the liberals soft touch at work....

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:17 pm

dont say i didnt say so.......

12 years ...for this....... Rolling Eyes

of course he will be out in 6

as as for the sentences handed down to his "helpers"...well....seriously????

the whole bloody lot should get life without parole...and thank their lucky stars we are not the savages they are......

from http://news.sky.com/story/1422629/jihadi-who-faked-death-gets-12-years-in-jail

Jihadi Who Faked Death Gets 12 Years In Jail

Imran Khawaja spent six months in Syria alongside insurgents linked to the terror group Islamic State.

17:57, UK, Friday 06 February 2015

By Mark White, Home Affairs Correspondent

A British jihadi who posed with the severed heads of Syrian soldiers and faked his own death to sneak back into the UK has been jailed for 12 years.

But Imran Khawaja - who spent six months in Syria alongside insurgents linked to terror group Islamic State - has appealed to other young British Muslims not to make the same mistakes he did.

He acted as a frontman for Rayat Al Tawheed, posting dozens of photos and videos online and boasting of his weapons training and exploits on the battlefield.

He also encouraged other young men and women to become jihadis and travel to the region.

During a two-day sentencing hearing at Woolwich Crown Court in south east London, Khawaja's defence team appealed to the judge, Mr Justice Baker for leniency, claiming the 27-year-old was a "psychologically vulnerable" young man who bitterly regretted his actions.

But prosecutor Brian Altman QC said Khawaja had featured in some disturbing footage of decapitated Syrian government soldiers.

In one video sequence, played before a hushed court, Mr Altman said Khawaja could be seen picking up severed heads from the back of a flatbed truck and saying: "Heads. Kuffar (non-Muslims) Disgusting."

Mr Altman said: "His attitude is quite clearly contemptuous. There is no sign of compulsion or revulsion."

At a court hearing last month, the former security guard pleaded guilty to preparing acts of terrorism, attending a terror training camp in Syria and receiving weapons training.

He was sentenced today alongside two other men, his cousin Tahir Bhatti, who pleaded guilty to assisting an offender and his friend Asim Ali, who admitted terrorism funding.

Bhatti, a taxi driver, was persuaded to travel to Bulgaria last June to pick up Khawaja and help smuggle him back into the UK.

He was sentenced to 21 months for assisting an offender.
1/7

Ali was given a 21-month sentence for withdrawing £300 to give to his friend on 24 January last year, two days before Khawaja left for Syria.

Throughout his almost six months in the Middle East, Khawaja's family never alerted the UK authorities.

(so much for the alleged "loyalty" of these people, I assume we can now safely make assumptions as to how their loyalties lie??)

Instead they embarked on a relentless campaign of text and social media messaging, desperately pleading with him to return home.

In one exchange, his sister Azmeena berated her brother for deserting the family, saying he had broken his parents' hearts.

In another message, she said: "Book your ticket and come home or I will come and get you."

He told his sister he would not be returning and wanted to "die a martyr".

At the beginning of June last year, Rayat al Tawheed posted an Instagram message stating Khawaja, known by his social media name Abu Daigham al Britaini, had died in battle.

But that post was a deception, Khawaja was already on his way back to the UK in a car driven by his cousin.

The pair were stopped and arrested at the port of Dover on 3 June.

In a letter to the judge read out in court, Khawaja said: "I am sincerely sorry. I have let my country, my family and my community down.

"I have nightmares about Syria. I am lucky to be alive. I would hate to see the young men of Britain make the same mistake I made and say to them 'do not get attracted by the propaganda'."

But prosecutors said they had seen no sign that Khawaja was truly repentant for his crimes. He was, authorities believe, only returning to the UK to raise more funds, before heading back out to Syria and Iraq.

no doubt there will be someone along soon to "excuse" this ?

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:19 pm

Justice is served and has fuck all to do with Liberalism.
That is National socialist thinking that it does, blame others.

