kenyan mall attack

Such a horrific attack in broad day light in a busy public place.

As civilians are we safe in any public place?

What more can be done to protect innocent people from these kinds of attacks? Should security guards in the UK be allowed to carry firearms?

How can we protect innocent civilians from attack in public places because it is very easy for terrorists to go on the tube in london during rush hour and when the tube is in the tunnel to start opening fire. There would be no escape from that attack and lots of people would be killed.

There is also very little security in football matches. I have been to countless games with a bag and the security guard literally just has a 1 second look and doesn't even put his hand into the bag. They also do not do body searches either.

It is just very worrying that attacks such as the Kenyan mall attack can happen so easily here in the UK and if they do happen there is very little security to protect civilians.

Shocking indeed.
It aint a safe world wherever you are sadly.

Have been in that shopping centre.
Text the old man as soon as i heard to make sure he and his friends were ok.

Very sad.
Its the world we live in.

Sad to say but a tragic event like this is more than likely just around the corner.

RIP to the innocent lives lost.

Its pretty scary. Not sure how to feel about it... Kenya is relatively speaking, pretty close to home. I went to the mall with my girlfriend today, Id never previously seen any security at the doors, today... There were R5 rifles at the doors.

Due to the amount of cricket I play, I have quite literally a few dozen muslim friends, Im worried that the African community (I.e Not South African) may decide its pay back time.

The only thing preventing such attacks in this country is the intelligence gathered by our security services. Many terrorist attacks have been prevented over the years.

If such an attack does slip through the net then it's very diificult to prevent as it happens. It would require an enormous amount of armed security forces to be present at all times in most public places. Each vehicle and person would need to be searched before entering public places. The cost of such an operation would be huge. Also, I don't think many of us want to live in such a 'Police State', as it were.

We live in a (reasonably) free society and it's these freedoms that we would be losing if we allowed the thought of terrorist attacks to dictate the way we live our daily lives.

These attacks are cowardly and we should be vigilant.

Somalia is a failed state. No good for themselves or anybody.

We live in an open society. The law is there to separate the law abiding from the criminals. Somalia has no such society to talk of. I don't like war but what they did was inexcusable they should sort there own mess out before entering other peoples countries and doing such acts.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:These attacks are cowardly and we should be vigilant.

Somalia is a failed state. No good for themselves or anybody.

We live in an open society. The law is there to separate the law abiding from the criminals. Somalia has no such society to talk of. I don't like war but what they did was inexcusable they should sort there own mess out before entering other peoples countries and doing such acts.

The attack was carried out by Al-Shabaab. They are responsible for the mess in Somalia.

STC wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:These attacks are cowardly and we should be vigilant.

Somalia is a failed state. No good for themselves or anybody.

We live in an open society. The law is there to separate the law abiding from the criminals. Somalia has no such society to talk of. I don't like war but what they did was inexcusable they should sort there own mess out before entering other peoples countries and doing such acts.

The attack was carried out by Al-Shabaab. They are responsible for the mess in Somalia.

The whole country if you can call it that is a mess.

Education would set people free more then war. This is why backward groups like Al p***y don't want people to be educated.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

STC wrote:

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:These attacks are cowardly and we should be vigilant.

Somalia is a failed state. No good for themselves or anybody.

We live in an open society. The law is there to separate the law abiding from the criminals. Somalia has no such society to talk of. I don't like war but what they did was inexcusable they should sort there own mess out before entering other peoples countries and doing such acts.

The attack was carried out by Al-Shabaab. They are responsible for the mess in Somalia.

The whole country if you can call it that is a mess.

Education would set people free more then war. This is why backward groups like Al p***y don't want people to be educated.

In an ideal world peace and education would be fantastic. It would be a fair assumption that the majority of those involved in the Kenyan massacre were uneducated young men. But there are countless more similar young men who are involved in similar militant Islamic groups in Africa, Arabia, The Middle East and Southern Asia, ready to step into their shoes. This problem isn't going away any time soon.

