Thoughts on the Woolwich killing

[Something completely different]

Can't you see that I was referring to the complaints you had about funding the appeals process of murderers etc? I don't care about the cost of the complaints or appeals, but I do care about paying to feed and entertain a murderer for the rest of his life.

Then express it as such.

Yes, as you correctly stated, these are my opinions and I'm not deviating from them so this debate is basically not beneficial for me in any way or form.

So you dont debate you opinions and are certain of them being correct?!

[ideologue08]

FYI, since 1973 when the death penalty was reinstated in the US, there have been 129 people from 26 states released from death row with evidence of their innocence. And who knows how many more have been imprisoned on false accusation or sloppy work from the police, still waiting on death row.

I understand that, that's why I don't favour a one-tier justice system for murderers or rapists, my opinions are more complex than that but I don't see the point in turning to a full-blown debate on the death penalty.

[Something completely different]

I understand that, that's why I don't favour a one-tier justice system for murderers or rapists, my opinions are more complex than that but I don't see the point in turning to a full-blown debate on the death penalty.

I dont see the point in wearing clothes.

Let`s get all undressed!!!!

[ideologue08]

Then express it as such.

So you dont debate you opinions and are certain of them being correct?!

It's always someone else's fault isn't it? It's never your fault that you couldn't understand what was being said. Unless you want to turn this into a long series of posts (and indeed in the long term) where you accuse me of not clarifying and I accuse you of not understanding, I suggest you desist blaming others.

I don't want to debate this particular opinion as of this moment, and there's nothing you can do about that.

---

Let`s get all undressed!!!!

You first. And pics or didn't happen.

[Something completely different]

It's always someone else's fault isn't it?

Why fault?? You simply didnt express your point in an understandable way? there is nothing to have fault of unless this somehow an imoral thing to do.

It's never your fault that you couldn't understand what was being said.

Why should I be fault? you mentioned pay was imoral and that you didnt mind the cost. You werent specific - so I assumed a contradiction.

Unless you want to turn this into a long series of posts (and indeed in the long term) where you accuse me of not clarifying and I accuse you of not understanding, I suggest you desist blaming others.

what does "desist" mean?

I don't want to debate this particular opinion as of this moment, and there's nothing you can do about that.

fine.

[NoraBrimstone]

Don't you want the State to get rid of a human being who ended your own family or friends?

Sure. However, you'd end up with a lot of dead people if the family of an executed criminal can in turn execute the executioner for ending their loved one... then the executioners family would have to kill them, too. Then their families could then kill them for killing them... and so on.

[Ben Davis]

It's been a worthwhile derail but since ideologue08 doesn't want to continue that conversation, I'm going to bring us back on track.

No, we don't need to include religion. It's pretty clear why the militants are doing what they're doing, they think it's a justified retaliation for the killings Iraq/Aghanistan/Yemen/Pakistan etc. No amount of religious studies is going to stop that because their motivations are primarily political in nature.

Actually, we do need to include religion because removing the religious component leads to oversimplification and mis-analysis. The killers clearly conflate their religion & their politics; they've made that clear in their statements. Further, examinations of their backgrounds indicate that they've been members of extremist religious organisations who clearly express religious bases for their political actions (I used the term 'religio-political' in the OP to illustrate this). Consequently, it's arguable that the 'trigger to action' for these men was their religious radicalisation and that if they'd been subject to less extreme teachings, they may have found a non-murderous outlet for their political convictions. To cut religion out of the equation is to miss a potential trigger from the analysis.

The verse you mentioned 8:12 is not rejected by any Muslim organisation or scholar, in fact it is accepted literally by all scholars in all periods of Islam by unanimous consensus, there's no difference of opinion.

Then I'm confused. Here, we have the MCoB & ISB clearly stating that 'islam gives no justification' for the actions of the killers but you're suggesting that a verse which specifically permits such killings is not rejected by that statement?

[fr0d0]

Whilst it's highly encouraging to see the public representatives of Islam formally decry the killings as 'un-islamic', it is telling that they don't address the problem of the passages that can be used to justify such action. I assume this is a political distancing from those passages to avoid backlash. Personally, I feel that ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

This precisely Ben.

[The Grand Nudger]

Pot meet kettle. What is or is not [insert ghost story here] is so nebulous, ethereal, and ill defined as to be useless. The only operative and demonstrable factor available for consideration is the adherents belief in whatever is [insert ghost story here]- and in that regard they are all equivalent. Make no mistake, no problem is being ignored, various competing adherents are insisting that there is no problem -with their faith- acknowledging otherwise would force them to appraise their belief set in a way that they are unwilling or unable to do. So - it's not "a problem with [insert ghost story here]" - it becomes a problem - "because it is not [insert ghost story here]". It's not an act of ignoring a problem, but an act of manufacturing a simpler problem to rid oneself of a stickier problem.

[fr0d0]

I do agree, however, as an instrumentalist and a pragmatist the the behaviour of these two individuals specifically may have been triggered purely by the actions of the west in states like Iraq et al (again, we can't be sure, as nobody yet knows). But the ideological underpinnings behind their actions I think are much more expansive beyond tha (and I mean in a time based context).

I have close Asian friends and it's shocking to me how much they adopt the anti west rhetoric. I would say the problem isn't religious per se, but then I don't see the Islamic community as a faith community at all, and neither do those friends. It's more if a cultural identity, and there are huge dangers in cherry picking, compounded by the actual weakness of the leadership/ actual doctrine of Islam, if that is as it appears to be.