Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darth)
    Look choose between the following scenarios:
    1) We refuse to grant him surgery. Continues to preach hatred. Dies later, catalyses a wave of hatred against the British and western world. A new wave of terrorrist activities are generated.
    2) We grant him the surgery. We have at least a greater chance that he'll stop preaching hatred against the brits, or he'll continue as stated in scenario one.
    I would choose scenario 2 as it increases the chances that he'll recognize the wrong of his ways, as opposed to scenario 1 where such a chance is nonexistant. What would you choose and why? I want a valid justification, not a demonstration of prejiduce against Bakri.
    Bakri will not change. He already gets 18,000 pounds a year in welfare, and the stinking leach still rails against Britain. This operation is expensive. Why should it be funded by those whose friends' and family's murders were praised by this man? I completely understand what you are saying, and it would make sense with a rational human being. But Bakri is on the level of a psychopathic mass murderer like Timothy McVeigh. If we fund his operation, we will be telling the terrorists that we have surrendered, that we will let them kill our near and dear, while they we pay them tribute in welfare benefits and healthcare. I couldn't swallow the thought of this operation going through.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darth)
    Look choose between the following scenarios:
    1) We refuse to grant him surgery. Continues to preach hatred. Dies later, catalyses a wave of hatred against the British and western world. A new wave of terrorrist activities are generated.
    2) We grant him the surgery. We have at least a greater chance that he'll stop preaching hatred against the brits, or he'll continue as stated in scenario one.
    I would choose scenario 2 as it increases the chances that he'll recognize the wrong of his ways, as opposed to scenario 1 where such a chance is nonexistant. What would you choose and why? I want a valid justification, not a demonstration of prejiduce against Bakri.
    Darth your scenario 2 is based on probabilities. "We have at least a greater chance" Wtf is the chance then? By giving this man an operation does it help protect out country from terrorism by the odds lowering, lets say, 0.1%?

    I would definitely go for scenario 1. Why? Well first i don't like having to contribuate however much money to fund an operation for someone who do not deserve it, when there are other more in need of it. Secondly if he were to die as a result of not having this operation, well its one less person to worry about. Thats for definite, not by chance. Unlike in scenario 2 where "there is a greater chance that he'll stop preaching hatred against the brits," but also a chance that he lives a healthy life yet still preaches hatred towards this country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You coudn't swallow the thought of this operation going through (understandably). But the consequence of this operation not granted (as illustrated in scenario one) is chilling. Which is the lesser of two evils, catalysed hatred, or illustrating to the 'terrorists that we have surrendered' hence they no longer have to persist (at least on a large scale) in their inhumane acts?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darth)
    You coudn't swallow the thought of this operation going through (understandably). But the consequence of this operation not granted (as illustrated in scenario one) is chilling. Which is the lesser of two evils, catalysed hatred, or illustrating to the 'terrorists that we have surrendered' hence they no longer have to persist (at least on a large scale) in their inhumane acts?
    We shall never EVER surrender to the terrorists!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ads.)
    Darth your scenario 2 is based on probabilities. "We have at least a greater chance" Wtf is the chance then? By giving this man an operation does it help protect out country from terrorism by the odds lowering, lets say, 0.1%?

    I would definitely go for scenario 1. Why? Well first i don't like having to contribuate however much money to fund an operation for someone who do not deserve it, when there are other more in need of it. Secondly if he were to die as a result of not having this operation, well its one less person to worry about. Thats for definite, not by chance. Unlike in scenario 2 where "there is a greater chance that he'll stop preaching hatred against the brits," but also a chance that he lives a healthy life yet still preaches hatred towards this country.
    You'll get 10 others to whom he has preached to replace him and to carry on his preaching. A man may die, but his message certainly won't.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lauren)
    We shall never EVER surrender to the terrorists!
    :congrats: Never ever ever ever in all eternity!!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lauren)
    We shall never EVER surrender to the terrorists!
    Of course we will never ever surrende to terrorists. I'm only suggesting we launch a psychological offensive rather then a physical one, as a physical one will tend to generate more hatred and more violence on behalf of the terrorists.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    True, there is no way of preventing the ideology. By the way i look at it is this : he has preached to and brainwashed his followers already. In least if this Bakri guy is out of the way, its only x number of people to deal with, instead of x + 1 (Bakri).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well i have to log out now. I'm glad that we debated this issue on a mature level rather then resorting to petty bickering as some people will do. thanx
    Darth Vader
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darth)
    You'll get 10 others to whom he has preached to replace him and to carry on his preaching. A man may die, but his message certainly won't.
    I doubt it. These people are rich in words but that's as far as it goes. When the folks that attempted the failed bombing in London were arrested their commitment soon evaporated. There were no shouts of "God is Great....Kill the Infidels" as they came out guns ablazing. There was only girlish whining about "my rights"

    Ironic don't you think? The people that seek to destroy our society seek to rely on the attributes of our society "human rights" when they get caught out.