To be fair on the Somalia authorities they have tried to take on and defeat Al-Shabaab. The fact that the Kenyan Army helped them in their fight against Al-Shabaab is what led to the events in Nairobi.

A Somalian recently granted UK citizenship has been arrested at the airport and is believed to have been involved in the attack.

Makes me sick that UK based Somalians might've been involved in this. The fact that such scum can achieve citizenship shows the system is a shambles.

TopHat24/7 wrote:A Somalian recently granted UK citizenship has been arrested at the airport and is believed to have been involved in the attack.

Makes me sick that UK based Somalians might've been involved in this.  The fact that such scum can achieve citizenship shows the system is a shambles.

It is sickening when immigrants in this country get involved in terrorist activity. Especially those who come here to seek asylum. They hate the west and western ideals so much yet they come here to seek refuge from the intolerable life they had in their native countries, happy to accept our charity and protection.

Scum indeed.

TopHat24/7 wrote:A Somalian recently granted UK citizenship has been arrested at the airport and is believed to have been involved in the attack.

Makes me sick that UK based Somalians might've been involved in this.  The fact that such scum can achieve citizenship shows the system is a shambles.

Al Shabab can get citizenship but Al Fayad can't???????

TopHat24/7 wrote:A Somalian recently granted UK citizenship has been arrested at the airport and is believed to have been involved in the attack.

Makes me sick that UK based Somalians might've been involved in this.  The fact that such scum can achieve citizenship shows the system is a shambles.

The only possible solution is to not allow any foreigners a UK passport.

I think that's extreme, I just think the citizenship system needs to be tougher.

For example you shouldn't be able to gain a passport/leave to remain by marrying in to a non-UK citizen. Africans and sub-continental Asians are the biggest perpetrators of this and it's most often with Eastern European girls.

If someone is making a genuine contribution to society and the economy and has not hint of dodgy ideology then I see no problem in citizenship. But it shouldn't be about simply how long you've lived in the country and whether you can pass a silly exam.

TopHat24/7 wrote:I think that's extreme, I just think the citizenship system needs to be tougher.

For example you shouldn't be able to gain a passport/leave to remain by marrying in to a non-UK citizen.  Africans and sub-continental Asians are the biggest perpetrators of this and it's most often with Eastern European girls.

If someone is making a genuine contribution to society and the economy and has not hint of dodgy ideology then I see no problem in citizenship.  But it shouldn't be about simply how long you've lived in the country and whether you can pass a silly exam.

And they should conform to our way of living. If we go and have extra marital affairs in their countries we get jailed. Yet they come over hear and wear balaclavas in public and we can't asks them to remove them because it's religion. Rubbish.

We've been a soft touch for too long and this is the result.

Equally the preservation of basic freedoms is an important part of British identity, IMO, therefore I don't like the idea of a kind of police state where everyone is forced to conform to some sort of pre-defined ideal.

TopHat24/7 wrote:Equally the preservation of basic freedoms is an important part of British identity, IMO, therefore I don't like the idea of a kind of police state where everyone is forced to conform to some sort of pre-defined ideal.

The law should be the code by which to live for everyone. If we had a strict judicial system then the country would be able to clarify law abiding from criminal.

For example. Murderers should gat capital punishment.

I think religious freedoms and freedom of expression are a very important part of our society and any measures to curb them is a step in the wrong direction. Although, equally as important, don't try to force beliefs on others who disagree with you and realise that blowing up innocent people on public transport or hacking them to death in the street really isn't the correct way to express yourself.

See, I wouldn't want that either.

EDIT: Comment was re 1-2's capital punishment comment.

TopHat24/7 wrote:See, I wouldn't want that either.

EDIT: Comment was re 1-2's capital punishment comment.

I would say that CP should be an option for those who are rightly convicted for murder.

