Death penalty (spin-off from Tickling Disc.)

Whilst i don't take this thread as seriously as what i am about to say may suggest- i think i would like to say this anyway!
Capital Punishment is just wrong! Purely and simply! I can fully appreciate that a victims family might want the perpetrator of some devious crime to be killed, but i don't think we should into these people. Civilised society just doesn't need this. What are the arguements in favour of capital punishment? The best seems to be that it acs as some sort of deterrent - which is obviously not the case. A word that seems to be cropping up a lot these days is "closue". How can putting someone to death asuage your feelings of sadness? Oh well - i am too tired to articulately argue this point - and this is suppsoed to be a light-hearted thread - so i will leave it at this!
If the most powerful country on earth wants also to be known as the most civilised, it should rid itself of an association with capital punishment! Does anybody actually agree with me? The only reason i bring this up is that in Britain a lot of fuss is being made of an English chap due to be executed in America (later this week i think). But i don't suppose anyone in the state that is due to execute him will really care. I think it is a damning indictment on modern society - when the taking of another mans lfe in cold blood fails to even raise an eyebrow. Well enough ranting!
Getting back to the subject of the thread - i don't think i would want tickling to be used as an act of retribution. For me, that would be as galling as the thought that somewhere in the world a girl was raped to death for stealing an apple.

Two responses...

(Mod edit: the first part of this reply is in the original thread in Tickling Discussion here:
http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11489&pagenumber=3
I had to split it after creating the new thread.)

To Stuart: I admire the stance against capital punishment, as I consider it an honorable one. You clearly have hope that everyone can be rehabilitated, or that life in incarceration is preferable to death. I, however, am incapable of standing with you on these points. Ultimately, I am a pragmatist. And much rather than incur further injury to society under the burden of the fear of a repeat fellon's release, or the financial burden of their indefinite incarceration, I would definitely have them die. This rule would apply to convicted child molesters, rapists and serial murderers. I have no more illusions about the death penalty as a deterrent than I have about prison being therapeutic. However, repeat violent criminals have proven to civilized society that they cannot function in a civilized world. If that is what you desire to create, those that fail to function in that system must be dealt with quickly, efficiently, and not be allowed to incur a continuous burden on society. Besides which, those considered for capital punishment (as described above) would be those that irreversibly altered the course of a persons life with severely negative effects. Murderers, rapists and molesters have done just that -- they have robbed someone of their life -- sometimes mentally and emotionally, sometimes physically, ALWAYS literally. For a change, the punishment would fit the crime.
Until the world swings my way on this one, however, I would be content to pass legislation requiring that >50% of pay for an inmate's job (which would be mandatory) or >10% of a released fellon's pay would go directly to the victim (or in the case of murder, the victim's family) throughout the course of the con's/ex-con's life. This would help defray expenses of therapy and such for the aggrieved parties. One case in particular that polarizes my opinion in establishing this sort of legislation is the Flyers (a professional hockey team) recent hiring of a convicted rapist. He will be making millions of dollars. Flyers management states that he's "served his time". What about the girl he raped? Years of therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder, flashbacks... Failed relationships, shattered self-esteem. She'll never be the same, and currently, he reaps millions and pays nothing because he did some jail time. That needs to change.
Our disparate views on the subject are likely colored by our respective geographic zeitgeists, but I try to keep and open and independent mind, and as I said, I still respect your opinion. I would discuss this with you further, as I see you are passionate about it, and I always like a good debate, but I'd recommend you open a thread on General Discussion to entertain this topic further. Call it "capital punishment" or somesuch, and I'll check it out. Stuff like this always attracts other combatants... ...it could be interesting.