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:29 pm

you recon 6 years is JUSTICE????

didge...my dear old soul.....just because it happens to be a sentence handed down by a court does NOT per se make it in any sense "justice"

In fact we no longer as such have a "justice " system....we.... like the yanks ...now have a "penal code" where the severity of sentence does not in fact sufficiently reflect the nature of the crime, but rather panders to some "political aim".

and THAT, old chap, is soley due to wet eared liberals...

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:30 pm

darknessss wrote:you recon 6 years is JUSTICE????

didge...my dear old soul.....just because it happens to be a sentence handed down by a court does NOT per se make it in any sense "justice"

In fact we no longer as such have a "justice " system....we.... like the yanks ...now have a "penal code" where the severity of sentence does not in fact sufficiently reflect the nature of the crime, but rather panders to some "political aim".

and THAT, old chap, is soley due to wet eared liberals...

You see you are arguing moral absolutes again.

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:33 pm

oh and just so there is no misunderstanding the yanks are a little different...

their penal code is nuts BOTH ways.....with both outrageously harsh AND outrageously soft sentencing (often for the same offence in different courts) I suppose it depends on whether or not the judge got his/her leg over that morning Shocked

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:34 pm

How can something be soft based not on moral absolutes Victor?

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:35 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:you recon 6 years is JUSTICE????

didge...my dear old soul.....just because it happens to be a sentence handed down by a court does NOT per se make it in any sense "justice"

In fact we no longer as such have a "justice " system....we.... like the yanks ...now have a "penal code" where the severity of sentence does not in fact sufficiently reflect the nature of the crime, but rather panders to some "political aim".

and THAT, old chap, is soley due to wet eared liberals...

You see you are arguing moral absolutes again.

please ...show me how the above is arguing from the point of moral absolutes???

or is this another liberalist smoke and mirrors word trick.....or more likely plain deception to hide the liberalists lack of moral fibre

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:36 pm

Brasidas wrote:How can something be soft based not on moral absolutes Victor?

by being based on pure logic.

what is the point of criminal sentencing?

lets start there.......

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:37 pm

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

You see you are arguing moral absolutes again.

please ...show me how the above is arguing from the point of moral absolutes???

or is this another liberalist smoke and mirrors word trick.....or more likely plain deception to hide the liberalists lack of moral fibre

Easy, you define levels of punishments as weak.
Your view is based on a moral absolute on how something is wrong is it not?
Take your time mate because you certainly are.

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:40 pm

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:How can something be soft based not on moral absolutes Victor?

by being based on pure logic.

what is the point of criminal sentencing?

lets start there.......

Your logic is based on morals, thus an absolute moral.
Sentencing is form from a punishment based rightly on moral absolutes, of which I agree to, of which you do not believe exists.
That is my point and yet now you here are arguing on moral absolutes
Opps

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:44 pm

sentencing is a form of punishment....hmmmm
I dispute that it is of necessity or always based on moral absolutes, even though in general it may appear to be

is that all?? or are there other aspects of sentencing to be considered?

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:46 pm

darknessss wrote:sentencing is a form of punishment....hmmmm
I dispute that it is of necessity or always based on moral absolutes, even though in general it may appear to be

is that all?? or are there other aspects of sentencing to be considered?

Of course it is based on moral absolutes, for example is murder an absolute moral wrong?

by Guest Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:08 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:sentencing is a form of punishment....hmmmm
I dispute that it is of necessity or always based on moral absolutes, even though in general it may appear to be

is that all?? or are there other aspects of sentencing to be considered?

Of course it is based on moral absolutes, for example is murder an absolute moral wrong?

specifics dont help...

however...lets start by being careful...
murder....
do we all agree what constitutes murder???