STC wrote:I think religious freedoms and freedom of expression are a very important part of our society and any measures to curb them is a step in the wrong direction. Although, equally as important, don't try to force beliefs on others who disagree with you and realise that blowing up innocent people on public transport or hacking them to death in the street really isn't the correct way to express yourself.

Speaking of which, they've both just pleaded NOT GUILTY.

I'm guessing they're doing it in order to use the trial to grandstand. They shouldn't be allowed. Their testimony isn't required and they shouldn't be allowed near the court room, now they've entered their plea, until the verdict is announced.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:Equally the preservation of basic freedoms is an important part of British identity, IMO, therefore I don't like the idea of a kind of police state where everyone is forced to conform to some sort of pre-defined ideal.

The law should be the code by which to live for everyone. If we had a strict judicial system then the country would be able to clarify law abiding from criminal.

For example. Murderers should gat capital punishment.

It's a tough one.

I think if you ask the family of the victims most of them would agree. I agree too, to a certain extent. I think if you intentionally take the life of another then you lose all rights to exist in this world. I see that as justice for the victims and their families rather than punishment for the crime. But there have been numerous cases of wrongful convictions in murder cases. What about had these people been executed and then later found out to be innocent? It's happened in the past. How do you justify it to their families?

Some convictions are water tight, though. But some are convicted on ambiguous evidence. 

TopHat24/7 wrote:

STC wrote:I think religious freedoms and freedom of expression are a very important part of our society and any measures to curb them is a step in the wrong direction. Although, equally as important, don't try to force beliefs on others who disagree with you and realise that blowing up innocent people on public transport or hacking them to death in the street really isn't the correct way to express yourself.

Speaking of which, they've both just pleaded NOT GUILTY.

I'm guessing they're doing it in order to use the trial to grandstand.  They shouldn't be allowed.  Their testimony isn't required and they shouldn't be allowed near the court room, now they've entered their plea, until the verdict is announced.

I agree. Their guilt isn't in doubt. The trial should be quick and done with minimal fuss, sentence passed and both locked away for the rest of their lives. I'd have no problem with both being executed tomorrow though.

I understand that some cases are ambiguous but for those where there is no doubt it should be employed.

STC wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

STC wrote:I think religious freedoms and freedom of expression are a very important part of our society and any measures to curb them is a step in the wrong direction. Although, equally as important, don't try to force beliefs on others who disagree with you and realise that blowing up innocent people on public transport or hacking them to death in the street really isn't the correct way to express yourself.

Speaking of which, they've both just pleaded NOT GUILTY.

I'm guessing they're doing it in order to use the trial to grandstand.  They shouldn't be allowed.  Their testimony isn't required and they shouldn't be allowed near the court room, now they've entered their plea, until the verdict is announced.

I agree. Their guilt isn't in doubt. The trial should be quick and done with minimal fuss, sentence passed and both locked away for the rest of their lives. I'd have no problem with both being executed tomorrow though.

See this is another reason I'm against death penalty. When it's scum like this they have, in their view, a 'cause' and by killing them you are offering martyrdom. Lifetime without parole (sod ECHR rulings) in solitary confinement with 1 hr outside the cell a day for exercise, again in solitary, no electronics just books from an approved list.

TopHat24/7 wrote:

STC wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

STC wrote:I think religious freedoms and freedom of expression are a very important part of our society and any measures to curb them is a step in the wrong direction. Although, equally as important, don't try to force beliefs on others who disagree with you and realise that blowing up innocent people on public transport or hacking them to death in the street really isn't the correct way to express yourself.

Speaking of which, they've both just pleaded NOT GUILTY.

I'm guessing they're doing it in order to use the trial to grandstand.  They shouldn't be allowed.  Their testimony isn't required and they shouldn't be allowed near the court room, now they've entered their plea, until the verdict is announced.

