BTW, if you touched the terrorism subject, I must note that an army was never made to fight terrorism, and in most cases, it's useless against it. I agree about terrorism problem being very important and dangerous (and I also think that the "global terrorism" thing exists - sorry LQ), but not army should solve it. This is an example of a problem that should be solved peaceful way, not with weapons, it won't help IMHO, will only make it worse.

Casper
GeorgeHarrison
Please be careful there, because what you're doing right now is just shouting back, and if you are that mature for your ages as you claim, you should understand that Lizard_queen was basing on your previous statements in this thread, not on your ages. I doubt LQ even knew about your ages unless you specified it in your profiles and she's checked it so no need to feel offended. At least don't turn this into that familiar "did you call me a nigguh??" stuff. There's nothing bad in not understanding something. Noone understand everything. And if you think that there are examples of situations that can be solved with weapons and violence only - provide us such situations, let's see how actual they are.

Hostage rescue.

You could argue that you could give in to the hostage takers demands, and get the hostages back safely. But if that works for one person, the next person will do it. And so on...
Lets put it this way; if somebody got a million quid for holding you hostage, why not hold somebody else hostage next week? Easiest money you'd ever earn.

I know my opinion on this isnt valued very high, but I'll go into more detail. After this I recomend a thread split since, a LOT of this is off the original topic.

Tony Martin. The short story is, he was being robbed. He woke up, grabbed his rifle, and shot both of them as they tried to flee his house. One died, the other survived.
I read a great artical about what this meant for England in general, not just for Tony Martin, here.
I fully agree Tony Martin was a hero. Another hero is this man in my opinion.
What confuses me more than anything, is the family's of the burglars saying "He didnt diserve to die". Well, they sure as hell didnt diserve to live. I believe everybody is born with an equal chance. Fair enough, they are raised differently. But everybody, at least people who have made it into being a teenager, has seen the good side of life. And they either choose to get there legaly, or illegaly. They KNOW they're doing something wrong. Why give them a second chance?

Thats domestic violence, now for something a bit more global:

These days, peoples opinions is either for or against involvement in Iraq. And I dont see what all the fuss is about...
A lot of people dont think it was wrong for, the UK at least, to go into Iraq. A tyrant was killed, and a country is being stabalized. You try telling me its worse now than it was with Sadam in charge. The one thing that does annoy me about the war, is all the stories on friendly fire. All thats because of undertrained officers making desicions without checking.
What does it have to do with England? Nothing. We helped them. Its like giving the bum down the street a £100 and directions to the job center. And if you think about it, if every country did that... it would be on its feet in no time. All this because we did a little violence. I cant see how we'd acheive the same proud result, without it.



The reason people are starting to turn to none-violent solutions, is because people are starting to believe that inncent people are being harmed by all this violence. And its very true. Inncent people are being harmed.
You know who's fault it is? I know. Or at least, I like to think I know.


Its yours! And mine! More specificaly, anybody with half a brain cell more than the next person.


Domestic:
Police are desperately trying to employ more people. There is a high demand for police officers, since nobody wants to join up. But while there is a lack of police, crime is increasing. So what do the police do when crime increases?
Make it easier to get in.
So now, the people who will actualy join the police, are the people the police should be arresting. Which is why you get all these pompous know-it-all cops telling you should and shouldnt do, because they're bored, and have another few hours before the next shift. But worst of all, forgetting that their job is actualy catching criminals, instead of finding inncent people who turn to them for help, of doing something illegal, since they're easier to catch. (Yes I'm bias for that one, but only because I'm experianced at it)

Globaly:
The army too, and I say this with a very nervous tone, is manned by people who didnt quite acheive their first option. This doesnt apply too much to the front line infintary, but to the people who order them. I've read and heard lots of none-fiction about mistakes being made because the higher rank wouldnt take the word of a lesser ranked soldier.

But in both of these situations, is political. We need more down to Earth people in leadership, not people trying to help themselves by helping you. Then turning their back on you when they got what they want.


I guess, thats my argument. Tried explaining all the aspects but, if you still want to question something you can do. Or PM me about it.

Overall, I think if pasifism actualy worked, we'd already be born into it. In my opinion, its a wish that has been taken too literaly. The only people who wouldnt want a world without violence, is the people who enjoy causing it. But this is a world where people are put in their place, and they oughta know where it is. Or else.

