[Loveless]

British's Subway bombing.
Japan's Train bombing.
America's 9/11.
Indonesia's Bali Bombing.

These are just a small part of incidents that have happened around the world regarding to terrorists' activities, and there's a lot more incidents of a kind across the globe.
And now some nations that have captured the planner of these act of terrorisms have applied severe capital punishment as a way out(for ex. Indonesia),while other nations still banned these kind of punishment.
And of course all humanitarian and religion institutes are always against capital punishments.

Well the question is simple:
Thinking from the side of an observer (neither victim/certain institutes/even terrorist) Do you think a death penalty is way that is allowed as a punishment for terrorists?

[bn8299]

death penalty, to me, is what murderers and rapists deserves.
so, my stand is that yes, the terrorist should get the death penalty.

[Sensei-kun]

you shouldn't use death penalty on people who're prepared to die... that's only really helping them.
you need to punish them in a way that they wish they were dead...

[bn8299]

the suicide bombers are brainwashed and dead.
The masterminds (who are prob cowards or smth, sending in pawns to suicide bomb and not going in themselves) have to die. cuz thats definately not what they want ^^

[Sensei-kun]

true, it may be better to just get rid of the masterminds so you can be for sure they won't cause any trouble anymore... but the minions can stay alive and suffer...

[xibo]

then again, who is a terrorist?
people who make others suffer? that s the gouvernments, the industrial heads and more then anyone else the secret services who 'take care' of any opposition that might arise
people who fight the gouvernments? maybe they re going to be called heros instead sooner or later
people who willingly attack civilians of a country or peoples they don t like? those happen to be militaries.

in germany someone got prissoned and judged guilt for saying some politician he doesn t like was a bastard and should be killed on the phone and the person he was talking about happened to get assasinated later. obviously he was the mastermind behind that attack -.-*

alot of countries, including the aa so democratic north american and western european ones are using their 'war against terror' for politic interrests rather then their people's safety.

EDIT:
also is EVERYONE who has ANY official position in the people's republic of korea a 'terrorist', as well as the majority of iranian high ranked politics and militaries.

and keep in mind that the nato aimed equally 'on military targets' in yoguslavia ten years ago as the hisbollah in isreal two years ago.

[Greydragon]

Terrorists think that they are soldiers or martyrs for their cause, the majority of the time. I would suggest there are two kinds: the terrorists who act in war-zones attacking military personnel and those who enter civilian zones and randomly attack innocent people. Essentially saboteurs and demolition experts are sometimes confused with actual terrorists but are predominantly actual soldiers, although ones who will blow themselves up in the initial attack are becoming more common. For these to be executed would be uncalled for: they are in my opinion guerrilla soldiers.
The ones who attack civilians and cities are clearly little more than murderers and should be dealt with in a similar fashion to any other criminal.
However... if the bombings were to occur in military areas of the US for example during wartime then they could be considered soldiers. That is quite acceptable; just because the US is vastly more powerful than an opponent doesn't mean their enemy can't hit back. Striking at weak points of an enemy is standard warfare.
Outside of war and lacking a backing nation however means the attacker, whatever the target, is a terrorist... because they are nothing more than a civilian.
Terrorism is terrorism only when targeting the civilian populace or when done by civilians. As such they are not truly soldiers and are liable to prosecution under civilian courts and laws. If a soldier who is both an actual soldier and actual terrorist is caught they should be subjected to a war crimes charges or a military trial.
When it comes to premeditated murder and terrorism I have no issue with capital punishment. They chose to kill, they deserve the same.

[xibo]

silly side question:
what kind of terrorist mastermind allows himself to be captured? either do the 'capturers' kill him outrightly or he happens to drop a grenade while they are close or something like that...

[Loveless]

Quote: Originally Posted by xibo

silly side question:
what kind of terrorist mastermind allows himself to be captured? either do the 'capturers' kill him outrightly or he happens to drop a grenade while they are close or something like that...