I agree. Their guilt isn't in doubt. The trial should be quick and done with minimal fuss, sentence passed and both locked away for the rest of their lives. I'd have no problem with both being executed tomorrow though.

See this is another reason I'm against death penalty.  When it's scum like this they have, in their view, a 'cause' and by killing them you are offering martyrdom.  Lifetime without parole (sod ECHR rulings) in solitary confinement with 1 hr outside the cell a day for exercise, again in solitary, no electronics just books from an approved list.

I appreciate that some would prefer death but I would be happy to oblige them.

STC wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

STC wrote:I think religious freedoms and freedom of expression are a very important part of our society and any measures to curb them is a step in the wrong direction. Although, equally as important, don't try to force beliefs on others who disagree with you and realise that blowing up innocent people on public transport or hacking them to death in the street really isn't the correct way to express yourself.

Speaking of which, they've both just pleaded NOT GUILTY.

I'm guessing they're doing it in order to use the trial to grandstand.  They shouldn't be allowed.  Their testimony isn't required and they shouldn't be allowed near the court room, now they've entered their plea, until the verdict is announced.

I agree. Their guilt isn't in doubt. The trial should be quick and done with minimal fuss, sentence passed and both locked away for the rest of their lives. I'd have no problem with both being executed tomorrow though.

And you know this because? Maybe they have mental issues and are not guilty by reason of insanity. They are clearly guilty of the act of killing but lets not forget that the mental element of murder is just as important and it is only through a trial that we can gather the evidence to convict people.

I also disagree with the death penalty. We are a civilised nation, we don't go around killing people in the name of the law.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

STC wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

STC wrote:I think religious freedoms and freedom of expression are a very important part of our society and any measures to curb them is a step in the wrong direction. Although, equally as important, don't try to force beliefs on others who disagree with you and realise that blowing up innocent people on public transport or hacking them to death in the street really isn't the correct way to express yourself.

Speaking of which, they've both just pleaded NOT GUILTY.

I'm guessing they're doing it in order to use the trial to grandstand.  They shouldn't be allowed.  Their testimony isn't required and they shouldn't be allowed near the court room, now they've entered their plea, until the verdict is announced.

I agree. Their guilt isn't in doubt. The trial should be quick and done with minimal fuss, sentence passed and both locked away for the rest of their lives. I'd have no problem with both being executed tomorrow though.

And you know this because? Maybe they have mental issues and are not guilty by reason of insanity. They are clearly guilty of the act of killing but lets not forget that the mental element of murder is just as important and it is only through a trial that we can gather the evidence to convict people.

I also disagree with the death penalty. We are a civilised nation, we don't go around killing people in the name of the law.

So when did we become a civilized nation then? Before 1950 we executed our criminals and killers. Were we not civilised then?

If you are going to be locked up for life, then let it mean life.

In a small cell where you only have a few books to occupy yourself and are allowed out for one hour a day

They do it right in America,

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

STC wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

STC wrote:I think religious freedoms and freedom of expression are a very important part of our society and any measures to curb them is a step in the wrong direction. Although, equally as important, don't try to force beliefs on others who disagree with you and realise that blowing up innocent people on public transport or hacking them to death in the street really isn't the correct way to express yourself.

Speaking of which, they've both just pleaded NOT GUILTY.

I'm guessing they're doing it in order to use the trial to grandstand.  They shouldn't be allowed.  Their testimony isn't required and they shouldn't be allowed near the court room, now they've entered their plea, until the verdict is announced.

I agree. Their guilt isn't in doubt. The trial should be quick and done with minimal fuss, sentence passed and both locked away for the rest of their lives. I'd have no problem with both being executed tomorrow though.

And you know this because? Maybe they have mental issues and are not guilty by reason of insanity. They are clearly guilty of the act of killing but lets not forget that the mental element of murder is just as important and it is only through a trial that we can gather the evidence to convict people.

I also disagree with the death penalty. We are a civilised nation, we don't go around killing people in the name of the law.

