to choose where you are buried? Admittedly I have sympathy for Usman Kahn - I wouldn't want to be buried in Stoke, either.
 
He tried the same with me. Asked me for proof where it said people were supportive of stabby man who's mindset was changed on London Bridge. I never even mentioned stabby man. Same with some other post. Seems to be a habit of his. Maybe he's a mind reader?
Curious. Every time his weak, noodly-armed windmilling fails, he comes back at you with an even more feeble attack.
 
Allowing this reinforces the terrorists aims which include being a martyr. Disposing of his body at sea (as per bin laden) with no ceremony demonstrates that other terrorists will not become martyrs to their cause. It may not prevent those who wish us harm from attacking us, but it will change their method, they will be more likely to want to get away, making attacks harder to implement and easier to detect.
7/7 bomber body back in Pakistan, Usman's body back there, Osama hid there, grooming gangs seem to have come from there. Fair to say the places has "issues?"
 
7/7 bomber body back in Pakistan, Usman's body back there, Osama hid there, grooming gangs seem to have come from there. Fair to say the places has "issues?"
Every country has issues.
 

Londo

LE
Allowing this reinforces the terrorists aims which include being a martyr. Disposing of his body at sea (as per bin laden) with no ceremony demonstrates that other terrorists will not become martyrs to their cause. It may not prevent those who wish us harm from attacking us, but it will change their method, they will be more likely to want to get away, making attacks harder to implement and easier to detect.
I've mentioned before about 'liquid cremation' for terrorists with the resulting (revolting) fluid being poured down the sewers . A fitting end I would think .
 
II be rarely hear comment about specific murders until a conversation turns that way and then names and circumstance are mentioned. I would not expect Lee Rigby to be in everyday conversation until conversation turns that way (regimental sweatshirts, squaddies jogging, nasty people with obsolescent firearms - choose your subject.

Last night in the pub the conversation went within five minutes from the amount of ice in a G&T to Titanic to SOS messages to radio to Crippen to bring back hanging.

Just saying - people are aware and have their own thoughts and views but they dont virtual signal all day everyday (apart from my wife who I believe is continually pissed off with me)
Isn't it nice to be able to choose where you are buried? Admittedly I have sympathy for Usman Kahn - I wouldn't want to be buried in Stoke, either.
Pathetic response.
 
Sorry @Ian525, not to your comment.

( Not sure what happened there )
I agree that taking the body back to Pakistan is sending the wrong message, and questions the family's loyalty. But I suppose it is also the maturity of our society that the body wasn't ground up in a flask or dumped at sea, either. These approaches could also be used as a touchstone for future radicalism
 

ACAB

LE
C'mon @ACAB - you had time to dislike this post. I'm interested in the explanation you promised.

...or do.you have drinker's remorse?
No not at all, Old Horse, I think the below more than covers my assertations:


"Explanation on Article 2 — Right to life
1. Paragraph 1 of this Article is based on the first sentence of Article 2(1) of the ECHR, which reads as follows:

‘1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law …’.

2. The second sentence of the provision, which referred to the death penalty, was superseded by the entry into force of Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR, which reads as follows:

‘The death penalty shall be abolished. No-one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.’

Article 2(2) of the Charter is based on that provision.

3. The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter correspond to those of the above Articles of the ECHR and its Protocol. They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter. Therefore, the ‘negative’ definitions appearing in the ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter:

(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:

‘Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.’


(b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:

‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…’."

@hackle

I look forward to your response.
 
Last edited:

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
Rigby's killers believed they were justified in carrying out their attack.

Cox's killer believed he was justified too.

Doe, deer or does that justify it to us?

I think not.
I’d worry about whether they could convince the court that it was justified, obviously not.
Them being locked up and all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads

Top