I KNOW what the LAW says constitutes murder but even the law allows for some flexibility within its own definition....so it cant be "absolute"
so lets take the obvious case

an unjust unreasonable slaying for profit.....clearly that is absolutely wrong within the framework of our society and yet other societies condone this (thinking here the mafia as they are "big enough to consider a "social structure") and the likes of some quite well known governments.....
however

as far as WE are concerned it is wrong ...absolutely....

however.....

what of the man that persues and kills the rapist of his daughter?

perhaps not quite so absolute....

yes we all know that "taking the law into ones own hands" aint on.....but still by definition murder...but even the law can and does tend to reflect the lesser evil status of this as opposed to the first....usually by a lesser sentence....

etc etc etc....

so little is "absolute" is it .....now PERSONAL absolutes is a different kettle of fish......

and going forward...what is the purpose of sentencing...

ok we have "punishment" we will leave the matter of "degree of punishment for the moment

what about

deterence....? 12 years with only 6 served is NOT a deterrent....not to these nutters....

public safety....? bear in mind this clown will be out in 6........

by Ben Reilly Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:23 pm

I'd sentence him to life with the possibility of parole coming up every 3-4 years ... if he really regrets his actions, he would still have the chance to prove it.

For that matter, who's to say whether he sneaked back into the UK to carry out attacks or because he knew that ISIS kills deserters?

Also:

In one exchange, his sister Azmeena berated her brother for deserting the family, saying he had broken his parents' hearts.

In another message, she said: "Book your ticket and come home or I will come and get you."

Sounds a lot more complicated than trying to pretend the family supports terrorism, dark.

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:10 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:I'd sentence him to life with the possibility of parole coming up every 3-4 years ... if he really regrets his actions, he would still have the chance to prove it.

he can NEVER "prove it" words come easy...he gets life...full stop....no parole.....and should be eternaly grateful we are not of his ilk

For that matter, who's to say whether he sneaked back into the UK to carry out attacks or because he knew that ISIS kills deserters?

sorry again...he "ratted out" ......he can never ...ever................. be trusted again

Also:

In one exchange, his sister Azmeena berated her brother for deserting the family, saying he had broken his parents' hearts.

In another message, she said: "Book your ticket and come home or I will come and get you."

Sounds a lot more complicated than trying to pretend the family supports terrorism, dark.

not saying the fmily support terrorism...their sin is not assisting the authourities in a matter of national security

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:18 am

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Of course it is based on moral absolutes, for example is murder an absolute moral wrong?
specifics dont help...
however...lets start by being careful...
murder....
do we all agree what constitutes murder???
I KNOW what the LAW says constitutes murder but even the law allows for some flexibility within its own definition....so it cant be "absolute"
so lets take the obvious case
an unjust unreasonable slaying for profit.....clearly that is absolutely wrong within the framework of our society and yet other societies condone this (thinking here the mafia as they are "big enough to consider a "social structure") and the likes of some quite well known governments.....
however
as far as WE are concerned it is wrong ...absolutely....
however.....
what of the man that persues and kills the rapist of his daughter?
perhaps not quite so absolute....
yes we all know that "taking the law into ones own hands" aint on.....but still by definition murder...but even the law can and does tend to reflect the lesser evil status of this as opposed to the first....usually by a lesser sentence....etc etc etc....
so little is "absolute" is it .....now PERSONAL absolutes is a different kettle of fish......
and going forward...what is the purpose of sentencing...
ok we have "punishment" we will leave the matter of "degree of punishment for the moment
what about
deterence....? 12 years with only 6 served is NOT a deterrent....not to these nutters....
public safety....? bear in mind this clown will be out in 6........

Utter nonsense, is murder a moral absolute?
Murder denies somebody of their life.
There well being and equality has thus been taken from them.
It is the ultimate moral absolute, because life has been denied to them.
What you are talking about is levels to punishments for this crime, but you have no ethical or moral reason to murder anyone and notice I say the word murder.
Revenge is not a justification for murder either, no matter how many of us may well take the view to actually revenge such an unspeakable act done to our family, as two wrongs do not make right and is talking justice into our hands, where the law can and should deal with such a murderer or rapist.
Again this is on whether something is a moral absolute of which you are in fact arguing for.