I guess the caveat here is that, purely IMO, I don't believe in the 'not guilty by reason of insanity' plea.

Plus, in this case, I think they pleaded straight not guilty and didn't offer a qualified plea. I don't know how it works as to whether you can plead straight not guilty but then still have it established during the trial process that you lacked the sufficient mental capacity to commit murder and therefore have a conviction prevented.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

STC wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

STC wrote:I think religious freedoms and freedom of expression are a very important part of our society and any measures to curb them is a step in the wrong direction. Although, equally as important, don't try to force beliefs on others who disagree with you and realise that blowing up innocent people on public transport or hacking them to death in the street really isn't the correct way to express yourself.

Speaking of which, they've both just pleaded NOT GUILTY.

I'm guessing they're doing it in order to use the trial to grandstand.  They shouldn't be allowed.  Their testimony isn't required and they shouldn't be allowed near the court room, now they've entered their plea, until the verdict is announced.

I agree. Their guilt isn't in doubt. The trial should be quick and done with minimal fuss, sentence passed and both locked away for the rest of their lives. I'd have no problem with both being executed tomorrow though.

And you know this because? Maybe they have mental issues and are not guilty by reason of insanity. They are clearly guilty of the act of killing but lets not forget that the mental element of murder is just as important and it is only through a trial that we can gather the evidence to convict people.

I also disagree with the death penalty. We are a civilised nation, we don't go around killing people in the name of the law.

I said was that their guilt isn't in doubt. You just agreed with me.

Whether it be manslaughter through diminished responsibility or not can be argued in court.

The question of capital punishment is a tough one, as I've previously said. I agree that it is an extreme form of justice but in extreme cases, such as child abduction, torture, r*** and murder I think it highly appropriate. Yes we are a civilsed nation but victims deserve justice. Those who take the life of others, especially those much more vulnerable than themselves, and make their victims suffer unimaginably, don't deserve even the very basic of human rights. They forfeit those rights.

STC wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

STC wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

STC wrote:I think religious freedoms and freedom of expression are a very important part of our society and any measures to curb them is a step in the wrong direction. Although, equally as important, don't try to force beliefs on others who disagree with you and realise that blowing up innocent people on public transport or hacking them to death in the street really isn't the correct way to express yourself.

Speaking of which, they've both just pleaded NOT GUILTY.

I'm guessing they're doing it in order to use the trial to grandstand.  They shouldn't be allowed.  Their testimony isn't required and they shouldn't be allowed near the court room, now they've entered their plea, until the verdict is announced.

I agree. Their guilt isn't in doubt. The trial should be quick and done with minimal fuss, sentence passed and both locked away for the rest of their lives. I'd have no problem with both being executed tomorrow though.

And you know this because? Maybe they have mental issues and are not guilty by reason of insanity. They are clearly guilty of the act of killing but lets not forget that the mental element of murder is just as important and it is only through a trial that we can gather the evidence to convict people.

I also disagree with the death penalty. We are a civilised nation, we don't go around killing people in the name of the law.

I said was that their guilt isn't in doubt. You just agreed with me.

Whether it be manslaughter through diminished responsibility or not can be argued in court.

The question of capital punishment is a tough one, as I've previously said. I agree that it is an extreme form of justice but in extreme cases, such as child abduction, torture, r*** and murder I think it highly appropriate. Yes we are a civilsed nation but victims deserve justice. Those who take the life of others, especially those much more vulnerable than themselves, and make their victims suffer unimaginably, don't deserve even the very basic of human rights. They forfeit those rights.

I think it depends all on your view of what prison is meant to offer. People who are in favour of the death penalty believe that prison (and the death penaly) is a tool used to dish out punishment.