Madman

The 🙁 worked! Cool! 🙂

Madman

Is the death penalty a deterrent?When Texas started their executions a while back,their murder rate did drop.Many of the people going in for murder are gang members who see prison as a rest period and training course in other criminal fine arts.With the light sentences many of them get,they know they'll be out soon.In PA we have already had a life sentence recipient released long before his life sentence was up,only to go and commit two more murders and one rape.You will NEVER convince me that getting rid of this type is bad.
Deterrence also means the executed will never commit another crime.
Many of the murderers have only graduated to that level with a rap sheet as long as your arm.And since it is known that many more crimes go unreported or un solved,it is a safe bet that these individuals have done alot more during their hard work at getting in the slam.
The argument that society is ptotected from a prisoner with a life sentence also doesn't wash.Prisons have :

Other inmates who have lesser sentences and will reenter society.
Guards at risk from prisoners..Attica comes to mind.
Numerous service employees.
Medical staff.
Aren't these people part of society?
Capital punishment should only be used in cases involving those who are just too evil to remain.It also provides for a value on human life.When a person's murderer gets out in 7 years,as can happen in CA,you are saying that the victim's life is only worth 7 years of the perpetrator's.It gets cheaper with multiple killings and rapes.
MADMAN...I know who you mean.That scenario was always shaky,but I was under the impression that it was more of a statutory rape...sex with person under age of legal consent.Do correct me if this understanding is incorrect.And you were right about the new thread...maybe I should have started one too.

Spin-off from Tickling Discussions

This developed as an independent discusssion on death penalty in general within the thread 'Any countries use tickling to death?' It has nothing to do with tickling, but it is a valid and important discussion, so I split the thread and moved the respective posts here to General Discussion.

I realize that it is a highly emotional topic, and I ask you politely to keep cool.😎

To Madman: Sorry, half of your reply was on the tickling topic, so it had to be split as well.

mixed feelings

This is clearly a potentially contentious topic. I think most people sympathize/empathize with a victim's desire for revenge. I also think most sympathize with society's "need" to protect itself against repeat offenses and atrocities (financially and otherwise). I think these are all valid reasons to support the death penalty.

The only thing is, death is such a FINAL solution. There's no taking it back. So what about when mistakes are made? Note I said WHEN mistakes are made? There is no "if." Because they have been made; they are made--all the time. DNA evidence is currently being used to exonerate many people who have been wrongfully incarcerated--even on death row. That's scary. It's one (horrible) thing to wrongfully imprison someone for 20 years or so. It's another thing altoether to find out you wrongfully exectued them.

Our system is imperfect in so many ways: what about racial imbalances in the application of the death penalty? (another significant and heated debate); How about social status, political ties and/or wealth affecting who dies and who does not? How about the (arguably) clinically insane (e.g., Andrea Yates? another possible controversy).

I'd feel a lot more comfortable with supporting the death penalty if I was as certain about the convicted person's guilt, fair trial, fair sentencing, etc. as I was of the knowing that they would die at the hands of the law. Truth is, we never can be that certain. So we have to accept that some (potentially significant depending on different factors--including corruption) fraction of folks will be unjustly sentenced. Still, I think many ardent supporters would call those "acceptable" casualties.

That begs the question: Would they still ardently support it if it were them or someone they knew who was mistakenly/erroneously sentenced?

As much as I support the death penalty, Frink has brought up the biggest problems with it. As much as one doesn't administer the most severe punishment to kids for misbehavior,you can't wantonly execute everyone who commits even the worst crimes.Personally,I would not have voted the death penalty for Andrea Yates,as I feel there were plenty of extenuating circumstances.Now as for Dahmer,dead meat.

We already categorize juries' verdicts and evidence...reasonable doubt,preponderence of evidence. Jurors can also find that it takes more than reasonable doubt to execute.

Frink also makes a point in his one paragraph about the certainty of guilt.Some prosecutors are more concerned with their record,or public pressure in some cases,than they are with justice. Many juries are not even given their full rights,such as nullification,when the time comes to deliberate.Court officers' improprieties have to also be addressed.

Again,I fully support the death penalty,and i think it should be expanded.However,I will also give that there are problems involved that also have to be confronted.

