At Last Something Like A Proper Sentence.

[Margaret Pilkington]

It is very hard to demonstrate that killing is wrong by killing the killer.....now i've written it I am not sure that it makes sense.....someone tell me they know what I mean...please!

[KIPAX]

margeret you have said it perfectly correctly. killing is wrong. killing as a punishment is wrong. having the ability to sit in an office and make up a law saying its OK to ahve the death penalty doesn't make it right.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

It is very hard to demonstrate that killing is wrong by killing the killer.....now i've written it I am not sure that it makes sense.....someone tell me they know what I mean...please!

I understand what you mean

And KIPAX it doesn't necessarily make it right to just add a new law but then I dont agree with the terrorist laws either as i think the problem is that 'terrorist' isnt defined properly in the statute so anyone can be labelled as one and their rights taken away.

Also with the recent terrorists being NHS doctors (alledgedly at least) it makes you wonder exact what their motives were. Perhaps the argument in that book that it creates martyrs is true, I mean, I dont condone the methods they used to get the attention of the media but what if the cause they did it for was a good one? Other protesters do violent things, for example PETA attack animal testing labs and those involved quite often, are they now terrorists aswell?

Protesting and terrorism is beginning to have dangerous overlaps and it restricts alot of the freedoms we think we have. I wouldn't dare join a protest now for fear of being arrested due to being involved in something that may happen to be catagorised as terrorism without realising it.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by KIPAX

margeret you have said it perfectly correctly. killing is wrong. killing as a punishment is wrong. having the ability to sit in an office and make up a law saying its OK to ahve the death penalty doesn't make it right.

Its not necessarily wrong if it did show to have benefits but the fact of the matter is that its one big contradiction to kill someone because they killed. It makes decent people as bad as them in effect.

[WillowTheWhisp]

PETA may claim to have the highest of motives but their methods of protest make them worse than the people the allegedly deplore. Yes, I would class that alongside terrorism.

[KIPAX]

Originally Posted by blazey

I understand what you mean

And KIPAX it doesn't necessarily make it right to just add a new law t.

I know. thats what I said.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

PETA may claim to have the highest of motives but their methods of protest make them worse than the people the allegedly deplore. Yes, I would class that alongside terrorism.

But then doesnt this broadly define what terrorism is? They break into places, trash labs, leave nasty letters etc.
Cant split up partners do these sort of things to eachother aswell when theyre holding a grudge (just an example) It is the same type of situation, protesting about animals or protesting about ending the relationship, trashing either types of property and causing 'terror'.

It seems all too easy for the term to get too broad and the act to be used to widely against people.

[KIPAX]

Originally Posted by blazey

Its not necessarily wrong if it did show to have benefits but the fact of the matter is that its one big contradiction to kill someone because they killed. It makes decent people as bad as them in effect.

In other words you agree with what margaret and I said.. but you wanted to be long winded about it...

[blazey]

Originally Posted by KIPAX

I know. thats what I said.

Yes it was an agreement with you but I went on to say more on top of it, you must've just read it wrong

[blazey]

Originally Posted by KIPAX

In other words you agree with what margaret and I said.. but you wanted to be long winded about it...

Is a sentence long winded? whats your problem lol.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by blazey

Other protesters do violent things, for example PETA attack animal testing labs and those involved quite often, are they now terrorists aswell?

They have been since 2005, and people have been charged as such.


Terror laws will apply to animal rights lobby - Times Online

[blazey]

Originally Posted by garinda

They have been since 2005, and people have been charged as such.


Terror laws will apply to animal rights lobby - Times Online

I have never heard anyone define a PETA campaign as terrorism thats all. I mean in wording, as in, I haven't heard on the news a campaigner called a terrorist for trashing a lab or anything.
I know protesters already fall into the act as there was a documentary on it the other week.

Just dont tend to hear people call Peta terrorists

[garinda]

Originally Posted by blazey

Just dont tend to hear people call Peta terrorists

You tend to, about the ones that send dirty bombs to the families of people who work in laboratories which use animals.

Or people like Donald Currie.

Animal rights militant admits bomb offences - Independent Online Edition > Crime

[blazey]

Originally Posted by garinda

You tend to, about the ones that send dirty bombs to the families of people who work in laboratories which use animals.

Or people like Donald Currie.

Animal rights militant admits bomb offences - Independent Online Edition > Crime

I think of PETA as extremist animal protesters, not terrorists. They have more of a purpose to their actions than your stereotypical terrorist who just wants to cause terror and nothing else. I dont agree with what peta stand for anyway but I just dont regard them as a terrorist, as their purpose has a bit more depth than that.

If that makes sense

[cashman]

not really with you on that Extremeism is Extremeism whatever the aim.