My view is that prison should be used as a tool to educate criminals, rehabilitate them and show them that their actions were wrong. Yes they are punished by losing their liberty for 20+ years but within that time they are educated as to what is acceptable in a modern society.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

STC wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

STC wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

STC wrote:I think religious freedoms and freedom of expression are a very important part of our society and any measures to curb them is a step in the wrong direction. Although, equally as important, don't try to force beliefs on others who disagree with you and realise that blowing up innocent people on public transport or hacking them to death in the street really isn't the correct way to express yourself.

Speaking of which, they've both just pleaded NOT GUILTY.

I'm guessing they're doing it in order to use the trial to grandstand.  They shouldn't be allowed.  Their testimony isn't required and they shouldn't be allowed near the court room, now they've entered their plea, until the verdict is announced.

I agree. Their guilt isn't in doubt. The trial should be quick and done with minimal fuss, sentence passed and both locked away for the rest of their lives. I'd have no problem with both being executed tomorrow though.

And you know this because? Maybe they have mental issues and are not guilty by reason of insanity. They are clearly guilty of the act of killing but lets not forget that the mental element of murder is just as important and it is only through a trial that we can gather the evidence to convict people.

I also disagree with the death penalty. We are a civilised nation, we don't go around killing people in the name of the law.

I said was that their guilt isn't in doubt. You just agreed with me.

Whether it be manslaughter through diminished responsibility or not can be argued in court.

The question of capital punishment is a tough one, as I've previously said. I agree that it is an extreme form of justice but in extreme cases, such as child abduction, torture, r*** and murder I think it highly appropriate. Yes we are a civilsed nation but victims deserve justice. Those who take the life of others, especially those much more vulnerable than themselves, and make their victims suffer unimaginably, don't deserve even the very basic of human rights. They forfeit those rights.

I think it depends all on your view of what prison is meant to offer. People who are in favour of the death penalty believe that prison (and the death penaly) is a tool used to dish out punishment.

My view is that prison should be used as a tool to educate criminals, rehabilitate them and show them that their actions were wrong. Yes they are punished by losing their liberty for 20+ years but within that time they are educated as to what is acceptable in a modern society.

Yeah these 2 probably need education. How were they to know beheading someone on the street wasn't the done thing. Let's get them in class and released.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

STC wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

STC wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

STC wrote:I think religious freedoms and freedom of expression are a very important part of our society and any measures to curb them is a step in the wrong direction. Although, equally as important, don't try to force beliefs on others who disagree with you and realise that blowing up innocent people on public transport or hacking them to death in the street really isn't the correct way to express yourself.

Speaking of which, they've both just pleaded NOT GUILTY.

I'm guessing they're doing it in order to use the trial to grandstand.  They shouldn't be allowed.  Their testimony isn't required and they shouldn't be allowed near the court room, now they've entered their plea, until the verdict is announced.

I agree. Their guilt isn't in doubt. The trial should be quick and done with minimal fuss, sentence passed and both locked away for the rest of their lives. I'd have no problem with both being executed tomorrow though.

And you know this because? Maybe they have mental issues and are not guilty by reason of insanity. They are clearly guilty of the act of killing but lets not forget that the mental element of murder is just as important and it is only through a trial that we can gather the evidence to convict people.

I also disagree with the death penalty. We are a civilised nation, we don't go around killing people in the name of the law.

I said was that their guilt isn't in doubt. You just agreed with me.

Whether it be manslaughter through diminished responsibility or not can be argued in court.

The question of capital punishment is a tough one, as I've previously said. I agree that it is an extreme form of justice but in extreme cases, such as child abduction, torture, r*** and murder I think it highly appropriate. Yes we are a civilsed nation but victims deserve justice. Those who take the life of others, especially those much more vulnerable than themselves, and make their victims suffer unimaginably, don't deserve even the very basic of human rights. They forfeit those rights.

I think it depends all on your view of what prison is meant to offer. People who are in favour of the death penalty believe that prison (and the death penaly) is a tool used to dish out punishment.

