Should terrorists be shot on sight or captured and interrogated?

Wombat

Wombat

Registered
I know on one side the Police want to interrogate and gather intelligence on who-else is in their terror cells, etc, but I doubt hardened, radicalized extremists would give up their secrets easily, so I'm leaning towards a shoot-on-sight policy

You commit these heinous acts and you die in a hail of gunfire. You want to meet Allah?.....let us help you on your way!

Now the French courts and prison services are going to be dancing around this guy, costing millions of Euros to be seen to be fair to the killer (protecting his human rights) and he lives out his life in a cushy jail, hanging out with others of his kind
 
Not sure that jails are 'cushy' even under those regulations.
Personally I'd have the fcukers in solitary for 23 hours a day.
 
In principle, I'd love to see a shoot to kill policy for terrorists, nonces and serial murderers.

Jean Charles de Menezes proved this might be problematic.

Carl Beech has also thrown a spanner in the works.

Though I guess you could argue. Someone has just chopped some poor blokes head off. The killer is there covered in blood. Just shoot the fucker. No funeral either. Just dissolve them in acid.
 
sixthswan said:
In principle, I'd love to see a shoot to kill policy for terrorists, nonces and serial murderers.

Jean Charles de Menezes proved this might be problematic.

Carl Beech has also thrown a spanner in the works.

Though I guess you could argue. Someone has just chopped some poor blokes head off. The killer is there covered in blood. Just shoot the fucker. No funeral either. Just dissolve them in acid.
Click to expand...
Let Errol deal with them.
 
Just certain "terrorists" or all "terrorists"?
Who determines who the terrorist is and who the freedom fighter is?
Are people who put on uniform and just follow orders to illegally invade a foreign country terrorists?

Ok, I'm rattling the cage a bit but if you're sensible you get my point.

It's not about shooting the fuckers on sight or sticking them in prison until they're deemed safe to stab someone on a jolly boys outing because when your at that point they've already committed to crime and potentially ended someone's life horribly.
How do we stop it happening?
Something radical has to happen (yeah barrel, send them all back etc etc)
We as a nation have royally fucked up over many many years and whilst I accept that we (as a nation) are far from innocent in all this there comes a point where you say enough is enough.
The sad thing is more rational folk are starting to think fight fire with fire but does that drag us down to their level?
I'm honestly at a loss. It's a big shit sandwich and we've all got to take a bite.
 
sixthswan said:
If someone beheads someone else, they need to be shot dead.
Click to expand...
But... how do we stop them beheading someone in the first place. That should be the objective surely, not the objective of revenge.
That's what no one addresses. It's all about how we take revenge after the crime has been committed then the mongs follow on by upping the anti as to who can take revenge the most graphically
 
sixthswan said:
How do you propose preventing a nut-job from beheading someone?
Click to expand...
I've absolutely no idea.
Do a barrel and send all the darkies back
Make it clear that anyone carrying out a terrorist attack will be shot and fed to pigs and any remains will be soaked in pigs blood before being sent to landfill.
Or if detained and found guilty will be kept alive and force fed bacon for the rest of their natural.
I dunno, is that what you want to hear?
The point still stands. How do we stop it actually happening?
That's if governments want it to stop happening but that's another conspiracy all together
 
I don't think any government can stop it from happening. If someone can behead another human, over a cartoon; then I see ending their life as preferable to costly prison.
 
Everyone skirting round the obvious.

Most 'terrorist' attacks in Western Europe are carried out by islamist jihadis.

Stop importing unvetted and unknown islamics. Any already here that do not have residency or commit or are involved in violent offences should be deported.

Will not sort everything, but a good start.
 
AFCDorset said:
Everyone skirting round the obvious.

Most 'terrorist' attacks in Western Europe are carried out by islamist jihadis.

Stop importing unvetted and unknown islamics. Any already here that do not have residency or commit or are involved in violent offences should be deported.

Will not sort everything, but a good start.
Click to expand...
I'm not skirting round the issue. Read what I've said. But interestingly if not obviously, you've started from the point of Islamist terrorists committing the crimes. Take one step back and ask why.
What were the terrorist attacks prior to the Muslim terrorist attacks?
Who carried them out in the UK?
Think we need to look at our policy of invading and occupying other countries for a start.
The other one for me is how many of these "terrorists" were "known" to British intelligence prior to the attacks?
I would say most if not all were on the radar of British intelligence to some level so why are they able to carry out such attacks.
 
Dickie the terrorists have invaded our country just look at the boats coming across the channel is it because it's worth £21k to escape mainland Europe and the EU even on the chance your family gets drown because the UK is better than living in the EU it seems.

Millions of the followers of Islam seem to want to decamp to what were Christian countries and proceed to change the face of them it's an invasion helped by the liberal left who sell us out.

Rather than try to re-educate us that Islam is a peaceful cult why not re-educate them to understand it's a hateful religion and has no place in the west.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top