Unfortunately, every system mere mortals will produce will be flawed in some fashion. I know well the biases and flaws of the court system -- through study. I know how unreliable eyewitness testimony is. The legislation and standards definitely need improvement. (In the Andrea Yates trial, knowing the difference between right and wrong is an insufficient standard of "sanity". I've known plenty of children (dealing with the emotionally disturbed) who know very well the difference between right and wrong, and will explain it to you on the spot, yet consistently commit wrong acts because of compulsion.) Unfortunately, any flaw will be exploited in argument by those unsupporting of capital punishment (validly or in-) as a reason to prevent it.
Were I to reboot the U.S., there would be a holiday set aside for the wrongfully executed. There would be a memorial for them in Washington, and anyone who felt someone was wrongfully on death row would be encouraged to protest and present evidence in their defense on that day. The system would be honored because it honors human life and freedom of expression. Were I to be sentenced to death under such a system, I would be understandably distraught, but have some respect for the system, and faith in the fact that ultimately the findings would be overturned. I would at least have the solace in knowing that if this happened post-mortem, I would be revered as a tragic hero necessary for the continuation of an efficient system and the freeing of society from the burdens of the irreversibly uncivil and violent.
As for the new Flyers player: MAKE NO MISTAKE!!! It wasn't statutory rape, it was forcible rape -- there was NOTHING consensual about it. Granted, he was seventeen (she was 15). But in my opinion, it makes little difference, given his continuing rap sheet of assaulting an officer, etc. For reference, she was intoxicated during a party. He recognized her incapacitation, took her back behind a building outside (a shed or somesuch) and raped her in three different fashions, resulting in three counts of rape. This took some thought. He likely only stopped with three because there were no other options. The prosecutor settled for one count of rape in return for a guilty plea and assured jail time. The judge himself called the incident "brutal". There seems to be a HUGE misunderstanding in the nature of the incident given the apparent apathy of Flyers management, and their spinning it by releasing statements that amount to them saying that they understand the incident, and as it was explained to them, they could see themselves having done that, were they in his place. It makes me wonder about Flyers' management. Because of his status as a violent sex offender, everyone within his community must be informed that he's moving in -- as they should be. He's also not permitted to leave the country, which will make an interesting situation when they play in Canada. He's an unnecessary burden for the Flyers, and shouldn't be rewarded with making the kind of money he's allowed. He's a case in particular, where I strongly advocate victims' benefits in the form of a tithe (10% or more) of his salary and endorsement money to cover her therapy costs as well as acting as a continuing reminder of what he did. I wouldn't necessarily have recommended the death penalty provided he could be given adequate and effective rehabilitation.

Madman

Death Penalty. Do I support it?
In a word, YES.

So many variables to consider. Personal experience tells me that murderers and child molestors are a threat that should be eliminated from the world. Harsh?...yep. But it's how I feel. I don't believe in the long term affects of what we call rehabilitation. That's what my life path shows me. I understand that there are others who have differenct experiences.*shrug*

I have to say though, if I were convicted of a crime that I did NOT commit, and were sentenced to death, I would prefer to see the sentence stand than to let multitudes more NOT stand when the person is a threat. Sounds pretty grandiose, doesn't it? Change the thought just a little...if you KNEW a guilty person was going free if you went...wouldn't you make the same choice?

Jo

Madman

I'm glad you cleared the hockey player bit up.I felt that my information might be incomplete,thus my invitation to correct it.
Thanks.
Which brings up another court problem...the incessant desire to plea bargain.Sorry,if I am on a job that requires overtime,I work the overtime.Too many court officers think the system is made for their convenience and stage productions.If there is a backlog of trials,extend the hours until the docket is caught up.
Victim restitution is a great idea too.Even with lesser thefts,making the criminal work for the funds might teach him or her the value of earning your own,and why it is so wrong to steal.