My view is that prison should be used as a tool to educate criminals, rehabilitate them and show them that their actions were wrong. Yes they are punished by losing their liberty for 20+ years but within that time they are educated as to what is acceptable in a modern society.

Yeah these 2 probably need education. How were they to know beheading someone on the street wasn't the done thing. Let's get them in class and released.

Somewhere down the line they were brainwashed by extremists and radicalised, They were not born murderers or islamic extremists. What they did was horrible but lets not use them as an excuse to regress as a society and start killing criminals.

Lets not forget that the death penalty was still available for treason up until 1998 and that would mean people like bradley manning who exposed disgusting crimes committed by the state could be executed under UK law.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

STC wrote:

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

STC wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

STC wrote:I think religious freedoms and freedom of expression are a very important part of our society and any measures to curb them is a step in the wrong direction. Although, equally as important, don't try to force beliefs on others who disagree with you and realise that blowing up innocent people on public transport or hacking them to death in the street really isn't the correct way to express yourself.

Speaking of which, they've both just pleaded NOT GUILTY.

I'm guessing they're doing it in order to use the trial to grandstand.  They shouldn't be allowed.  Their testimony isn't required and they shouldn't be allowed near the court room, now they've entered their plea, until the verdict is announced.

I agree. Their guilt isn't in doubt. The trial should be quick and done with minimal fuss, sentence passed and both locked away for the rest of their lives. I'd have no problem with both being executed tomorrow though.

And you know this because? Maybe they have mental issues and are not guilty by reason of insanity. They are clearly guilty of the act of killing but lets not forget that the mental element of murder is just as important and it is only through a trial that we can gather the evidence to convict people.

I also disagree with the death penalty. We are a civilised nation, we don't go around killing people in the name of the law.

I said was that their guilt isn't in doubt. You just agreed with me.

Whether it be manslaughter through diminished responsibility or not can be argued in court.

The question of capital punishment is a tough one, as I've previously said. I agree that it is an extreme form of justice but in extreme cases, such as child abduction, torture, r*** and murder I think it highly appropriate. Yes we are a civilsed nation but victims deserve justice. Those who take the life of others, especially those much more vulnerable than themselves, and make their victims suffer unimaginably, don't deserve even the very basic of human rights. They forfeit those rights.

I think it depends all on your view of what prison is meant to offer. People who are in favour of the death penalty believe that prison (and the death penaly) is a tool used to dish out punishment.

My view is that prison should be used as a tool to educate criminals, rehabilitate them and show them that their actions were wrong. Yes they are punished by losing their liberty for 20+ years but within that time they are educated as to what is acceptable in a modern society.

Yeah these 2 probably need education. How were they to know beheading someone on the street wasn't the done thing. Let's get them in class and released.

Somewhere down the line they were brainwashed by extremists and radicalised, They were not born murderers or islamic extremists. What they did was horrible but lets not use them as an excuse to regress as a society and start killing criminals.

Lets not forget that the death penalty was still available for treason up until 1998 and that would mean people like bradley manning who exposed disgusting crimes committed by the state could be executed under UK law.

Some people are just evil, but daft liberals like you are willing to dismiss their disgusting crimes and blame it on other people.

The scariest thing about this case, is that this "White Widow" lady was probably until a few weeks ago living a few kilometres from my dwellings... Jo'burg isnt that big, and white female Muslims arent exactly in abundant supply. Here was a terrorist suspect who was running up mountains of debt under an assumed name, without any authorities picking it up. That makes me mad because a few months ago, my account was frozen due to me being suspected of laundering/Terrorist dealings, and yet she was opening multiple credit cards to finance this mass murder. Chances are quite high that I have crossed her path a few times at malls and such...

