Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Incensed!!
26 Answers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml =/news/2008/01/08/nterror308.xml
So an extremist Musltm gets 4 years for this. What is the point of all the increased security measures, when such a ludicrous sentence is imposed?
So an extremist Musltm gets 4 years for this. What is the point of all the increased security measures, when such a ludicrous sentence is imposed?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by amsterdammer. 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.
-- answer removed --
What's the point of all the increased security measures? After this, I really don't know. He didn't 'do' anything, because he didn't get the chance to 'do' anything, but one wonders what he might 'do' when he's released. It must be pretty soul destroying for the police to work for months on catching someone like this, and then being so let down by the courts.
David Is he an immigrant, or was he born here? I don't know.
Bool I don't know if his guns were just a macho front - but I wouldn't want to give him the benefit of the doubt. Theland's right. He should have been banged up for a very long time. Funnily enough, my husband mentioned the bad 'haircut' his beard had had too. :o)
Bool I don't know if his guns were just a macho front - but I wouldn't want to give him the benefit of the doubt. Theland's right. He should have been banged up for a very long time. Funnily enough, my husband mentioned the bad 'haircut' his beard had had too. :o)
Do you think that planning a crime and committing a crime are different offences?
Do you think that there are many people who plan a crime but then don't commit it?
With regards pictures of him with weapons, should everyone in the services be arrested? It is certainly not illegal to own or use a gun in different countries which is presumably where the pictures were taken.
Should all Americans who come into this country be charged? (ok, bad analogy)
Do you think that there are many people who plan a crime but then don't commit it?
With regards pictures of him with weapons, should everyone in the services be arrested? It is certainly not illegal to own or use a gun in different countries which is presumably where the pictures were taken.
Should all Americans who come into this country be charged? (ok, bad analogy)
Vic, I can't equate terrorists with other criminals, since we're dealing with a completely different mindset here, and therefore I wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt.
To ask whether everyone in the services should be arrested is simply ridiculous - as is your question about Americans. We don't arrest all Muslims who come here, do we - and why should we? However, anyone who poses a terrorist threat, as this man did, must be arrested and dealt with, and quite rightly.
To ask whether everyone in the services should be arrested is simply ridiculous - as is your question about Americans. We don't arrest all Muslims who come here, do we - and why should we? However, anyone who poses a terrorist threat, as this man did, must be arrested and dealt with, and quite rightly.
Come on, everyone, this is basic, basic law.
To commit a crime, you need intent and action. Intent alone isn't enough. That's central to every civilised, democratic legal system.
And that's not political correctness. It's essential. We'd be f*cked without it.
If someone wants to steal the crown jewels and makes meticulous preparations but then can't afford the train to London, they don't get banged up for stealing the crown jewels.
Why? Because that the law rightly accepts that, for all the planning in the world, there's every chance that the perpatrator might change his mind before committing the act. And why should these clearly less criminal people receive the same sentence as someone who's repellent enough to go through with it?
The law does legislate for crimes that fall short of more heinous crimes. Possession with intent to X, conspiracy to commit X, attempted X.
Are you suggesting we ditch these and just convict people for the supposed eventual crime? Or round all the sentences up so that a useless fantasist gets the same as a cold-blooded killer?
Actually, don't answer that. When it comes to Muslims, I think I know the answer.
To commit a crime, you need intent and action. Intent alone isn't enough. That's central to every civilised, democratic legal system.
And that's not political correctness. It's essential. We'd be f*cked without it.
If someone wants to steal the crown jewels and makes meticulous preparations but then can't afford the train to London, they don't get banged up for stealing the crown jewels.
Why? Because that the law rightly accepts that, for all the planning in the world, there's every chance that the perpatrator might change his mind before committing the act. And why should these clearly less criminal people receive the same sentence as someone who's repellent enough to go through with it?
The law does legislate for crimes that fall short of more heinous crimes. Possession with intent to X, conspiracy to commit X, attempted X.
Are you suggesting we ditch these and just convict people for the supposed eventual crime? Or round all the sentences up so that a useless fantasist gets the same as a cold-blooded killer?
Actually, don't answer that. When it comes to Muslims, I think I know the answer.
The sentence seems about right for this moron. And I mean moron rather than terrorist. I'm going to be bloody angry with our security and armed services if all terrorists are stupid enough to board flights with photos of them holding guns, CD's with 9/11 footage on, and military scopes, and we haven't caught them all yet!
He obviously paid extremely little attention at Terrorism 101 in his training camp. BLEND IN. He might as well have arrived in customs, and when they asked
"Sir, have you got any weapons or materials not allowed on this flight in your bag", said,
"Yes..I mean No. F**k.".