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:03 pm

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:
specifics dont help...
however...lets start by being careful...
murder....
do we all agree what constitutes murder???
I KNOW what the LAW says constitutes murder but even the law allows for some flexibility within its own definition....so it cant be "absolute"
so lets take the obvious case
an unjust unreasonable slaying for profit.....clearly that is absolutely wrong within the framework of our society and yet other societies condone this (thinking here the mafia as they are "big enough to consider a "social structure") and the likes of some quite well known governments.....
however
as far as WE are concerned it is wrong ...absolutely....
however.....
what of the man that persues and kills the rapist of his daughter?
perhaps not quite so absolute....
yes we all know that "taking the law into ones own hands" aint on.....but still by definition murder...but even the law can and does tend to reflect the lesser evil status of this as opposed to the first....usually by a lesser sentence....etc etc etc....
so little is "absolute" is it .....now PERSONAL absolutes is a different kettle of fish......
and going forward...what is the purpose of sentencing...
ok we have "punishment" we will leave the matter of "degree of punishment for the moment
what about
deterence....? 12 years with only 6 served is NOT a deterrent....not to these nutters....
public safety....? bear in mind this clown will be out in 6........

Utter nonsense, is murder a moral absolute?
Murder denies somebody of their life.
There well being and equality has thus been taken from them.
It is the ultimate moral absolute, because life has been denied to them.

What you are missing is that that is ONLY true within the framework of a subset of possible societies

What you are talking about is levels to punishments for this crime, but you have no ethical or moral reason to murder anyone and notice I say the word murder.
Revenge is not a justification for murder either, no matter how many of us may well take the view to actually revenge such an unspeakable act done to our family, as two wrongs do not make right and is talking justice into our hands, where the law can and should

BUT, one could reasonable take the point of view that in fact the LAW does not in fact do that....since sentencing is far too soft
as I have said before we dont have a JUSTICE system any more, but a "penal code"
That then leads to another and somewhat different argument about what to do when the law fails the citizen

deal with such a murderer or rapist.
Again this is on whether something is a moral absolute of which you are in fact arguing for.

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:12 pm

Bollocks.
Is murder wrong?

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:19 pm

Brasidas wrote:Bollocks.
Is murder wrong?

are you talking to me....

or an amoral "Ferengi" ?

or an amazonian tribes man?

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:19 pm

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Bollocks.
Is murder wrong?

are you talking to me....

or an amoral "Ferengi" ?

or an amazonian tribes man?

Yes I m talking to you

Is murder wrong?

And why?

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:24 pm

right ...you are asking me....

my reply is ....THAT IN THE FRAMEWORK of MY society then murder is per se...wrong

HOWEVER...that does not make it an ABSOLUTE wrong, since other societies may view things differently...

to say that it is indeed an absolute wrong is derogartory to those other societies, since it implies that "our" society is superior...exactly the view posited by the "empire" in its conquering of other nations.....

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:33 pm

Utter nonsense, is it wrong full stop?

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:37 pm

so you agree with the catholic spaniards who took the inquisition to the Aztecs???

since clearly they were superior???

I Tell you again ...and cant for the life of me see what you dont "get" about it"

YES ...it is wrong.....in the framework of "our " society....

It may NOT be in others......

therefore it CANNOT be absolute.....

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:38 pm

darknessss wrote:so you agree with the catholic spaniards who took the inquisition to the Aztecs???

since clearly they were superior???

I Tell you again ...and cant for the life of me see what you dont "get" about it"

YES ...it is wrong.....in the framework of "our " society....

It may NOT be in others......

therefore it CANNOT be absolute.....

Stop deflecting from the main point.

Is murder a moral absolute?

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

there is NO deflection

It cannot be a moral absolute....simply because there are other societies who may well view it differently

to be ABSOLUTE ...requires it to be a UNIVERSAL absolute....one exception removes its absolute status....

all it can EVER be is "absolute " within our view of society.....

I thought you understood logic ???

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:43 pm

What society agrees with murder as justifiable then?

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:51 pm

try reading up about some of these amazonians
they are actual "real" societies

one can also posit the existance of "theoretical societies" and a number of authors have indeed done so, in which the mores that we commonly accept are displaced or absent....

on can also find in classical history societies where the assasin and or poisoner was considered an honourable trade....

also as mentioned....one could suggest that the Mafia are sufficiently large as to comprise a "society" The fact that we regard them as a "criminal" society has no bearing on this particular argument

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:54 pm

What the fuck?
Who gives a fuck about Amazonian?
Answer the question,
Is Murder wrong?
Yes or no?

