BBC NEWS | UK | Man charged over 'airport bomb'

Caught red handed. Is the maximum sentence of life in prison enough?

What do you think his fate should be?

just a little information, death sentence is illegal in the European Union anyways.


For my part I'm actually not even a fan of life sentence as I don't think this is justice, it's vengeance.

I know immediately after something bad happened, especially conservatives, say there is a need for tougher sentences to discourage terrorists and criminals in general.

That's the point where I think, wtf, are they on lsd?

I can't imagine they think twice about killing you or others just because the sentence is 50 instead of 20 years, or maybe life sentence. That's naive.


I'm fine with German laws.

life sentence = 15 years

life sentence in a sever case = 20-25 years

It's quite a shame the death penalty is no longer used in the UK. I'd be willing to open the trap door myself.

Ridiculous - are you sure you're not the one on LSD?

A slap on the wrist is not enough for a terrorist. They're the sort of people who are not safe being out on the streets. The judicial system has a duty to negate the risk of recidivism, and a stupidly short jail sentence is simply not enough to rehabilitate Islamic extremists.

He wants to go to "paradise", so I personally think we should help him along...

A copy of the Koran, five gallons of gasoline, and a match. That's what he had planned for his victims wasn't it?

Turnaround's fair play.

Ditto. I'd volunteer to strike the match - although I honestly don't think they'd have a shortage of people willing to do so anyway.

Going soft on idiots like terrorists is not an option.

you don't want justice, you seek revenge.

you want to kill "evil" people, they want to kill "evil" people.

where is the difference? the difference is media coverage.

Hmm, I'm really not sure how to say this.
We (western countries) kind of have some responsibilities in terrorism, at least that's a common opinion over here. Extreme religious reactions rarely burst out of the blue, for no reason.
I'm not advocating terrorism, I just think this situation is quite complicated and life sentence will not solve anything.

Whatever their reasons, terrorism isn't justified. It's wrong. That being said, I don't hold with killing them either. The "kill the bastards" mentality needs to go.

Do you have an opinion?

And the fate of the people responsible for the twin towers should be what?

You see, at some point, the answer, or discussion is no longer rhetorical.

Action must be met with action, to reduce or eliminate the threat, and at that point, you have to choose whether you're either part of the active solution to the problem (read that, take up arms), or you become a statistical bystander (read that, victim).

So, since the situation is no longer theoretical, where do you stand?

@ OrangeCrate: I think I misused the "life sentence" words. Reading back the thread, I realize it means life in jail, or close. Which I'm fine with.
In French, "life sentence" can be understood as "taking your life for sentence" ie "killing you" ie death penalty. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

So I'm not in favor of death penalty, in general, and I do not think that killing someone who was caught in the process of a terrorist action will solve the terrorism issue.

^,

I had modified my question to you in the earlier post, while you were answering. I've taken that out, and will pose the questions to you here...

What are you willing to do to reduce or eliminate the threat? What is your solution? What are you willing to give up in your personal life, to placate the terrorists?

As I mentioned in my observations on bns's response, at some point it's no longer a rhetorical question. You have to choose sides, and take a stand. What will your stand be?

People are foolish to believe that when the U.S., and it's allies pull out of Iraq, that everything's going to be alright. The empowerment of the terrorists by "defeating" the U.S., may just open the gates of hell.

What are you going to do, when the bombs go off at the base of the Eiffel tower, or inside the Louvre, and your high speed trains are blown off the tracks, killing hundreds?

I'm am not sure *I* have a solution. My personal take on this is this one:

The terrorism issue roots deeply in our societies and in human nature. I (this is a general "I") defend myself, my life, the ones I love, my belongings so that no one else have them or hurt them. When this is not enough, when the threat is too big (not just the group nearby trying to steal my cattle), I (still general) go to the enemy and try to destroy their weapons, the ways they could hurt me or my people.

Next step is I go to my enemies and try to hurt them hard, not just destroy weapons. Show them who is the boss, make them think twice before they try anything against me.

Religious (or political) terrorism has one additional dimension. I go kill the enemy, or innocent people who happen to walk on their ground, because the enemy thinks wrong.
Who goes and kill the enemy? Who can with any rational thinking believe this is the proper action?
I am not defending the terrorists in any way, they are trapped in a vicious circle, made to believe they do good, they will see heavens or any other gifted place, they will bring pride and fame to their families. They also are victims.

Please do not think I am minimizing any of what has happened in our recent history, it was all very awful and I can feel the pain of people who have lost loved ones in such tragedies.

Bombings in the Paris metro back in 1995 were along those lines:
The Pandora's box has been opened, and we contributed to open it.
I hope, dearly hope, that our society will be able to evolve before we destroy ourselves.

And what's wrong with that?

The difference is not media coverage. God knows what you're even trying to infer with that. Terrorist attacks garner huge media coverage; the trial and sentencing of terror suspects also garners huge media coverage. The media has nothing to do with this.