He obviously paid extremely little attention at Terrorism 101 in his training camp. BLEND IN. He might as well have arrived in customs, and when they asked
"Sir, have you got any weapons or materials not allowed on this flight in your bag", said,
"Yes..I mean No. F**k.".
naomi - my point with the guns was in response to Thelands ridiculous post above: To have posed for photographs with such an array of weapons should have carried a sentence of 20 years, for possession of weapons, and if everybody caught with firearms was given the same, it would send a sensible message out..
To me, a terrorist is the same as a premeditated murder. Lets say you thought about murdering your partner. You researched it and even maybe found out that you could get some sort of poison on the open market. However, although you had researched it and maybe even done a dummy run (like Wilt) you did not actually commit the crime.
It could be due to good policing, or it could be as you didn't have the nerve.
The point is, that you did not commit the crime. Yes, you probably should be charged with something, but surely not treated in the same way as a full blown terrorist / murderer?
To me, a terrorist is the same as a premeditated murder. Lets say you thought about murdering your partner. You researched it and even maybe found out that you could get some sort of poison on the open market. However, although you had researched it and maybe even done a dummy run (like Wilt) you did not actually commit the crime.
It could be due to good policing, or it could be as you didn't have the nerve.
The point is, that you did not commit the crime. Yes, you probably should be charged with something, but surely not treated in the same way as a full blown terrorist / murderer?
Vic, I take your point. However, I can't agree that a potential terrorist should be treated in the same way as someone who plans to murder her husband, since a terrorist who carries out his plan will potentially murder thousands.
Supernick has a good point in that the man is probably a moron. However, if that's the case, then clearly common sense doesn't prevail, so who knows what he may be capable of? Should we chance it?
Quinlad has equated someone planning a terrorist act with someone planning to steal the crown jewels, and that really doesn't gel at all. (Incidentally, Quinlad, I'm still waiting for an explanation from you in News).
We do have a problem with terrorism - no one can deny that - and since terrorism poses a threat to so many, I do believe that, in law, it should be treated differently. Society must be protected. If we give potential terrorists the benefit of the doubt, and we're wrong, then we are responsible for their resulting actions - and we have blood on our hands.
Supernick has a good point in that the man is probably a moron. However, if that's the case, then clearly common sense doesn't prevail, so who knows what he may be capable of? Should we chance it?
Quinlad has equated someone planning a terrorist act with someone planning to steal the crown jewels, and that really doesn't gel at all. (Incidentally, Quinlad, I'm still waiting for an explanation from you in News).
We do have a problem with terrorism - no one can deny that - and since terrorism poses a threat to so many, I do believe that, in law, it should be treated differently. Society must be protected. If we give potential terrorists the benefit of the doubt, and we're wrong, then we are responsible for their resulting actions - and we have blood on our hands.
If we give potential terrorists the benefit of the doubt,
and there lies the problem in full - what is a potential terrorist
I have in my possession a copy of the Day of the Jackal by Frederick Forsythe. It gives (in detail) how I could apply for a new identity (and was shown to still be a viable way of obtaining fraudulent documents a few months back).
There are plenty of books around that show you how to defend yourself and potentially kill people (SAS Manual etc).
There was a book (whose name escapes me) where a terrorist character looks at the Twin Towers and says "not yet but hopefully soon" or words to that effect.
A lot of people on this forum have looked at beheadings on the internet (there are threads about it).
There are people on this forum who have posed with guns.
Are any of these people terrorists? Doubtful.
Should they be given the benefit of the doubt?
He was given (imho) a reasonable sentence for a crime that did not occur and that he may never have gone through with. I haven't seen or heard what the psch reports were - we simply don't know if he was a Walter Mitty type character - but obviously the Judge had access to a lot more information and sentenced accordingly.
and there lies the problem in full - what is a potential terrorist
I have in my possession a copy of the Day of the Jackal by Frederick Forsythe. It gives (in detail) how I could apply for a new identity (and was shown to still be a viable way of obtaining fraudulent documents a few months back).
There are plenty of books around that show you how to defend yourself and potentially kill people (SAS Manual etc).
There was a book (whose name escapes me) where a terrorist character looks at the Twin Towers and says "not yet but hopefully soon" or words to that effect.
A lot of people on this forum have looked at beheadings on the internet (there are threads about it).
There are people on this forum who have posed with guns.
Are any of these people terrorists? Doubtful.
Should they be given the benefit of the doubt?
He was given (imho) a reasonable sentence for a crime that did not occur and that he may never have gone through with. I haven't seen or heard what the psch reports were - we simply don't know if he was a Walter Mitty type character - but obviously the Judge had access to a lot more information and sentenced accordingly.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles95 mins ago
What Did The Conservatives Achieve In...
Politics99 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles111 mins ago