I'll second Joby's view, and I've got about 20 years more "life path" than her to back it up.

The main thing wrong with the death penalty is that it takes too long and costs too much to apply it. This is largely the result of lawyers and judges who oppose it, "gaming" the system. There's no valid reason why most cases couldn't be wrapped up, including mandatory appeal to the State Supreme Court, in less than a year. I see no need for Federal courts to involve themselves, and furthermore, an examination of the US Constitution does not show that they were ever given that power. It's just something they usurped, and it's past time for the people (about 70% of whom support the death penalty) to take it back.

I'm not too concerned about condemning "innocent" people. Capital crimes are mass murder, murder for profit, for hire, or during the commission of another felony (personally, I would add some rapes and serial child molestation to the list.) Those who end up on trial for their lives have typically lived lives of thuggery. If the jury screws up, well, the bastard probably had it coming anyway.

As for its deterrent effect, why do you think people are reluctant to testify against gangsters? Could it be that they fear being killed? The death penalty can be a highly effective deterrent if there's assurance that the guilty will actually receive it.

Strelnikov

lol

Joby, let's not over simplify: If your hypothetical death sentence were commuted to life imprisonment, you and your loved ones would at least have the luxury of time to try to prove your innocence. The choices were never a death sentence or freedom, but death or long-term imprisonment.

If the jury screws up, well, the bastard probably had it coming anyway.

Click to expand...

LOL...Strel, Strel, Strel.. 🙂 This sounds conservative even for you. 😛

Anyway...
I refuse to believe that ANY of us sitting in our comfortable TV chairs far removed from, say, ourselves or a loved one being faced with what we're assuming to be an horrible erroneous/ corrupt/mistaken/overly harsh sentencing knows how we would react in that situation. Gimme a break. (Pretty please? 😛 ) Let's just be realistic here. lol What makes the difference, however, is empathy and brutal honesty. The BEST you could possibly say is that you do not know how you'd react if something came that close to home. If you don't have that ability, all hypothetical scenarios like this are wasted on you.

People, in general, do NOT vehemently support causes that don't directly affect them or someone they love or care about in some way. Check all the support groups, causes, etc. (What the heck was Brady doing about guns/gun laws BEFORE he got shot & paralyzed(?) anyway? Beats me...but I'll check it out now..lol). How many people even knew how rational or reasonable they would be or how they would "be" in future ralationships after a really, really bad one ended? Jeez. No disrespect intended, but at least figure out what you're going to have for breakfast in the morning, before you say what you'll do or feel after you (or your wife or husband or son or daughter) gets unjustly sentenced to die and your whole world comes to an end! 🙄 Get dignosed with AIDS or cancer and I'll bet extra cheese on your pizza becomes a little bit less important to you.

Further, what makes it *completely* unbelievable that people would so willingly sacrifice their lives considering "the greater good of society" is how often they do it/have done it in their everyday lives. We're not a bunch of Ghandis, MLKs, Mother Theresas, and Jesus Christs walking around here. We know/see things we can do practically every day to save lives or help people at the expense of our own lives or even just our *quality* of life that could save another are frequently passed over. Again, be honest and realistic. 99.999999999% of us are just not that noble. We can't stand to see ourselves unjustly put at risk, in danger, inconvenienced, etc. let alone our loved ones. Again, gimme a break, please. lol

Finally, if people honestly DID believe that it's really ok to punish more innocents to ensure the guilty do not free, they should have no problem reversing the premise "innocent until proven guilty" to GUILTY until proven innocent--even for themselves. Think about it: the responsibility is yours to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you DIDN'T do it. (Heck, don't some other countries apply that "ideal.") Hey, much less evidence is then needed to arrest someone, certainly. Pretty cool, huh? At the same time, let's increase the frequency and severity of the penalties issued. That should go far to ensure that the streets get cleaned up well. wooohoo! 🙄

😎

I have no problem living with my convictions.It's not smart to wait until trouble bites you in the ass to decide how you feel.You consider all the facets involved,determine your values,and live with your decision.It's really not that hard....just takes some level of courage to stand behind your convictions.Many people do every day.

