![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Feb. 21st, 2011
He still has 30 days to appeal to the Supreme Court and if that fails, he can ask for mercy from the President of India. Of course considering what he and his accomplices did he's as good as gallows fruit.
So what do I think of this?
Well, I'm still conflicted about it. On the one hand I really don't like the death penalty simply because of the sheer numbers of mistakes and the lopsided ways it can be applied and abused. On the other hand he is a mass murdering terrorist whose group not only killed my coworker's cousin but also would have happily shot me if I'd been down in Churchgate that night. He and his ilk were tossing grenades into crowds of people waiting for trains and spraying bullets at anyone unfortunate enough to be standing on the sidewalk as they drove by. They took hostages and callously executed them. In fact their acts were considered so depraved Mumbai's Muslim community denied them burial in their cemetaries. They were offended at the idea of their loved ones lying beside them.
I think their outrage merely confirmed their basic decency, humanity and sense of community to the world. I know I wouldn't want him next to any of my loved ones.
In the eyes of many there is no doubt he is seen as evil, but should we kill him? There are those who would say that doing so simply makes him a martyr and an inspiration to those who might choose the same path. It's a legitimate concern and one that cannot be dismissed out of hand. However, I've thought about that for a long time now and while I am not nearly 100% comfortable with thinking this I'm going to say yes, that he should die.
I realize me saying that must seem disturbing and upsetting to many people. I assure you it is no less upsetting to me and I promise you that I'm not jumping on some bizarre Glenn Beck-esque conspiracy insanity.
No, I think he has to be buried whereever his nine accomplices are because a message has to be sent. That message has to be that if you engage in acts of mass murder and terror two things will happen. The first is that you will die, whether it be at the hands of the police, special forces, the hands of an enraged mob, or a hangman's noose. The methods used don't matter. All that matters is that the message "you will die if you do this" be sent loud and clear.
The second message is that "life will go on, and be better". It has in Mumbai, and it will continue to do so, there, and throughout the world. Of course that doesn't explain why mercy cannot be shown to this one person now that he is in secure police custody. It could, of course, but my worry is that showing mercy to him may be seen as weakness by those who sent him. If that happens then those who recruited him can point to him as a "successful" operative to future gunmen and that's not something I'd be comfortable providing them.
Anyway you cut it though there are no winners in this. Every country, every culture, every religion has its crazies and a true believer will still find a way to justify such horrors. I know it won't stop attacks but maybe this type of approach might deter some of the more "on the fence" people considering such things.
Or maybe not.
Anyway, that's my opinion of the week on this. It could change tomorrow, or not.
I don't have any answers for stuff like this.
So what do I think of this?
Well, I'm still conflicted about it. On the one hand I really don't like the death penalty simply because of the sheer numbers of mistakes and the lopsided ways it can be applied and abused. On the other hand he is a mass murdering terrorist whose group not only killed my coworker's cousin but also would have happily shot me if I'd been down in Churchgate that night. He and his ilk were tossing grenades into crowds of people waiting for trains and spraying bullets at anyone unfortunate enough to be standing on the sidewalk as they drove by. They took hostages and callously executed them. In fact their acts were considered so depraved Mumbai's Muslim community denied them burial in their cemetaries. They were offended at the idea of their loved ones lying beside them.
I think their outrage merely confirmed their basic decency, humanity and sense of community to the world. I know I wouldn't want him next to any of my loved ones.
In the eyes of many there is no doubt he is seen as evil, but should we kill him? There are those who would say that doing so simply makes him a martyr and an inspiration to those who might choose the same path. It's a legitimate concern and one that cannot be dismissed out of hand. However, I've thought about that for a long time now and while I am not nearly 100% comfortable with thinking this I'm going to say yes, that he should die.
I realize me saying that must seem disturbing and upsetting to many people. I assure you it is no less upsetting to me and I promise you that I'm not jumping on some bizarre Glenn Beck-esque conspiracy insanity.
