SURVEY: Do you believe terrorists should receive the death penalty?

[mpa]

Bush receiving the death penalty? Never likely.

[hawker9000]

Of course Man created religion. But you are missing the point. Terrorists (Islamic in the main) are motivated by their religion, not other men

Newsflash - Mohammad was a man. (And Islam might just as well be called Mohammadism.)

[jacksam]

Of course Man created religion. But you are missing the point. Terrorists (Islamic in the main) are motivated by their religion, not other men

Newsflash - Mohammad was a man. (And Islam might just as well be called Mohammadism.)

Did not know that. Does that mean if the big boy had been female that the rules about gender might be somewhat different.

[Andreas2]

If the term "terrorists" includes war criminals and mass murderers like Toni, W., Barry, "Erika" (just to name a few). then my answer would be "yes".

Otherwise it's "no", as I am against unprincipled, selective enforcement of justice, even if it's more than deserved.

PS: One sign of the success of our "public" education is, when "Mafia" scares people, whereas "State" makes them feel comfortable.

[Andreas2]

Just food for thought: The deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it

If a terrorist kills, let's say 10'000 children ("innocent civilians") in an attack, would you think he/she is a bad person? Maybe even a terrorist? Do the "good things" they (the terrorists, mass murderers, do-gooders, politicians, public servants, "Madeleines") claim to want to achieve, not apply for these "casualties of their killings"? (Rhetorical question, I know! In the case "Madeleine" it was about non-existent WMDs anyway). Obviously, they do not.

I'm always appalled by hypocritical people, who do the "math" as they obviously have no principles or conscience. Such people would also be prepared to sacrifice my 87 year old father for the survival of, let's say, two(?), twenty children (non-Muslims, of course)... Or they would even "sacrifice" my two daughters for that matter. "Collateral damage", as they use to say.

How many of these do-gooders are prepared to sacrifice 10 members of their own family and maybe of their friends' to bring 10 million people their "democratic", Western values in Arabia <cough>? I'm sure, they would have no problem to explain this to the remaining, non-selected "survivors" of their family and friends.

I am seriously afraid of these conscienceless, evil do-gooders. They are still completely oblivious of or give a about any blow back effects.

Hey, all you do-gooders, if you agree to kill my father and my two daughters to do some good things (in your own opinion, of course) in "Arabia", let me tell you this... Welcome to the creation of a new, potential terrorist. And I'm also talking about the "survivors" (not-selected people for your good case) of your own family members and the survivors of your friends' families!

Back on topic: Are terrorists bad people? Yes, absolutely, but the do-gooders make it really easy for the evil Muslim clerics to focus their well-founded hatred on us. And as such, do-gooders are part of the "terrorist" problem we are all facing now.

Thank you Madeleine and to all of your cohorts.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Andreas2

[papayasalad]

problem is not the Muslims, the real problem is the sharia...

[Ghostnigel]

Define terrorist.

It's a slippery slope when you put convenient labels on people.

If it is someone who knowingly kills innocent civilians, how about the drone controller sitting in an air con office miles away who deliberately fires a missile at an apartment block supposedly targeting a "terrorist", but who knows he will kill dozens of innocent families in the process. Or his superiors who gave him the order, or his government's politicians who approved the policy.

So you come up with a master plan to get rid of the terrorists then. Tell us what YOU think should be done....if it was left to all you pc liberals, we would already be forced to follow Islam....

[MrTee]

why make them into Martyrs?

Lock them up for life and they can wallow in their failure until they die.

I think the death penalty is barbaric and those that want to implement the death penalty are no better than the terrorists and murderers they espouse to despise,,

[Jingthing]

problem is not the Muslims, the real problem is the sharia...

Sharia is Islamic law, yeah? No, it's not Sharia either. It's how Islam and Sharia are actually interpreted and practiced in modern times in modern nations.

[Ghostnigel]

Define terrorist.

It's a slippery slope when you put convenient labels on people.

If it is someone who knowingly kills innocent civilians, how about the drone controller sitting in an air con office miles away who deliberately fires a missile at an apartment block supposedly targeting a "terrorist", but who knows he will kill dozens of innocent families in the process. Or his superiors who gave him the order, or his government's politicians who approved the policy.

An almost excellent deflection.

The ones being targeted in the building are TERRORISTS. They are hiding behind human shields.

I note that the latest country to enter the ME mayhem seems to have even less concern for the civilians.

I am not a fan of the death penalty, but if it is going to be used at all, these people are probably as deserving as any.

Not a deflection at all. I am demonstating how difficult it is to define terrorist.

So, is the drone controller who knowingly kills innocent "human shields" just as bad as the so called terrorist.

Is he a terrorist too?

So they are only 'so called' terrorists now then, eh?