What it does have to do with, though, is which party (the terrorist or us) acts first? Isn't it the whole idea that they are imprisoned after they blow stuff up? When we, however, begin to ponder what causes a terrorist to blow stuff up in the first place, a whole new proverbial can of worms is opened.

Of course they have to go to jail, I'm not saying anything against that.
Life or death sentence just doesn't solve the problem at all, further, if you kill them, they achieved their goal of martyrdom.

I'm just saying I see no use in harder sentences as they don't care anyway and are not discouraged by any means by that.

Personally I also think a country which kills criminals is just as bad as or maybe even worse than the criminals they kill.

Sorry, but I believe that's utter nonsense. In an organized society with shared values and ideals, we expect the central government to react immediately, and violently if necessary, to outside stimuli that threatens the goals, beliefs, and way of life of the whole.

The individual citizen can not live in peace, nor have peace of mind, unless he believes that the government will protect him. Both by verbal and diplomatic threat to the outside world, and/or the potential of overt violence in the defense of the country.

And, don't get caught up on semantics. Life without the possibility of parole, is effectually the same as the death penalty. This is the ultimate penalty for crimes against the whole of society, and there are those that perpetrate crimes against that whole, that deserve the ultimate punishment.

Treason would be one crime that would deserve the ultimate punishment, the actions of terrorists against the innocent citizens of the country would be another.

You can have the liberal thoughts that you espouse here in these forums, only because you live within a safe federal framework, that alleviates you having to defend yourself on a daily basis from armed groups of thugs willing to take what you love and have away from you.

If you were afraid for your life, to walk out your front door, you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs, for your government to protect you by any means available to them, including killing those that threaten the people that you love, and your right to live a peaceful life without fear.

I'm also going to raise the BS flag on that one.

The death penalty should never be about revenge. Instead, it is about removing those defective individuals who have demonstrated an inability to ever function peacefully in a civil society. Terrorists just about perfectly fit the bill for that one, regardless of their warped views of their own "martyrdom."

You seem to be missing the point about media coverage. When 'we' bomb whole peasant villages to shreds in Afghanistan, because maybe a few terrorists were hiding out there, you don't see it spread out all over the papers and other media, accompanied by outraged reactions of the usual pundits. You have to go look for reports of this kind. Killing numerous civilians in this way surely must be regarded as terrorism, unless your definition of terrorism is blinkered and one-sided.
When someone drives a van into an airport terminal, the media are jumping at the bit to get their two cents in and you'd have to go sit in a cave for a week or so to miss any of it.
This is what's meant by uneven media coverage.

You say that as if it's a bad thing. Treating the cause instead of the symptoms is established medical practice for a very good reason.

I think you're being a bit myopic here. Can you not see that people in the Middle-East, or Latin America, or South America, would see US intervention (be it military or covert) in their country as a threat to their goals, beliefs and way of life?

Again, I point you to the innocent Afghan peasants, the innocent civilians of Fallujah, amongst others, and, depending on how far back in time you want to go, Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, etc...


A heartfelt sentiment, but what do you do when your government is merely a puppet government, in the hands of foreign corporations and governments, and merely dancing to the tune of geopolitical and economic interests that are not your own?

As I've stated clearly in other threads, it is up to the mainstream Muslim world to reign in the radicals, or all within that community will suffer the consequences of the actions of a few.

As an American, I believe to the core of my soul, in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and I will define to the death, a Muslim's right, within these borders, to worship God in their own way, as long as they do not infringe on my same right.

With mainstream Muslims, I have a tremendous respect for their devotion to God. But frankly, I have little respect for the lunatic fringe of any religion, whether they be Muslims, Jews or Christians.

As to encouraging the Muslim terrorists, by making them martyrs, so be it. If they want to go to "paradise", I for one would be absolutely delighted to help them on their way. One less radical to worry about. If that makes more of them, fine, we'll address them one at a time forever and ever, if need be.

We are in the middle of a war on our way of life, and the freedoms we enjoy. Trust me when I tell you, it's going to get worse before it ever gets better. You can not rationalize with zealots of any flavor. Defending ourselves by any method available, will be the only way to survive.

Dont give suicide bombers death sentences! That is what they want... They would hate life sentences much worse.

I am against death sentences, it in practice actually more expensive, can not be reversed at all. Death sentences for treason sound like a bad idea, in national security, i think these sentences might be dealt way to lightly because of paranoia, and corrupt govt officials spinning things to remove their opponents.
Life in prison is not the same, it allows for new evidence to be found. And in prison, there is still life. Depends on how strict prison itself is.
Jail is also pretty effective at keeping people out of society. (If used well) Of course, nearly all criminals will be send back to society, and should be prepared for that.

However, i am not against use of deadly force against criminals that wont surrender. Unless these criminals endanger the general public, they should be extremely held-back, though. (I do not think that makes govt as bad as the criminals)
How is it ever practical to just destroy their weapons? Or even the people that attack you? They are usually hidden among other people. Even if they are not, the 'enemy' defends their weapons you may be forced to hurt them.