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:12 pm

Brasidas wrote:What the fuck?
Who gives a fuck about Amazonian?

You Should...because they show that there is NO "Absolute"

Answer the question,
Is Murder wrong?

within OUR societal framework YES it is....unequivocably (although the law allows for differing "levels" of course, and reasonably so)

BUT as an absoulute universal wrong...clearly not....
unless you consider "us" to be "superior" to the amazonian....

Yes or no?

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:16 pm

So you are no claiming murder is judtified
On what level?

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:18 pm

Brasidas wrote:So you are no claiming murder is judtified
On what level?

where am i claiming its justified??

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:20 pm

Behave Victor, stick to the points

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:28 pm

no 'ang on a min....

you said

"So you are no claiming murder is judtified
On what level?"

erm ...no I didnt......

are you refering to "........unequivocably (although the law allows for differing "levels" of course, and reasonably so)"???

because that is what the LAW says....

as in a particularly vile murder will attract a heavier sentence than a "clean" murder , now i'm not saying I TOTALLY agree since it could be held that murder is murder full stop BUT I can see why they do so and thus cant really argue agaisnt that POV.

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:55 pm

Try again, is murder an absolute?
You did try to argue it was.
Why do you feel it is not?

by Guest Sat Feb 07, 2015 8:21 pm

where did I argue it was??..please......

by Guest Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:11 am

darknessss wrote:where did I argue it was??..please......

Stop being an idiot, its is bad enough reading the shit that Scottish twat comes out with

by Guest Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:35 am

well you did say I argued that murder WAS an absolute

I dont see where....

It is "considered" absolute in OUR society.....

but that does not make it so universally

so logically it cannot in fact be "absolute"......can it

UNLESS....we take the view that ONLY our society is "right"

in which case....................

by Guest Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:36 am

darknessss wrote:well you did say I argued that murder WAS an absolute

I dont see where....

It is "considered" absolute in OUR society.....

but that does not make it so universally

so logically it cannot in fact be "absolute"......can it

UNLESS....we take the view that ONLY our society is "right"

in which case....................

Stop talking bullshit Victor, you know very well that you have and are no back tracking

by Guest Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:37 am

Brasidas wrote:
darknessss wrote:well you did say I argued that murder WAS an absolute

I dont see where....

It is "considered" absolute in OUR society.....

but that does not make it so universally

so logically it cannot in fact be "absolute"......can it

UNLESS....we take the view that ONLY our society is "right"

in which case....................

Stop talking bullshit Victor, you know very well that you have and are no back tracking

where? go on...post it...????

by Guest Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:41 am

darknessss wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Stop talking bullshit Victor, you know very well that you have and are no back tracking

where? go on...post it...????

by Guest Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:47 am

didge..you are just admitting you lost it.....

I have NEVER claimed there are "absolutes"...in fact I have consistantly argued agaisnt it

there is no absolute god/evil moral truth

since EVERYTHING depends on your POV Rolling Eyes

now theres a good chap...have a lie down.....

by Guest Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:49 am

darknessss wrote:didge..you are just admitting you lost it.....

I have NEVER claimed there are "absolutes"...in fact I have consistantly argued agaisnt it

there is no absolute god/evil moral truth

since EVERYTHING depends on your POV

now theres a good chap...have a lie down.....

So we are back full circle, you are saying murder is not a moral absolute then?

by Guest Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:06 am

oh fgs that what the last 2 pages have been about....

but hey ...you got there in the end....almost

you seem to miss the bit (which i mistakenly thought ought to be obvious)

it is a "conditional absolute" (logically)

because

it is sufficiently abhorrent as to amount to an absolute in (and only in) our society (and those of similar nature)

it is not of necessity an absolute in other societies....

therefore it is NOT a universal absolute , since it is conditional upon one or more external factors (the society within which it is used)

therefor...LOGICALLY, as with all other things it is not "absolute" in the true sense of the word.

oh for heavens sake...I thought you could do logical thought......

by Guest Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:09 am

Conditional absolute?

the liberals soft touch at work.... 3489511464

What the fuck are you talking about?
That is illogical on every level, as how can it be an absolute?