No, I think he has to be buried whereever his nine accomplices are because a message has to be sent. That message has to be that if you engage in acts of mass murder and terror two things will happen. The first is that you will die, whether it be at the hands of the police, special forces, the hands of an enraged mob, or a hangman's noose. The methods used don't matter. All that matters is that the message "you will die if you do this" be sent loud and clear.
The second message is that "life will go on, and be better". It has in Mumbai, and it will continue to do so, there, and throughout the world. Of course that doesn't explain why mercy cannot be shown to this one person now that he is in secure police custody. It could, of course, but my worry is that showing mercy to him may be seen as weakness by those who sent him. If that happens then those who recruited him can point to him as a "successful" operative to future gunmen and that's not something I'd be comfortable providing them.
Anyway you cut it though there are no winners in this. Every country, every culture, every religion has its crazies and a true believer will still find a way to justify such horrors. I know it won't stop attacks but maybe this type of approach might deter some of the more "on the fence" people considering such things.
Or maybe not.
Anyway, that's my opinion of the week on this. It could change tomorrow, or not.
I don't have any answers for stuff like this.
He still has 30 days to appeal to the Supreme Court and if that fails, he can ask for mercy from the President of India. Of course considering what he and his accomplices did he's as good as gallows fruit.
So what do I think of this?
Well, I'm still conflicted about it. On the one hand I really don't like the death penalty simply because of the sheer numbers of mistakes and the lopsided ways it can be applied and abused. On the other hand he is a mass murdering terrorist whose group not only killed my coworker's cousin but also would have happily shot me if I'd been down in Churchgate that night. He and his ilk were tossing grenades into crowds of people waiting for trains and spraying bullets at anyone unfortunate enough to be standing on the sidewalk as they drove by. They took hostages and callously executed them. In fact their acts were considered so depraved Mumbai's Muslim community denied them burial in their cemetaries. They were offended at the idea of their loved ones lying beside them.
I think their outrage merely confirmed their basic decency, humanity and sense of community to the world. I know I wouldn't want him next to any of my loved ones.
In the eyes of many there is no doubt he is seen as evil, but should we kill him? There are those who would say that doing so simply makes him a martyr and an inspiration to those who might choose the same path. It's a legitimate concern and one that cannot be dismissed out of hand. However, I've thought about that for a long time now and while I am not nearly 100% comfortable with thinking this I'm going to say yes, that he should die.
I realize me saying that must seem disturbing and upsetting to many people. I assure you it is no less upsetting to me and I promise you that I'm not jumping on some bizarre Glenn Beck-esque conspiracy insanity.
No, I think he has to be buried whereever his nine accomplices are because a message has to be sent. That message has to be that if you engage in acts of mass murder and terror two things will happen. The first is that you will die, whether it be at the hands of the police, special forces, the hands of an enraged mob, or a hangman's noose. The methods used don't matter. All that matters is that the message "you will die if you do this" be sent loud and clear.
The second message is that "life will go on, and be better". It has in Mumbai, and it will continue to do so, there, and throughout the world. Of course that doesn't explain why mercy cannot be shown to this one person now that he is in secure police custody. It could, of course, but my worry is that showing mercy to him may be seen as weakness by those who sent him. If that happens then those who recruited him can point to him as a "successful" operative to future gunmen and that's not something I'd be comfortable providing them.
Anyway you cut it though there are no winners in this. Every country, every culture, every religion has its crazies and a true believer will still find a way to justify such horrors. I know it won't stop attacks but maybe this type of approach might deter some of the more "on the fence" people considering such things.
Or maybe not.
Anyway, that's my opinion of the week on this. It could change tomorrow, or not.
I don't have any answers for stuff like this.
So what do I think of this?