Umm..That's somehow wrong.Masterminds ussually live,plan and initiate the attacks far away from the 'target' locations.Well some part of it correct if the capture happened in the middle of a warzone.But some ,by using intel/espionage and especially happened not in places of war (for ex. Europe,America and non middle east Asia), were able to be captured without any necessary means of resistances.Take Indonesia for example 3 Masteminds were captured after the Bali Bombing and now they were already isolated,waiting for the death sentence to be carried out.

[multy]

Speaking of just or unjust?

Not all terrorism act is punishable by death. Terrorism is an act to bring out terror from people in general. This kind of act doesn't always have to be a bombing or some kind of weaponry assault like in counter strike games...

Terror phone (only threatening to bomb/to poison something), biker gang terrorism, etc...

Kill the leader... spare the grunts? That is not the perfect solution either. However, in most cases this will stop any terrorizing acts for quite sometime. Terrorists are idealists mostly so someone is bound to step up as a new leader anytime sooner or later.

The interesting part is the labeling of one country as a terrorist country... ALL of them or the majority of them are terrorist? Dude... that is the biggest bull I've ever heard.

So? Kill them all? That will only brings out more hatred to you and more so called "terrorist" sympathizers.

Death is only for the extremists... this kind of terrorists believes that they are god themselves thus are always right... just be careful in differentiating them non extremists... you don't want someone to grow becoming an extreme in the case of vanquishing your existence.

Justice are hard I guess... well... I agree with the death penalty if his/her crime is bad enough. Those that are not killed should be rehabilitated... with family support. Imprisoning them without proper rehab will bound to failure.

[xibo]

I didn t label countries as terrorist countries - the us gouvernment did.
and also are all terrorist - or rather let s say all 'real' terrorists extremists. i thing being willing to risk or outrightly sacrifice your life for the sake of your ideology is kind of the definition of extremism.

[multy]

Extremists that do terrorist act yes?

Extremists like Green Peace (sorry) does not... see the difference?

[Macho Moron]

My opinion is quite close to Greydragon's.

All terrorists who target general population instead of military/politicians are mass murderers and therefore deserve to be killed.

All "terrorists" that target military (like Iraqis killing American soldiers) should be considered as militia and punished according to war laws.

With politicians... Personally, I would call it a war crime too, but governments would never take it in such way. Still, if terrorists chose to hijack a plance, drop all passangers off somewhere and land on Bush's head, I would see it as an act of justice.


After all, WHY terrorism appeared in the first place? Muslim dudes had nothing to do? No. The intrusion to Middle East by USA and other countries made them retaliate. They're much like militia - fighting a war they cannot win, yet still trying to hurt their opponents. Too bad that they pick innocent people instead of responsible ones.

[xibo]

Quote: Originally Posted by multy

Extremists that do terrorist act yes?

Extremists like Green Peace (sorry) does not... see the difference?

hmm i though you were trying to say that there were non-extremist (real) terrorsists.
i also think if greenpeace activists do the same thing that terrorists do they should be judged the same.

somehow i don t see how capturing the head of a terrorist organization is supposed to destroy their organization. if you take the boss someone else will do the planing. a centralized large terror organization isn t effective because the secret services just need to get an infiltrator to the 'central command' and they will be able to prevent any attack.
much more dangerous is a terror organization that splits into lots of small sections spread over a large area where each section organizes itself ( 'kill the officers to stop the army' has been a tactic that has been by far too efficent against the us army for their enemies(*) not to notice it and make the same mistake )

EDIT:

Quote: Originally Posted by macho

After all, WHY terrorism appeared in the first place? Muslim dudes had nothing to do? No. The intrusion to Middle East by USA and other countries made them retaliate. They're much like militia - fighting a war they cannot win, yet still trying to hurt their opponents. Too bad that they pick innocent people instead of responsible ones.

long before things in the middle east messed up there were groups of colonists that attacked their british gouvernours in order to achieve something 'ridiculous' they called independence. if a revolution starts nowaday the power it s fighting against will call them terrorists...

---
*let s assume the "terrorists" are not inofficial allies of those who shout loudest they want to fight "terrorists"