Now you are just making up bullshit

by Guest Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:22 am

nope....

its you who lack logical thought

in logic ANY condition can be considered "conditional" when (and only when) it is able to be accepted as absolute within a "sub set" of argument...but not the universal set.....

thus as I am stateing above....the act of murder can be considered an "absolute" within the "subset" of "our society"

It is however conditional upon being constrained by that subset....

IF the arguent is changed to apply to the universal set of "all possible societies" then the conditions are changed and thus the act is no longer absolute (and by extension, any attempt to demand it be so, immediately makes the (wrong) assumption that "our society" is superior)

there is a mathematical proof of this particular argument...but i'm buggered if i can remember it right now...since I last looked at it about 40 odd years ago............whereby something can be logically true in a subset of numbers but NOT in the universal set of all possible numbers

by Guest Sun Feb 08, 2015 1:31 am

Conditional is not an absolute, hence why you are just inventing things as you go along, so you really are talking a load of bullshit.
You do understand the meaning of absolute.
Stop inventing and making things up to get out of a poor mistake on your part.
So again is murder wrong and morally wrong?

by Guest Sun Feb 08, 2015 2:40 am

Brasidas wrote:Conditional is not an absolute, hence why you are just inventing things as you go along, so you really are talking a load of bullshit.
You do understand the meaning of absolute.

cant help it if YOU fail to understand "logic"...clue its not always at first sight logical........

let me try again.....

I would agree that "conditional is not an absolute...but THAT is NOT what I'm logically arguing......(sometimes you can be real dense)
it is however possible (logically) for an absolute to be conditional. These two statements are NOT equivalent (logically)
BUT....in order for the second Statement to be true the object(of the argument) MUST be constrained to a "subset" of reality. In this case "our society"
So it is an absolute if and ONLY if it is applied to "our society" and therefore....logically it is "conditional"

so...we can quite happilyand correctly say that within our society murder is an "absolute" offence (though as i have said the law actually takes a slightly less severe view of it in some cases)

HOWEVER

If we take the view that all possible societies are equally valid then we have a different problem

since it is a matter of fact that some societies hold murder NOT to be an absolute offense....

thus since we have moved from the subset of "our society" to the universal set of "all possible societies" the condition that bounded our original premise is removed and it can thus be shown that (again logically) murder is not (universally) an absolute offense.

now didge...if thats bull shit...show me logically where I'm wrong......where is the logical flaw in such an argument?

remenber...this is cold hard logic...not the world according to YOUR dreams........YOU are the one who claimed to be hot on logic.......

Stop inventing and making things up to get out of a poor mistake on your part.
So again is murder wrong and morally wrong?

within our society yes its wrong (provided we have a common understanding of what constitutes "murder")..beyond that .....see above.....

by Guest Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:03 am

Seriously that is a load of babble victor and you are just making things up as you go along.
There was not an ounce of logic in what you posted.

Is murder wrong, yes or No?
Yes, because it denies someone of their life, so it is an absolute, there is no getting around this and no form of reasoning can justify murdering someone even if it is to save others.
I think you will find all societies hold murder to be a wrong, so that is a load of nonsense, as every nation has laws against murder. Some commit state sanctioned murder and just make themselves hypocrites, but the fact of the matter is we know to take a life is denying that person of their life.

This is why you fail to understand the science of well being and equality, because you can apply measures to protect life based on your own well being as you would not wish someone to take your own life if you were in good health and happy.

by Guest Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:11 am

Right I am knackered, so see you later Victor

by Guest Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:41 am

First you have to define what constitutes murder
what is the definition of "murder"
is it simply the act of taking a life
Can you take a like with out it being murder
Some Us states execute people is that murder ?

if you go strictly by the root of the law "thou shall not kill" its all murder

so what is murder ?

by Sponsored content