It really is a pity that so much scum comes to South Africa to hideout, but as so many of them say when asked why... "We have the most wonderful constitution in the world"

kingraf wrote:The scariest thing about this case, is that this "White Widow" lady was probably until a few weeks ago living a few kilometres from my dwellings... Jo'burg isnt that big, and white female Muslims arent exactly in abundant supply. Here was a terrorist suspect who was running up mountains of debt under an assumed name, without any authorities picking it up. That makes me mad because a few months ago, my account was frozen due to me being suspected of laundering/Terrorist dealings, and yet she was opening multiple credit cards to finance this mass murder. Chances are quite high that I have crossed her path a few times at malls and such...

It really is a pity that so much scum comes to South Africa to hideout, but as so many of them say when asked why... "We have the most wonderful constitution in the world"

I think she will be caught soon, so much heat is on her now.

20 dead in a Nigerian college. Seems like jihad has been quite clearly declared

And another suicide bomb attack in Iraq. It's very clear what the problem is, but I won't voice it here for fear of being a labelled a certain type of "phobic".

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

kingraf wrote:The scariest thing about this case, is that this "White Widow" lady was probably until a few weeks ago living a few kilometres from my dwellings... Jo'burg isnt that big, and white female Muslims arent exactly in abundant supply. Here was a terrorist suspect who was running up mountains of debt under an assumed name, without any authorities picking it up. That makes me mad because a few months ago, my account was frozen due to me being suspected of laundering/Terrorist dealings, and yet she was opening multiple credit cards to finance this mass murder. Chances are quite high that I have crossed her path a few times at malls and such...

It really is a pity that so much scum comes to South Africa to hideout, but as so many of them say when asked why... "We have the most wonderful constitution in the world"

I think she will be caught soon, so much heat is on her now.

Well lets hope so.

Has any group produced more murderers?

Does anyone worry what the world will be like in 25 years time? I just have a feeling it will be a very selfish and an extremely dangerous place.

Until powerful political figures come out a reject religion to really force change then sadly we will have these types of conflict. Religion spreads evil and their needs to come a point where society sees sense and rejects these, especially those originating from the Middle East and Africa.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Until powerful political figures come out a reject religion to really force change then sadly we will have these types of conflict. Religion spreads evil and their needs to come a point where society sees sense and rejects these, especially those originating from the Middle East and Africa.

Very true LJ.

The argument has been done to death so people are unlikely to change their own views, but when you have political leaders of g8 countries saying 'only god is my judge' then what bloody chance have we got.

Religion allows people to hide behind some ridiculous ideology which is no more believable than a Harry Potter story. A family member of mine isn't too well at the moment and a colleague from work said she would pray for me. Nice thought I suppose but I told her not to bloody bother. Taking to air won't help one jot.

And without religion how many of these hurrendous acts against humanity (including wars) would not have happened. I don't know the exact figures but it must be over 90%.

Lumbering_Jack wrote:Until powerful political figures come out a reject religion to really force change then sadly we will have these types of conflict. Religion spreads evil and their needs to come a point where society sees sense and rejects these, especially those originating from the Middle East and Africa.

First off this statement is very important. Powerful political figures WILL publicly denounce religion in all forms its part of the agenda, the task in the meantime is to condition people just like Lumbering into freely rejecting something very natural to Human beings. Religion is a very personal trait of humans and the 1 thing ''powerful political figures'' have no real power over. People in this world put religion and faith before nationalistic aspirations or pride. When certain powers seek to control the masses then this becomes a problem.

For me religion is not the issue. Thousands of wars have been started in the name of Christianity. Its the fact that the powerful always have the guns. Most muslims are peaceful but some idiots among them have weapons to force their evil views.

Christianity is a religion. Is doesn't spread as much hatred as certain other religions but is equally ridiculous.

Nice of you LJ - forcing people to conform to your beliefs then? Not much different to... well you know.

Your defense is probably - "But no one would kill if we all didnt believe in a deity", to which of course, the same is true if we all believed in Islam.

Difference being religion is clearly nonsense. People don't have to conform to my beliefs and without religion can still be unique individuals. However , without religion the atrocities would not happen.