(sorry, this was kinda long)

i disagree. there are different people around, some better understand words, another better understand force. first are usually smarter than the second. trying to rule with force would only lead you to the total slavery in the world (in the best case, in the worst it would cause your untimely death). nothing near to the 'world peace' term.

re: terrorism - never forget terrorists are being supplied by people who never appear on public and have their own ways and targets. simple ways such as force would be useless against them - you arrest or kill terrorists, they would just train more of them for the future. a special services should work against them, not the blind force, or we will lose this war. too bad koran allows suicide for the sake of salvation. this makes islam believers more vulnerable to become a terrorist tool.

SimpReal
Bingo. You hit the nail on the head right there.

People these days are trying to fight clean wars. They're trying to go in on foot and make sure that the smallest percent of innocent people are harmed that is humanly possible. Well, I'm sorry, but "clean war" is an oxymoron. You can't fight a war without people dying. The most efficient way to fight a war is to completely level a nation, soldiers and civilians alike. In other words, bomb them back to the stone age. Crush their cities into the dust.

Yes, people will die. People die in war. I hate to sound like a patriot here, but it only took two nuclear bombs to make Japan realise that the U.S. wasn't screwing around with them. What did they do then? They surrendered.

And therein lies the problem. War as I have described it is a brutally efficient way to make things happen. And ultimately, even though there will be people who want to "talk it out", there will always be war. It is highly unlikely that every leader would be logical and willing enough to "talk it out". Even if they were, even if all the nations laid down their arms and joined hands in world peace, who would then be able to stop the next Hitler? Fourth Reich, anybody?

Nations must be able to protect themselves. As the man Mat mentioned, Tony Martin, was able to protect himself from those thieves, so should nations guard themselves. Because, I'm sorry to say, until the Second Coming, there will always be evil minds in the world.

Dagdamor
So now people are supposed to just let thieves into their homes while they cower in terror? Well, hopefully you'll forgive me if I am one to take action instead of just letting myself be robbed.

Dagdamor
While I agree that subduing the intruder is the best option, sometimes it doesn't work out that way. In a situation like that, someone can wind up shot or stabbed or beaten to death even if it was unintentional. Maybe Mr. Martin didn't intend to kill the intruder, only wound him. But still, situations turn desperate. We don't even know the details of his situation. Cornered thieves can and will attempt to kill you if it means getting their freedom. And then what will you do?

It's a dog eat dog world, Serge. Survival of the fittest, some would say. As for me, refer to sig.

In the trial, there where obviously two versions of the story. One by the burglar who survived, the other by Tony Martin himself.

The burglar, Brendan Fearon, said that they broke into Tony Martins house through a window, quickly collected valuables into back packs. After a few minutes, a shot was fired, they turned to see Tony Martin with a rifle pointed at them, so they legged it out the window while Martin got another two shots off. One shot hit Brendan in the legs, the other one his his partner in crime, Fred Barras, in the back. Fred died a short distance from the house.

Tony Martin said, that he was woken by noises downstairs. He questioned himself to phone the police, but he knew they would take too long to get there. So he got his rifle, and walked down stairs. As he looked around the corner, one of them spotted him, and shone a flash light in his eyes. He paniced, thinking he was going to be attacked, and blindly fired three shots.


Brenden Fearon's argument won the trial, because balistics evidence pointed out the fact that after the first initial shot, Martin would have had to move forward, in order to make the next two shots possible.

[opinion]
Tony Martin was an eccentric loner. I wouldnt believe everything he said in the first place... but regardless, I think what he did was justified, how he did it or not. How did he know it wasnt the same two theive's who stole £6,000 worth of things from him in multiple robbery's in that same year? Each time he got robbed he phoned the police who told him "Sorry, nothing we can do.", since there was no evidence linking anybody.
I think, if the police really cared, they would have installed temporary CCTV. But, bearing in mind Tony Martin was just one person of MANY victims, its hard to give one person one thing, and not the next.

And Serge:

One day, we all should hope burglar's see it this way. Is it worth robbing somebody, knowing you might get shot?



And just to clarify; while self defence is good when the situation turns dyer... it really is your fault if you tempt people into robbing you. Security is paramount in this world, and prevention is the best cure. It cost me a bike and a large scar on my head to realise that.

Alarmed and locked, before locked and loaded.

Nope, it didnt proove he lied. At least about his first shot.

It prooved that after the first shot was fired (which he may have been blinded), Martin followed the burglars and shot them when he  could see. They where shot as they stumbled out of the window so... unless they where taking a walk on the edge of their window, its clear they where burglars. Which they admited to being anyway.