Well, I'm still conflicted about it. On the one hand I really don't like the death penalty simply because of the sheer numbers of mistakes and the lopsided ways it can be applied and abused. On the other hand he is a mass murdering terrorist whose group not only killed my coworker's cousin but also would have happily shot me if I'd been down in Churchgate that night. He and his ilk were tossing grenades into crowds of people waiting for trains and spraying bullets at anyone unfortunate enough to be standing on the sidewalk as they drove by. They took hostages and callously executed them. In fact their acts were considered so depraved Mumbai's Muslim community denied them burial in their cemetaries. They were offended at the idea of their loved ones lying beside them.
I think their outrage merely confirmed their basic decency, humanity and sense of community to the world. I know I wouldn't want him next to any of my loved ones.
In the eyes of many there is no doubt he is seen as evil, but should we kill him? There are those who would say that doing so simply makes him a martyr and an inspiration to those who might choose the same path. It's a legitimate concern and one that cannot be dismissed out of hand. However, I've thought about that for a long time now and while I am not nearly 100% comfortable with thinking this I'm going to say yes, that he should die.
I realize me saying that must seem disturbing and upsetting to many people. I assure you it is no less upsetting to me and I promise you that I'm not jumping on some bizarre Glenn Beck-esque conspiracy insanity.
No, I think he has to be buried whereever his nine accomplices are because a message has to be sent. That message has to be that if you engage in acts of mass murder and terror two things will happen. The first is that you will die, whether it be at the hands of the police, special forces, the hands of an enraged mob, or a hangman's noose. The methods used don't matter. All that matters is that the message "you will die if you do this" be sent loud and clear.
The second message is that "life will go on, and be better". It has in Mumbai, and it will continue to do so, there, and throughout the world. Of course that doesn't explain why mercy cannot be shown to this one person now that he is in secure police custody. It could, of course, but my worry is that showing mercy to him may be seen as weakness by those who sent him. If that happens then those who recruited him can point to him as a "successful" operative to future gunmen and that's not something I'd be comfortable providing them.
Anyway you cut it though there are no winners in this. Every country, every culture, every religion has its crazies and a true believer will still find a way to justify such horrors. I know it won't stop attacks but maybe this type of approach might deter some of the more "on the fence" people considering such things.
Or maybe not.
Anyway, that's my opinion of the week on this. It could change tomorrow, or not.
I don't have any answers for stuff like this.
He still has 30 days to appeal to the Supreme Court and if that fails, he can ask for mercy from the President of India. Of course considering what he and his accomplices did he's as good as gallows fruit.
So what do I think of this?
Well, I'm still conflicted about it. On the one hand I really don't like the death penalty simply because of the sheer numbers of mistakes and the lopsided ways it can be applied and abused. On the other hand he is a mass murdering terrorist whose group not only killed my coworker's cousin but also would have happily shot me if I'd been down in Churchgate that night. He and his ilk were tossing grenades into crowds of people waiting for trains and spraying bullets at anyone unfortunate enough to be standing on the sidewalk as they drove by. They took hostages and callously executed them. In fact their acts were considered so depraved Mumbai's Muslim community denied them burial in their cemetaries. They were offended at the idea of their loved ones lying beside them.
I think their outrage merely confirmed their basic decency, humanity and sense of community to the world. I know I wouldn't want him next to any of my loved ones.
In the eyes of many there is no doubt he is seen as evil, but should we kill him? There are those who would say that doing so simply makes him a martyr and an inspiration to those who might choose the same path. It's a legitimate concern and one that cannot be dismissed out of hand. However, I've thought about that for a long time now and while I am not nearly 100% comfortable with thinking this I'm going to say yes, that he should die.
I realize me saying that must seem disturbing and upsetting to many people. I assure you it is no less upsetting to me and I promise you that I'm not jumping on some bizarre Glenn Beck-esque conspiracy insanity.
No, I think he has to be buried whereever his nine accomplices are because a message has to be sent. That message has to be that if you engage in acts of mass murder and terror two things will happen. The first is that you will die, whether it be at the hands of the police, special forces, the hands of an enraged mob, or a hangman's noose. The methods used don't matter. All that matters is that the message "you will die if you do this" be sent loud and clear.