As far as the Bradys, he is not the force behind the Brady Bill, Sarah Brady is.He actually had a machine gun owners' license.Funny how it's ok for the hubby to have that,but the rest of us aren't good enough to own a handgun.Before the rants start,the Brady camp stated flatly that the Brady bill was just a first step...they needed to do more.

As far as Frink's last paragraph,I think it was intended for Strel,so I'll hold off on that one.

The Andrea Yates case was an anomaly. It made national news for just that reason. Run-of-the-mill capital murder cases deal with multiple murders, murder during the commission of another felony, murder where the victim was mutilated or tortured, and murder for profit or for hire.

The police don't just scoop up a random citizen. Good citizens typically don't commit capital crimes - goblins do. "Round up the usual suspects" is actually an effective law enforcement tactic. That's the basis of my "life of thuggery" statement. The "wrongful" execution of a so-called "innocent" probably benefits society, because we aren't really talking about an innocent. This metro area has roughly one million residents. If we rounded up and shot a carefully selected 1,000 goblins, the crime rate would drop down close to zero. (No, I'm NOT suggesting that we do so - but it has happened in other places and times, when that was the only way to restore order, and it worked.)

And yes, Frink, in some other countries the suspect is presumed guilty until proven innocent. In fact, the English-speaking countries are the only ones who have a presumption of innocence. I'm not sure it works any better. Presumption of guilt doesen't seem to prevent fair trials in France, Germany, Italy, Spain... Seems to me that it doesen't matter which starting assumption the court makes, so long as the court system is honest.

Strelnikov

My two shillings worth........

I'm not an especially liberal person and I don't find the idea of having a child murderer, serial rapist or whatever, put to death by whatever method. I count myself as being within the ranks of the "hang em and flog em" brigade. However the system of justice we use has countless cases of innocent people being executed and in some cases in the United States they were under age minors at the time of their execution.
The world would be a lot better off if the likes of Charles Manson, Thomas Hamilton et all were removed as swiftly as possible, but it breaks my heart whenever I hear about innocent people getting posthumously pardoned. At least if someone has spent 20 years in jail, at least the government can make reparations of some sort to them. Whatever it is,compensation satisfaction etc will never make up for all that lost time, but at least once they're proven innocent they have some life left. Derek Bentley never had that luxury and a system that condemn the likes of him is not and never will be, perfect.If you have capital punishment in my mind, you need it to be.Ergo, capital punishment is unworkable because you can't have a law saying that only people who were obviously guilty can be executed. The law can't distinguish between "obviously guilty" and simply "innocently convicted" and will never be able to.
Personally if I'd had the chance, I'd have pulled the lever on someone like Thomas Hamilton myself, but I can't really afford myself that sort of luxury because of the above.

Hey Jim..how about a little background on Hamilton?

This whole argument would just disappear if these people had the last inkling of decency to kill themselves,but some just insist on the rest of us doing it for them.But since the perpetrators won't do that,
we'll have to.The only effective argument I have heard that is anti-death sentence is that the government should not have that kind of control.Another option,of course,is to see to it that any lifer who gets out early gets to live with the family of the people who wouldn't have him or her executed.

Who is Thomas Hamilton?

Thomas Hamilton was the arsehole who shot dead nearly 20 children and their teacher at a school in Scotland, in a village called Dunblaine. Hamilton was a gun owner and it was as a result of this s***head that gun ownership in the UK was outlawed. Personally I don't think outlawing guns was any kind of answer to this problem, as any nutcase who wants to get a gun and go on a killing spree can buy a gun in any back alley in London, Manchester or Leeds that he wants to.All it did was deprive genuine people of their hobby, unless they wanted to journey to France or Belgium to do it. Nevertheless, he is probably the most infamous murderer in British history.
Right after he killed all those people, he blew his own brains out, which left me feeling cheated. Sure, I'd have liked to see the guy hang for what he did, but he died in a place and manner of his own choosing so it leaves me feeling like he got away with it.