    Cut off viciously the serpent's head and he won't grow another.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darth)
    You coudn't swallow the thought of this operation going through (understandably). But the consequence of this operation not granted (as illustrated in scenario one) is chilling. Which is the lesser of two evils, catalysed hatred, or illustrating to the 'terrorists that we have surrendered' hence they no longer have to persist (at least on a large scale) in their inhumane acts?
    I understand. But I don't think the terrorists will see him getting a free surgery and feel less inclined to attack Britain. In fact, such pandering will only encourage more attacks. Most terrorists are actually inclined to attack when their demands are met. Just look around in the world. Terrorists attack Israel any time Israel tries to give more back to the Palestinians, and Islamic militants are attacking India, even though India treats its Muslim minority population very well with heavy affirmative action, benefits, and even payments of Umrah and Hajj pilgrimages. They do this in order to keep western nations from building a positive relationship with the Islamic world.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lauren)
    You're a complete and utter moron. Allow your two braincells to collide for a minute so you can understand that perhaps allowing a terrorist into the country is not a great idea. :rolleyes:

    I'm glad to see that those with the task of looking after the running and safety of this country have more sense than yourself, and have banned the ******* from ever returning. :yy:

    Damn right! But with a bit more smiting and gnashing of teeth perhaps.
    How pathetic....Im talking about not leaving someone to die you are saying im advocating terrorists to come in and bomb the country...

    Im lost for words as to how ridiculous your comments are...From the beginning you showed signs of ignorance and as Howard (the person who you are agreeing with now) pointed out, you seemed to be somewhat not that intelligent and sounded like a 10 year old but I thought I'd give you a chance...obviously I was wrong..
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    How pathetic....Im talking about not leaving someone to die you are saying im advocating terrorists to come in and bombs the country...

    Im lost for words as to how ridiculous your comments are...
    You're talking about using the money of bombing victims friends and families to pay for the surgery of the man who supported the murder. Would you pay for the surgery of someone who praised the killing of you mother, or father, or best mate? I doubt you would be "talking about not leaving someone to die." If Bakri loves the terrorists so much, let the terrorists do the surgery for him. I hear Aiyman Al-Zawaheri was a good pediatric surgeon.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm confused, how is saving a man's life surrender?

    How helping him will affect extremist views of wester civilisation was only a subsisery issue, ppl are forgetting the fundemental ethics of this debate.

    OK, seriously, how many ppl here belive in capital punishment?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SolInvincitus)
    You're talking about using the money of bombing victims friends and families to pay for the surgery of the man who supported the murder. Would you pay for the surgery of someone who praised the killing of you mother, or father, or best mate? I doubt you would be "talking about not leaving someone to die." If Bakri loves the terrorists so much, let the terrorists do the surgery for him. I hear Aiyman Al-Zawaheri was a good pediatric surgeon.
    Howard, really, the justice system, in fact ALL our systems do not use revenge as a criteria.

    We cannot make our decisions to take vengence against people, it might feel right on a primal level, but it causes unnecesary suffering.

    As a question, if your worst enemy was hanging off a cliff, would you help them up or stamp on thier hands?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (and which would make you feel a bigger person?)
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I'm confused, how is saving a man's life surrender?
    Its surrender when you save the life of a man who has made it his mission to encourage others to take the lives of innocent people.

    How helping him will affect extremist views of wester civilisation was only a subsisery issue, ppl are forgetting the fundemental ethics of this debate.
    This single action can have massive repurcussions, like a ripple effect. The effects this could have on extremism are part of the fundamental ethics of this debate, especially in light of the events of 7/7.

    OK, seriously, how many ppl here belive in capital punishment?
    I don't believe in capital punishment, but I don't believe in making people save the person who praised and encouraged the murder of their near and dear.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrcheese)
    OK, seriously, how many ppl here belive in capital punishment?
    Not me. But this "so you're willing to leave Bakri to die?" line of argument relies upon Britain being the only place in the world that can do heart surgery, which isn't the case. If he needs heart surgery, fine, go get it.. but it's seriously taking the piss that he's apparently prepared to utilise one of the fundamental mechanisms of the society he despises so much.

    Jog on, Omar. Get Osama to pay for your surgery somewhere else.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    MrCheese, let me ask you one question. Would you pay for the surgeryof someone who incited the brutal murder of your Mum, or Dad, or best mate. If you can say yes, then I will say this: you are a much better man than I am. But you cannot expect the whole world to run on charity. People are not asking for revenge here, all the want is justice.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrcheese)
    Howard, really, the justice system, in fact ALL our systems do not use revenge as a criteria.

    We cannot make our decisions to take vengence against people, it might feel right on a primal level, but it causes unnecesary suffering.

    As a question, if your worst enemy was hanging off a cliff, would you help them up or stamp on thier hands?
    My worst personal enemy at this moment of my life is nothing more than a pointless turd; a sad little sod and one of life's losers; so I'd probably lift him up out of pity (though I'd like him to beg first and polish my boots afterwards!) But, I suppose it depends what your worst enemy has done to earn the title of "worst enemy"
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 13, 2005
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.