The second message is that "life will go on, and be better". It has in Mumbai, and it will continue to do so, there, and throughout the world. Of course that doesn't explain why mercy cannot be shown to this one person now that he is in secure police custody. It could, of course, but my worry is that showing mercy to him may be seen as weakness by those who sent him. If that happens then those who recruited him can point to him as a "successful" operative to future gunmen and that's not something I'd be comfortable providing them.
Anyway you cut it though there are no winners in this. Every country, every culture, every religion has its crazies and a true believer will still find a way to justify such horrors. I know it won't stop attacks but maybe this type of approach might deter some of the more "on the fence" people considering such things.
Or maybe not.
Anyway, that's my opinion of the week on this. It could change tomorrow, or not.
I don't have any answers for stuff like this.
So what do I think of this?
Well, I'm still conflicted about it. On the one hand I really don't like the death penalty simply because of the sheer numbers of mistakes and the lopsided ways it can be applied and abused. On the other hand he is a mass murdering terrorist whose group not only killed my coworker's cousin but also would have happily shot me if I'd been down in Churchgate that night. He and his ilk were tossing grenades into crowds of people waiting for trains and spraying bullets at anyone unfortunate enough to be standing on the sidewalk as they drove by. They took hostages and callously executed them. In fact their acts were considered so depraved Mumbai's Muslim community denied them burial in their cemetaries. They were offended at the idea of their loved ones lying beside them.
I think their outrage merely confirmed their basic decency, humanity and sense of community to the world. I know I wouldn't want him next to any of my loved ones.
In the eyes of many there is no doubt he is seen as evil, but should we kill him? There are those who would say that doing so simply makes him a martyr and an inspiration to those who might choose the same path. It's a legitimate concern and one that cannot be dismissed out of hand. However, I've thought about that for a long time now and while I am not nearly 100% comfortable with thinking this I'm going to say yes, that he should die.
I realize me saying that must seem disturbing and upsetting to many people. I assure you it is no less upsetting to me and I promise you that I'm not jumping on some bizarre Glenn Beck-esque conspiracy insanity.
No, I think he has to be buried whereever his nine accomplices are because a message has to be sent. That message has to be that if you engage in acts of mass murder and terror two things will happen. The first is that you will die, whether it be at the hands of the police, special forces, the hands of an enraged mob, or a hangman's noose. The methods used don't matter. All that matters is that the message "you will die if you do this" be sent loud and clear.
The second message is that "life will go on, and be better". It has in Mumbai, and it will continue to do so, there, and throughout the world. Of course that doesn't explain why mercy cannot be shown to this one person now that he is in secure police custody. It could, of course, but my worry is that showing mercy to him may be seen as weakness by those who sent him. If that happens then those who recruited him can point to him as a "successful" operative to future gunmen and that's not something I'd be comfortable providing them.
Anyway you cut it though there are no winners in this. Every country, every culture, every religion has its crazies and a true believer will still find a way to justify such horrors. I know it won't stop attacks but maybe this type of approach might deter some of the more "on the fence" people considering such things.
Or maybe not.
Anyway, that's my opinion of the week on this. It could change tomorrow, or not.
I don't have any answers for stuff like this.
Good thoughts to New Zealand
Feb. 21st, 2011 11:29 pmJust saw the news about New Zealand. All I can say is "Holy &^%^&, and I hope to God you don't get a tsunami".
Good thoughts to New Zealand
Feb. 21st, 2011 11:29 pmJust saw the news about New Zealand. All I can say is "Holy &^%^&, and I hope to God you don't get a tsunami".
Good thoughts to New Zealand
Feb. 21st, 2011 11:29 pmJust saw the news about New Zealand. All I can say is "Holy &^%^&, and I hope to God you don't get a tsunami".