What should we call them? Your best buddies?

[coulson]

yes, if we killed all the muslim extremists the world would be alot safer.

Has to be more of a deterrent than death as they seek martyrdom. I suggest burying them with a pigs head might be work.

Better still feed the remains to the pigs

[SgtRock]

Don't know about the death penalty.

But there should certainly be more of this.

Quote

A man said to be carrying a knife and wearing a fake suicide belt has been shot dead as he tried to enter a police station in Paris.

Reportedly shouting ‘Allahu Akbar!’, meaning ‘God is great’, he was gunned down by officers in the northern 18th district, not far from Montmartre. Some reports said his weapon was a meat cleaver.

Quick, efficient and very cost effective.

Edited January 8, 2016 by SgtRock

[dexterm]

Define terrorist.

It's a slippery slope when you put convenient labels on people.

If it is someone who knowingly kills innocent civilians, how about the drone controller sitting in an air con office miles away who deliberately fires a missile at an apartment block supposedly targeting a "terrorist", but who knows he will kill dozens of innocent families in the process. Or his superiors who gave him the order, or his government's politicians who approved the policy.

An almost excellent deflection.

The ones being targeted in the building are TERRORISTS. They are hiding behind human shields.

I note that the latest country to enter the ME mayhem seems to have even less concern for the civilians.

I am not a fan of the death penalty, but if it is going to be used at all, these people are probably as deserving as any.

Not a deflection at all. I am demonstating how difficult it is to define terrorist.

So, is the drone controller who knowingly kills innocent "human shields" just as bad as the so called terrorist.

Is he a terrorist too?

So they are only 'so called' terrorists now then, eh?

What should we call them? Your best buddies?

I notice many people are very keen to stick the label "terrorist" on people but seem incapable of defining what exactly a terrorist is.

Anyone of any faith, race, or nationality who kills innocent civilians is not my best buddy.

Edited January 8, 2016 by dexterm

[Ghostnigel]

Dexterm

You seem to be the only person on the planet that doesnt know what a terrorist is...!!

Google it mate...

[Ulysses G.]

Define terrorist.

"Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence aimed against civilians in order to achieve political ends."

A drone operator is a member of the armed forces in the exercise of their official duties and they are targeting combatants, not civilians. What a foolish example.

I have no problem defining terrorism.

[MAJIC]

Do you believe terrorists should receive the death penalty?

Reluctantly there is no other answer! if we wan't to survive!

Edited January 8, 2016 by MAJIC

[siam2007]

Islamic Terrorism is a plague on the whole planet. The death penalty for every single one of them.

Most posts here show that people have ZERO knowledge how those Islamistic terrorists think.

They will LOVE their death penalty, it is actually what they want - they think they will become martyrs and get 50 virgins in "heaven".

They will HATE it when they are being executed by FEMALES, because then they don't make it to heaven.

Therefore, IF there is such thing as a death penalty, it has to be executed by FEMALES

[uptheos]

I'm quite happy to grant them their wish of martyrdom even if it makes them happy.

These scum need eradicating from the earth and quick, we're running out of time.

Line them up, bullet between the eyes, instantly forgettable.............next.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.

[ChrisKC]

Terrorists as it relates to the OP's question are as follows: They are the ones that preach killing of anyone (that effectively means anyone who is not a Muslim) who gets in the way of their self-asserted justified RELIGIOUS ends (as decreed in the Qu'ran) They are the ones whose continuous indiscriminate killings of civilians and soldiers are premeditated.

They are not usually primarily politically motivated as Basque Terrorists, for example, were.

[mpa]

[Ulysses G.]

Most people DO call him a terrorist. If he was a Muslim, he would be an ISLAMIC one.

[arjunadawn]

I have mixed thoughts on the State having the power to kill, like the current Obama Star Chamber. I generally hold the death penalty to be a proper tool of a jury- the people. I do not like the idea of the State having the power to kill piecemeal under the authority of "Emanuel Goldstein" or "Terrorism." I have lucid and concrete understanding that the government now routinely labels all manner of people "terrorists."

One might argue "Well, we are talking about disdash wearing bearded suicide bomber types." No, that is not what the standard is. Words have meaning. Today, land rights advocates have been charged under the infinitely flexible "terrorism" laws. Journalists can now be termed "terrorist" depending on their contacts, interviews, etc. "Terrorism" and related crimes are now routinely used at the municipal levels for crimes previously covered under existing laws. All manner of people are now "terrorists" and it is an ugly edge to it, an ugly political edge. The infrastructure of labeling and adding those who are terrorists or related now comprise an amalgam of leftist institutions from the Southern Poverty Law Center and others to influence political opponents toward such labeling.

https://theintercept.com/document/2014/07/23/march-2013-watchlisting-guidance/