Thanks...now I remember the degenerate.

I couldn't disagree with Stuart more. The death penalty is a necessary evil in America. In the USA we need stricter punishments to keep some of these seemingly fearless criminals from casting fear into the populous. I think (not trying to be a dick) that you people in England should worry about the religion problem in your country before you criticize us. You Englanders need to work out that protestant-catholic rift you have with the Irish before you worry about what's going on across the pond. 🙂

I was trying to put talons' point less pointedly in the gun law thread,but he pretty well sums it up for me.Foreign cultures will always have problems understanding ours, and I don't see much reason for a crash course.

That sounded just like Robert Mugabwe!!!

Sorry if this sounds anything like flaming guys, but Talons last remark sounded just like Robert Mugabwe telling the Commonwealth to "keep our pink noses out of Zimbabwe's business."
Let me correct you on a few misapprehensions you seem to have. 1/ I was not criticising America, I was criticising the death penalty. Until 1999 the death penalty was legal in the United Kingdom too. (Although it hadn't been handed down for some years.)As far as I can see the UK and the USA are similar enough in most things for this xenophobic "us and them" c**p not to exist, so let's not try and and invent it, where it doesn't exists and shouldn't belong.
2/ Before you try and tell me that we "little Englanders" should understand all our trouble between our protestants and "their" catholics in Ireland, maybe you should remember that there is no such thing. All parties in that conflict,whatever their Christian denomination are IRISH through and through. The conflict over there has nothing to do with oppressive englishman trying to slaughter catholics, no matter what Hollywood would try and have you believe.It is all caused by xenophobia because the two,very indiginously Irish sides, won't tolerate each other.
I find that post telling me to mind my own business to be personally offensive,because you are telling me pure and simple that I have no right to my own opinion. The death penalty debate is not confined to America, it rages across the western world every day. Just because you think I was taking a swipe at the USA (a country I would actually prefer to live in, rather than the UK) does not mean that my comments were meant for the US aone. It also does not make you right to trip out modern historically innacurate garbage about Ireland, a country with a situation that makes any decent person's heart bleed.
For the record Shark, I am in favour of legal gun ownership. I also don't see the UK as a foreign culture. Sure we have cultural differences but so do Cornwall and Yorkshire; two counties in England. That doesn't make em foreign.

BigJim, I got my info (what little it is) on the Irish-English troubles directly from a lad that was in the states on a sponsorship program. In other words, some family is sponsoring him here so he can go to college in the US. Anyways, he is from Darre (not sure how to spell it) in Ireland which is a stones throw from Belfast. After probing him to find out just what the hell was going on over there he told me that it indeed is the English that are causing the majority of the problems there. Now, I am not going to go into details because I don't feel like typing that long but he did say England is the antagonist. He also informed me that he has relatives in the IRA if that means anything. He summed it up by asking me a question I could not answer....Why are the English occupying Ireland? Maybe you are misinformed and should not believe everything yur government is telling you😀

Questions and answers.................