And I believe, robbers have lesser minds than you or me. But, if you had a flashlight in a dark room, and heard something to your left... why would you look left if you cant see anything? You'd point your flashlight.

He is a hero to me. He didnt just shoot two burglars. He made an impression that if the police arnt going to help, then he'd stand is own ground. Which I think is justified.

GeorgeHarrison
When did I say this? What I said was
and I was replying to your phrase

See the difference? And don't claim a murder "self defence". Once again, those robbers didn't threaten Martin's life. He wasn't defending himself, he was defending his house and money. That's a different problem and shouldn't be solved with rifles IMHO.

I'd say those are side effects of teaching them a lesson. But I would, ofcourse. This is something we may never agree with, but I can see where your coming from. Its just something I'd never agree with.


I had a thought about this whole thing on my way home from college. It seems that laws, and regulations enforced by government are designed to be read, to make it easy to see whether people are innocent or guilty. Tony Martin was guilty of murder, theres no denying that. But whether he should be punished was the definitive argument.
These days, Law's are almost designed so that a computer could understand if your guilty or innocent. There is no human factor, no common sence behind modern law. For example:

Theft + Breaking and Entering + Tresspassing - Murder = 0 = Free to go

or

Theft + Breaking and Entering + Tresspassing - Murder = Life Sentance

It shouldnt be looked at like this. All cases are different, and should be evaluated like individual events.

I honestly think that religeon is the route to evil. I dont wish to sound malitious, but I believe it to be true. I will never join the army. Even if my country was invaded and it was mandatory. I would merely protect those who mean something to me, as that is the only thing worth protecting in the long run. War is pointless. Ill finish with this statement from a Reggae track I heard once - ''If a war is holy, what does unholy mean?''

~Syke

I am merely pointing out my views in an immortal arguement. If there was no religeon, there would be followings, if not that, then gatherings, if not that them most probably dictatorship. The world is continually never going to be a nice, safe place. I dont think any views are relevant in this arguement, I merely think that there are truly stupid people out there who believe anything told to them, especially by the word of their gods. There are those who take religeon too far, entire countries engulfed by this morosity, and its abismal. For a recent example - Mohammed the Teddy... WTF, does this mean if a six year old boy called mohammed walked into their country he would be crucified for no reason? For what Blasphemy. Bollocks. She should never have been arrested for that. I respect peoples rights to believe such pish, but that was one step too far in my opinion, believe what you want people, just for your sakes remember who you are. Dont let it possess you, otherwise, the true meaning of life is broken. The mere fact that we live is because of some fluke or miriacle, so lets enjoy it! While it lasts, war is pointless, arguing is pointless (even if sometimes I feel it nessessary) and religeon in my opinion is a waste of the time we have been given to enjoy our liberties of life. If you believe something, preach all you want, I wont listen. Ill end this time with a statement from the immortal George Carlin -

''Thou shalt keep thine religeon to thine self.''

(PS - I know I seem angry... Well I am a tad, but if I have hurt anyones feelings, I appologise unreservedley. I speak only what I believe, and do not wish to be a social muppet. Im just not religeous and cant see a reason to believe in one is all Im saying, not that I am in any way shape or form like a fascist blogger of anti-freedom.)

~Syke

Holy war is a good excuse to get something done. The Crusades, Muslim jihad, etc. It's a way of brainwashing people into being soldiers for a corrupt human leader, such as the pope or a caliph. Well, The Crusades violated one of the Ten Commandments ("Thou shalt not kill") so basically, they were wrong and we admit it. People just thought a lot differently back then...

Syke, you certainly do seem angry. And if you don't know this already, I am a Christian. You're free to believe religion is a load of bollocks. However, I find that most people who claim to be atheists or simply non-religious, who argue zealously against religion, seem to have some sort of conflict with God. Anger at Him. Ever seen Signs? Yeah.

Lizard_queen, you're right about focusing on the extremists. Most people think that every Christian out there is a homophobic, ignorant, brainwashed redneck, and that every Muslim is a fanatical, suicide-bombing zealot. When this is far from the truth.

About using the expression "holier than thou"... ehh... you just have to understand, in English, that's just a saying we use. It doesn't mean anything literally really, I'm not implying that you think you have some divine right over us Sorry if it was misinterpreted though, there are a lot of confusing figures of speech in English that can appear very nonsensical to people who didn't learn English as their first language.