If the guy has relatives in the IRA, then I can tell you exactly what "it" means. It means that from the day that lad drew breath he was innundated with anti "english" propaganda. For the sake of debate let's divide the people in Ulster into two groups. Not catholic and protestant, but sensible and idiotic. Sensible people are like most of us; reasonable and willing to debate and argue their problems through politics, the media and whatever other medium that is available to them. Idiotic people, whatever their religious alignment choose to get their own way by bombing,punishment beatings and other kinds of violence. This latter group include the IRA,the PIRA,the CIRA, the RIRA,the UDLA, the UVF, the UFF and also the english ladlords of the previous three centuries before the partitioning. (Not all the landlords, but quite a few were partial to using violence.)
Also, a little fact that might interest you, over ninety per cent of the protestant people of the province of Northern Ireland are the descendants of SCOTTISH immigrants. They migrated there over two centuries ago. This is another little point that common circulation in the states chooses to ignore. There is very little "English" about Northern Ireland and indeed in the British parliament itself has more representatives for Scottish and Welsh constituencies than it does to English ones. Whenever something hits the fan in Ireland, it is always the fault of the "English." Sorry to disillusion any of you with romantic thoughts in that direction, but blaming the English people for all the troubles in Ireland just don't wash. Since the obviously blatant landlords lost their power and Ireland was partitioned there have been several referendums in the province,for unification with the south. Every time, the vote was hugely in favour of staying a part of the UK.
Now, to be honest this discussion isn't about whether or not Ireland should be re-united, it's about why the "English are occupying Northern Ireland. Simple. If the BRITISH Army was not there, then there would be hardly any catholics left alive in the north. The militant fruit cakes in the so called loyalist para-military groups, would slaughter them like cattle.
So, that deals with why the military are there. Now as to why the BRITISH (not english as you seem to believe) political occupation is there. I've already answered that one. The vast majority of the normal population of Northern Ireland want them to be there. They don't want to be disconnected from the UK.
The amount of information you got from that lad wasn't really little, but it was coloured and warped. It doesn't matter what denomination of christianity that guy was Talons, if he's got relatives in a republican terrorist organisation then it's obvious that his family(or at the those members of it) are anti-english. (Why anti english when the guys troubling them were originally from Scotland?) You getting that opinion from him,was like me asking an Afghani who has relatives in Al-Qaida what his opinion of the allied bombing is, and him telling me that America is at fault and that it was the americans fault that Al-Qaida were "forced" to bomb the twin towers and that the americans started it all,so it's all their fault, so there!!!. Now doesn't that sound like utter s*** to you? Of course it does, largely because it is pure and unadulterated s***. Al-Qaida and anyone else who thinks it's okay to bomb,maim and kill because they don't like the amount of influence another country has on them. And make no mistake about it, the western world has more influence over them than we'd ever know from Sky News.
As to believing what my government tells me, I would'nt believe them if they told me the sun was going to rise in the east and set in the west tomorrow. I'm not such a shallow individual that I'd take anything a set of conniving, thieving bunch of politicians choose to tell me.
In the end there is no english, there is no american,there is no irish,there is no afghani, there is no scottish. We are all human beings and the only thing that divides us is if we're on the side of the light, or the dark: if we treat each other with love and respect, or with contempt and violence. Romantic history has you believe that the english are the antagonists and that anyone who was or is against them are the heroes. Dead wrong! There were and are bad and good guys on both sides. It just so happens that there are a titanic amount of americans who are descendants of irish people who were treated like c**p by english landlords and that view has been frozen in time, now only believed by those who were indoctrinated from birth or those americans who go dewey eyed at the sound of Irish rebel songs.(I'm not slagging off americans here, just stating a historical fact.)
I know you don't want to type for ages Talons, so just answer me two questions, okay? How would you feel deep down, and what would you first thoughts be, if I took that hypothetical afghani's opinion as gospel truth? Further more, how would you feel if 90% of the population of a country you loved and which was an ally of your country, believed that Afghani and all his fellow countrymen's word implicitly? 🙄

Talons, please read!!!!!!!!!

Hi Talons, me again.Sorry to keep talking but it struck me that if you were not telling all the details for the purpose of brevity, then this lad has more that likely seen and felt something bad against him or his family. Don't take my most recent post as a denial that this sort of thing goes on. It does and it happens every day. Just don't run away with the idea that it is all one sided. Northern Ireland is a cesspool of mutal hatred and retribution. No side or denomination is any better than the other.(In modern times.)

A Reply To Haltickling...............

Okay mate, no problem.Things were getting a bit heated. *does the zip on his mouth up.* :smile: